Good Faith: Statute Of Limitations

In R v. Potisk (1973) The Police charged Potisk with larceny after he was given $2895.17 instead of $1233.23 by a bank teller when exchanging the USD currency and was found not guilty by the supreme court after the judge ruled that it is was not larceny and he was given the money although he was being dishonest. The law is effective in determining justice in this case because he didn't take the money without consent, he was being dishonest and was found not guilty because the judge and evidence proved he committed no econmoic offence. When it comes to white-collar crimes tax evasion is the most common of the three offences (Insider trading, tax evasion and computer crimes). These three offences have different sentences depending on the severeity of the crime but have a minimum of 8 years

Federal or state authorities may investigate allegations of fraud depending on where the fraud was reported, the laws broken, and the amount of money involved. The strictness of penalties levied by state governments varies from state to state. Federal laws such as The False Claims Act, Anti-Kickback Statute, and Social Security Act are laws that address fraud and abuse. Title XI of the Social Security Act contains Medicaid program-related anti-fraud provisions, which impose civil penalties, criminal penalties, and exclusions from federal health care programs on persons who engage in certain types of misconduct (Staman, 2010). Under federal regulations, providers convicted of fraud are excluded for a minimum of five years from receiving funds from any federally

(1) Whether a plaintiff must plead and prove willful and wanton conduct in order to

White collar crime costs Americans tax payers an estimated “$300 billion annually” (White-collar Crime), but more importantly hurts millions of American emotionally and financially who put their trust in stock market and financial institutions. Surprisingly, even with the astronomical cost only a few perpetrators are ever indicted and even fewer receive any sort of punishment for their greed and selfishness. On October 1, 2014 Florida had witness a rare indictment of not one or two but three Florida bankers trying to side step FDIC into giving them a subsidy loan over $3 Million. Donald “Terry” Dubose, Frank A. Baker, and Elwood “Woody” West were all indicted on twelve different counts of banking-related fraud.

Those found guilty of racketeering can be fined up to $25,000 and sentenced to 20 years in prison per racketeering count. In addition, the racketeer must forfeit all ill-gotten gains and interest in any business gained through a pattern of "racketeering activity." RICO also permits a private individual harmed by the actions of such an enterprise to file a civil lawsuit and collect monetary damages. Despite its harsh provisions, a RICO-related charge is considered easy to prove in court, as it focuses on patterns of behavior as opposed to criminal acts.

card fraud. In reference to money Laundering we will the complex process of how criminals

On May 26, 2016, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in SEC v. Graham, No. 14-13562 (11th Cir. May 26, 2016), reached an important decision. The court extended the reach of 28 U.S.C. § 2462, the five-year statute of limitations for “any civil fine, penalty, or forfeiture” applicable to enforcement actions by the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”). The court held that SEC enforcement actions for declaratory relief and disgorgement were subject to the five-year statute of limitations. The Eleventh Circuit built its ruling on top of a decision by the Supreme Court, Gabelli v. SEC, 133 S. Ct. 1216 (2013), which held that 28 U.S.C. § 2462 applied to SEC civil penalty actions.

If a defendant introduces evidence of good character, that opens the door for the prosecution to offer potentially damaging character evidence it would have otherwise been prevented from presenting to the jury.

fraudulent representation, identity of the person making the representation and what was obtained as a result of the fraudulent act or representations.

This case study revolves around the United States of America v. Robert Durandis, Donald Charles, Gilbert Pierre-Charles, Manual Reyes-Gonzalez case, which entails the crime of conspiracy to commit credit card fraud via the use of access devices. An access device is defined as “any card, plate, code, account number… or other means of account access that can be used, alone or in conjunction with another access device, to obtain money, goods, services, or any other thing of value, or that can be used to initiate a transfer of funds” (LII, n.d.). The series of events occurred from November 23rd, 2013 till July 24, 2014; the defendants conspired and devised a plan to commit fraud using counterfeit access devices to obtain a value earning of more than one thousand dollars (United States of America v. Robert Durandis, et al, 2014). The manners and means of the defendants to

On the Same Hand, the Criminal code, fraudulent concealment #341, states that “Everyone who, for a fraudulent purpose, takes, obtains, removes or conceals anything is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.”

The essential elements of RICO prohibit any individual from using income derived from a pattern of racketeering activity. The RICO act involves a person collecting an unlawful debt to require an interest in an enterprise affecting interstate commerce. RICO prohibits acquiring or maintaining through a pattern of racketeering activity conspiring, conducting, or participating in the behavior of the affairs of an enterprise affecting interstate commerce through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of an unlawful debt. However, mail fraud is the basis of the RICO violation.

Embezzlement punishment usually results varies from fines, jail or prison time, or sometimes both Each state has its own penalty schemed pending on value or type of property you have embezzled. Many states require defendants to pay victim(s) in restitution. In the state of New York, the law

Congress crafted a broad statute designed to criminalize the actions of anyone who knowingly participated in an illicit transaction, regardless of its magnitude or dollar value. Although the current money laundering statute is broad and general, there is widespread agreement that it does not criminalize the mere act of spending money generated by the illegal criminal activity. This helps hold the accountability for individuals engaged in criminal activity. Spending money by making a purchase or entering into a transaction is not necessarily a crime, even if the party spending the illegally gained money knows that the money came from illegal activities. Rather, in order to run afoul of the law, there must be direct or circumstantial evidence

Good faith was described by Lord Bingham in Interfoto as “playing fair, coming clean, or putting one’s cards face upwards on the table.” It owes its origins to the law of equity and can be traced back to the case of Carter v