Cite illustrative examples of the differences. Fraud is defined as the intentional deception used for personal gain or to hurt another individual or it can be put simply as theft by deception. Under the common law there are four general elements that must be present for a fraud to exist (Wells 2008). The first element is a material false statement. The second is knowledge that the statement provided was completely false.
It is difficult to hold prosecutors accountable for acts of misconduct. Since prosecutors are often viewed as the “good guys” by the public, many times unethical, as well as illegal acts will be tolerated by the courts and criminal justice system as a whole. Prosecutorial misconduct is considered any action taken by the prosecutor in a criminal case that is against the law and/or unethical. Prosecutorial evidence can be anything from harassing witnesses on the stand, pressing unfounded charges against defendants, tampering with evidence, withholding evidence, up to taking bribes. Prosecutors can sometimes get away with misconduct as it is extremely difficult to prove that misconduct had actually taken place.
Not to mention WIRETIME is unethical in their actions. Computer hacking is considered criminalizing under The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. Under this, BUGusa would have the right to obtain compensatory damages and court ordered relief or other just relief. Steven and WIRETIME may be sued for the executed plot performed because it is unlawful to purposely access computer information without authority to do so, under section 1030 (a)(2) – Unlawful Access to Obtain Information. If he is caught in the act, he can be charged under Uniform Trade Secrets Act.
In order for legal causation to be established the question to be asked is whether it is fair to attribute blame to the defendant, if the jury believe the defendant can be blamed for the consequence then he is also the legal cause of the consequence. There must also be a direct link from the defendant’s conduct to the consequence; this is known as the chain of causation and so therefore in order for the defendant to be guilty of the consequence then there cannot be any major intervening acts. Intervening acts can include the actions of a third party, the victim’s own act or a natural but unpredictable event. Naturally there are issues with the rules on causation which I will discuss in detail in the remainder of this essay, the first issue comes with defining what is meant by more than a ‘slight or trifling’ link as this is a very vague phrase it can be difficult for juries to understand and so therefore may be misused. The second issue involves the thin skull rule which involves the defendant having to take the victim as he finds him which can be seen as unfair.
The law requires that a statement to be determined as whether it is a fact or opinion, because based on the First Amendment, that “there is no such thing as a false idea”. C. The three terms used by Cole are defamatory in nature since they imply misconduct of an attorney. D. Cole’s claim that the affidavit was “inaccurate” is a fact, and not an opinion, since its falsehood can be determined. E. Cole’s statements were based on undisclosed defamatory facts (unknown communication between Cole and his client) and thus not protected under the First
Read the case study and map the fraud case to the appropriate expense report fraud flow in Chapter 7 (Exhibit 7.4 or 7.5 or 7.6). In a 2-3 page paper address the following questions: which fraud flow and specific steps did the fraudster manipulate and how will the new processes installed deter, detect or prevent this from recurring? Travel and expense reimbursement schemes may seem like they are an easy fraud to perpetrate, however, the recurring problem is that people wind up getting too greedy and get caught because of it. Lucky for us the fraudster’s greed leads them to get sloppy when they believe that a fraud is going to continue to go undetected. This was the case in the article “Fashioning a Fraud” by Bethmara Kessler.
Sometime the issue is straightforward, for example a carer stealing from an individual’s purse, but at other times it is more difficult to address. This is because very often the perpetrator can be someoneʹs son or daughter, or age prejudice means that other people assume it is not happening or that the older person is to blame. Two common issues that come to our attention are (a) sons or daughters attempting to justify their actions on the basis that they are simply obtaining their inheritance in advance and (b) the extensive misuse of Powers of Attorney. • Institutional
This term encompasses common offenses such as breach of duty by malfeasance or misfeasance and favoritism, to more potent crimes such as embezzlement of public funds and bribery. In the case of embezzlement of public funds, one or more legally entrusted entities, conspires to act dishonestly in appropriating
Dontae caine Lgs 3:30-4:45 4/6/2013 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISSON GROUNDS THAT THE STOLEN VALOR ACT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL To: Law partner to the current state of the law From: Dontae Reshard Caine Re: Stolen Valor Act as Unconstitutional Issue: Does the First Amendment protects false statements of fact – made without any apparent intent to defraud or gain anything? If so, what level of protection do they deserve. Six Justices agreed that some protection was warranted, but disagreed as to the amount, and three Justices believe that the First Amendment does not protect such lies at all. Background: The defendant has been charged by criminal complaint with one count of violation of 18U.S.C. § 704, popularly known as the Stolen Valor Act of 2005.
The way to point out the difference between the two is through the conclusions. In a deductive argument the conclusion is already implied within the premises, and in an inductive argument the conclusion is not implied within the premises. Deductive arguments are judged on whether or not they are valid, meaning if the premises are considered true and the conclusion cannot be false, it is valid. If there is a possibility that the conclusion may be false but the premises still are true, then it is invalid. When a deductive argument is invalid, it is automatically considered unsound.