A.L. Assistenza Legale’s Post

Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) deals with the offense of criminal breach of trust. It is defined as follows: ### Definition of Section 406 PPC: **"Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both."** ### Explanation and Commentary: 1. **Criminal Breach of Trust**: - The essence of this offense lies in the violation of trust. It occurs when a person, who is entrusted with property or has dominion over it, dishonestly misappropriates or converts it to their own use, or disposes of it in a manner that is inconsistent with the terms of the trust. - The trust can arise from various relationships, such as that of a trustee and beneficiary, agent and principal, or bailee and bailor. 2. **Key Elements**: - **Entrustment**: There must be a clear entrustment of property to the accused. This means that the property must have been given to the accused with the expectation that it would be handled in a certain way. - **Dishonest Misappropriation**: The accused must have acted dishonestly, which means that they intended to cause wrongful gain to themselves or wrongful loss to another. - **Property**: The property involved can be movable or immovable, but it must be tangible and capable of being entrusted. 3. **Punishment**: - The punishment for committing a criminal breach of trust under Section 406 can extend to three years of imprisonment, or a fine, or both. The severity of the punishment may depend on the circumstances of the case, including the value of the property involved and the nature of the breach. 4. **Distinction from Other Offenses**: - It is important to distinguish between criminal breach of trust and theft. In theft, the property is taken without the consent of the owner, while in criminal breach of trust, the property is entrusted to the accused, who then misuses that trust. 5. **Judicial Interpretation**: - Courts have interpreted this section in various judgments, emphasizing the need for clear evidence of entrustment and dishonest intention. The burden of proof lies on the prosecution to establish these elements beyond a reasonable doubt. 6. **Practical Implications**: - This section is often invoked in cases involving financial fraud, embezzlement, and misappropriation of funds by individuals in positions of trust, such as employees, agents, or fiduciaries. In summary, Section 406 PPC addresses the serious issue of betrayal of trust, which can have significant legal and financial implications for both individuals and organizations. Understanding this section is crucial for anyone involved in legal matters related to property and trust.

Evidence plays a critical role in proceedings and particularly in #civilfraud litigation. It is often unlikely that a claimant will, from the outset, have at hand all the proof. How to obtain the right evidence? Read more: ”Gathering the right evidence - the key to successful fraud litigation in Poland” #assetrecovery #fraud #claims https://lnkd.in/dz9Rg9TQ

nzRCENY IN NSW National Criminal Lawyers NCL https://lnkd.in/gV6uxcyz <a href=""> - Larceny, commonly referred to as theft, involves the unlawful taking and carrying away of personal property belonging to another with the intent to permanently dispossess the owner of it. This blog post will explore this offence in detail, discussing the legal elements that must be proved for Larceny and the penalties involved. Click here to check out our other interesting legal blog posts. If you have been charged with Larceny, understanding these offences is crucial. It is important to remember that you should always seek legal advice. We here at National criminal Lawyers®, offer free initial consultations, for you to discuss your matter with one of our many skilled criminal Defence Lawyers, and see how we can best assist you, to reach the best outcome possible for your case. In NSW, larceny is primarily dealt with under section 117 of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW). Larceny can either be a summary or an indictable offence, however this depends on how the Prosecution approaches the case. Elements of Larceny Larceny requires several elements to be proven in order to reach a guilty verdict: Taking and Carrying Away: There must be a physical movement of the property. This element ensures that the property was moved from its original position by the offender. No matter how small the movement, some level of movement must be proved as part of the offence. Belonging to Another: The property must belong to someone other than the offender at the time of the theft. This means that another individual was the legal owner of the property at the time. Without Consent: The taking must be without the consent of the owner. This means that if the individual who that property belongs to, allows an individual to take a possession, the individual is not liable for larceny. Elements relating to the mental state of the accused which must exist at the time of the offence must also be analysed which include, but not necessarily limited to the following: Intention to Permanently Deprive: The offender must have intended to permanently deprive the owner of the property. Stealing is not constituted if the property is only taken temporarily, unless at the time of stealing, the offender is able to understand that the timeline of temporarily taking the possession may be in the same realm as permanently. Without a claim of right made in good faith: This means that if an offender at the time of the offence genuinely believed they had legal right to take the property, then larceny cannot be charged. Such a requirement protects individuals who may have had small misunderstandings or made small accidental errors leading to the accidental theft of a possession. Taken Dishonestly: This factor is established in cases when an accused has been found to be having no claim of rights. This generally implies the offence was...

Gauhati High Court Dismisses Revision Petition in Criminal Trespass and Intimidation Case, Citing Inconsistent Testimonies, Unexplained FIR Delay, and Lack of Evidence for Unauthorized Entry and Theft Court’s Decision: The Gauhati High Court upheld the acquittal of the accused under Sections 447/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), rejecting the revision petition. The Court affirmed that the prosecution had failed to prove unauthorized entry, theft, or threats, as required under Section 447 of the IPC. The revision petition was dismissed due to lack of merit. Facts: The petitioner filed a complaint alleging that on September 12, 2006, the accused interfered with his fish-catching activity on his own land, stole fish worth Rs. 500, and issued death threats. A subsequent village meeting led to demands that the petitioner either marry a woman named Sokina Khatun or pay Rs. 70,000. An official FIR was lodged on October 5, 2006, citing Sections 143, 447, 384, 467, 506, and 34 of the IPC, and a charge sheet was filed against the accused. The trial resulted in the acquittal of the accused based on contradictions and insufficiencies in the prosecution’s evidence. Issues: The main issue was whether the accused had committed criminal trespass, theft, and intimidation under Sections 447 and 506 of the IPC. Court’s Reasoning: The Court observed that: Witness testimonies were inconsistent and contradicted one another, notably with key witnesses failing to confirm unauthorized entry or theft. The delay in filing the FIR, without satisfactory explanation, undermined the credibility of the complaint. No direct evidence of theft or criminal trespass was provided, as essential elements were not proven. Conclusion: The Court concluded that the trial court correctly acquitted the accused due to the prosecution’s failure to prove the elements of criminal trespass or theft. Thus, the revision petition lacked merit and was dismissed. #GauhatiHighCourt #CriminalLaw #DueProcess #Acquittal #LegalEvidence #IndianJudiciary #JusticeServed #CriminalTrespass #LegalDecision #LawAndOrder

Fraud by false representation is a criminal offence which is regulated by the Fraud Act 2006. Partner Sean Caulfield and Paralegal, Christelle Chungong in our #CriminalDefence team, outline the common examples, the legal process, and potential consequences of Fraud by False representation. https://lnkd.in/dUf2Xz7N

O’Neal is not a licensed attorney in any state because he often tells it like it is to anyone who wants to know what he thinks about anything. More importantly, O’Neal is not a lawyer because of racism in this country that resulted in being put out of high school for knowing too much as a teenager. That is when Detroit began to integrate inner city youth with their suburban peers at Henry Ford and Redfotd high schools in 1975. https://lnkd.in/e3QequT8 Many minorities were immediately removed from Henry Ford for a variety of reasons that did not include bad behavior. The school went from 70% white to 99% black probably in less than one year. The media called that “white flight” back then. https://lnkd.in/egKrtUcY O’Neal is versed well enough with the law that he will not say anything about anyone without being able to physically prove whatever was said. This means having evidence to support his claims for a trier of facts to determine whether the contention is established based upon a preponderance. https://lnkd.in/erQBwdpF That is how civil law works. O’Neal is not an accuser in the sense of falsifying evidence to prove a point. The true test for any statement is whether it could be proven. O’Neal made the above statements for people to know he is passionate about the laws that govern this nation to the extent of believing that they should work for people in general rather than a select few. That is supposed to be the good thing about democracy. Anything less means the claim is not true.

Hello fraud fans! According to my timeline I should be announcing that the superlative Fiona Simpson and I will be in Vilamoura for the ThoughtLeaders4 FIRE | TL4FIRE conference this week. However, what I'm actually doing is multi-tasking. Here's my civil #fraud case round up for Q1 2024 (which feels like a long time ago already). There's a lot of #contempt in this one, and an interesting case involving malicious prosecution and arbitrations. #litigation #disputeresolution

On June 26, 2024, the Supreme Court of the United States issued its opinion in Snyder v. United States, holding that a federal anti-corruption statute, 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B), does not criminalize gratuities given to public officials as a token of appreciation for taking an official act. Rather, the statute criminalizes only quid pro quo style bribery. Snyder is a huge win for the defense bar, and its holding significantly narrows the scope of conduct that federal prosecutors can charge as criminal under 18 U.S.C. § 666(a)(1)(B). https://bit.ly/4cFUnjr #lgrlaw #defenselaw #defense #attorney #attorneys #attorneyatlaw #litigator #litigation #law #advice #lawyer #lawfirm #lawfirms #newjersey #newyork #bestcompany #company #bestlawyer #superlawyer #criminallaw #criminalcase #criminallawyer #Criminal #CriminalJusticeReform #criminaljustice #helpPolice #help

Facing property crime charges? Our experienced attorneys at Bernard Law provide defense strategies tailored to your case. #PropertyCrimeDefense #Attorneys

“…...ASIC has made Australia a haven for white-collar crime. ASIC has given up on their sole obligation to enforce corporate law," Senator Bragg has said.” 1 July 2024 ABC News. For example “…...ASIC will only intervene in private legal proceedings in limited circumstances, which we have set out in our Information Sheet 180: ASIC approach to involvement in private legal proceedings.” 22 March 2017 Warren Day Senior Executive Leader Assessment &Intelligence ASIC  “…..ASIC and the Singaporean Authorities are the appropriate avenues to assess your complaint as it involves a company is potentially a Commercial Fraud. They are the most appropriate body to investigate at this stage. If criminal offences are identified by them, then it may be referred back to Victoria Police for investigation. Please refer all further enquires to ASIC until the matter progresses”. 11 November 2016 Regards, Cameron HENRY | Detective Leading Senior Constable Fraud & Extortion Squad | Crime Command | Victoria Police  “…..I also note that the allegations contained in your correspondence have previously been dealt with by ASIC and the Federal Court. I have concluded therefore that an investigation by the AFP is not warranted. We will take no further action.” Regards Stephen Reeves-Williams Australian Federal Police, National Operations, State Service Centre, Southern Command. See PD1 page 12 below In Singapore the following  “……You may wish to lodge a report with your local authorities and seek their assistance. After lodging the Police report, the authorities may refer your report to the Singapore Police Force through INTERPOL to seek the required assistance where necessary.” 23 July 2024 Tan Chor Hoon (Ms) Assistant Research & Planning Officer Planning & Organization Development Division Commercial Affairs Department (“CAD”).  “……. Your complaint against the abovenamed lawyers (“Respondents”) be dismissed as it is frivolous, misconceived and/or lacking in substance.” K Gopalan Director Conduct, Singapore Law Society, (Yr. Ref RC062/2016) 29 September 2016. PROJECT D CRIMES 1.     The Secret illegal and fraudulent trading of, 23million shares and the further USD30million fraud and embezzlement, 2.     The sabotage of the company cash flow. 3.     Spread malicious innuendo and untruths to vilify Mr Huber and the company. 4.     The forgery of 500 proxy forms led by Melvin Tan and others and Bribing Chua Min Wee USD300,000 to commit criminal breach of trust. 5.     The $1million bribery and the theft of the company’s intellectual property using their secret company called Avanseus Holdings Pte Ltd. 6.     The second theft of CellOS intellectual property by Janifer Yeo-Tan using their secret company called SGM Analytics Pte Ltd. 8.     The theft of the Mr Huber’s car and actions leading to the loss of his property 9.     Defraud the Commonwealth through a fake R&D Grant for A$6.8million embezzled 10. Defraud the Commonwealth of $76,400 partly embezzled