Jason Huber’s Post

Land Sale Fraud Case Crumbles: Insufficient Evidence and Reasonable Doubt Prevail Judgement reviewed by: Esha Jaiswal Click here to read more: https://lnkd.in/d7i--xVg   Visit us at: onlinelegalquery.com/ https://lnkd.in/dW33ZQDt https://lnkd.in/dZSbRWPR https://lnkd.in/dAJKYBcG #law #lawfirm #lawyers #legal #legalnews #legalmarketing #SC #HC #attorney #lawstudents #Courts #judgment #advocate #lawinterns #LegalTech #CorporateLaw #LegalServices #PrivacyLaw #IntellectualProperty #CyberSecurity #Compliance #RegulatoryAffairs #Litigation #LegalInnovation #DataProtection #ContractLaw #LegalAdvice #LegalIndustry #EmploymentLaw #Lawyers #LegalNews #LegalEducation #LegalUpdates

I've finally read the March 2024 English Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) (CACD) judgment dismissing appeals against conviction of two traders charged with conspiracy to defraud in respect of Libor setting. In the comments, I'll add a link to the judgment and to two articles on it which I would recommend, by Olly Buxton (disagreeing with CACD) and Sabur Malik, LLM (replying to Olly). The first appellant, Hayes, a UK citizen, worked as a trader for UBS and Citi in Tokyo at the relevant times. He then moved back to the UK, from which US authorities sought to extradite him. If convicted in the US, he would face decades in prison, so he took the strategic decision to meet with the UK authorities and made various statements (including confessions of dishonest state of mind) designed to get them to charge him (and thereby protect himself from US extradition). Apart from the shorter sentences in the UK, no doubt he also had regard to the fact that high profile UK fraud prosecutions famously fail a lot, whereas US fraud cases have an equally famous high conviction rate. However, he ultimately ended up on the wrong side of that trade. Similar prosecutions in the US ultimately led to acquittals on appeal whereas in England he was convicted by the jury. The CACD dismissed his first appeal some time ago, but the matter was referred to them again following the US decisions. The March 2024 judgment dismissed this new appeal, concluding that the legal and other circumstances of the US cases make them irrelevant to the position here. I don't propose to go into the point of interpretation that Olly and Sabur discuss, though I tend to think that the CACD and Sabur have the better arguments. However, for me the case highlights the tension involved in prosecuting only a few frontline people for dishonesty within a system in which "everybody is at it" (allegedly). Framed in "whataboutist" terms, it's clear law that there's no defence. But at what point do the expectations of players affect what's "dishonest"? As a matter of law, it seems to me that this was properly left to the jury and their conclusion should be upheld. But at a human level, I can at least understand the sense of grievance. At least these traders were making loadsamoney. Let's switch now to the case of a junior provincial solicitor, struck off for dishonesty for padding his timesheet by a small amount of time which enabled him to meet the target which his employer imposed. The case is sensitively discussed by Colin Davey in a new article. In parallel, the Roll on Friday website has carried out a poll in which a third of solicitors responding confess to padding. I'll add links below. Caveats apply to self-selecting polls on ironic websites, but also see the comments on the ROF article for some nuance. I can't help but observing that, at least in the case of Libor, the systemic problem has been acknowledged and meaningful steps taken to address it.

🔍 Distinguishing Contract Fraud from Commercial Fraud In legal contexts, understanding the nuances between different types of fraud is crucial. ⚪Contract Fraud (Art. 640 Penal Code): involves trickery or deceit that misleads someone into an agreement, leading to unjust profit. It's all about the deception in the deal. ⚪Commercial Fraud (Art. 515 Penal Code): happens when the delivered item is different from what was agreed upon. No deceit involved, just a discrepancy in the product. At A.L. Assistenza Legale, our expertise in criminal law ensures that if you’re facing any form of fraud, we have the knowledge and experience to support you. Contact us to safeguard your rights and receive the best legal assistance. 📞 Call us at +39 345 3338510 📩 E-mail: [email protected] 🌎 Visit: https://lnkd.in/dsdtSFkc #ALAssistenzaLegale #Italy #Italianlawyers #LegalAdvice #ItalianLaw #Lawyers #LegalHelp #ItalyLaw #LegalTips #ContractFraud #CommercialFraud #LegalSupport

Today, the Turkish Constitutional Court (Court) published its decision, dated July 18, 2024, concerning fraud allegations related to #wire #fraud and #identity #theft, which raised issues regarding the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings. In its ruling, the Court found that the defendant's right to a fair trial, as outlined in Article 36 of the Turkish Constitution, was violated in a case the Istanbul 9th Criminal Court heard. This case stemmed from an indictment issued by the Istanbul Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office under Article 158 of the Turkish Criminal Code. The Court determined that the defendant’s right to defense was compromised due to the criminal court’s failure to consider crucial evidence proposed by the defense, placing the defendant at an unfair disadvantage. The defendant argued that the fraud was perpetrated by a third party, an individual who had not been investigated. The defendant requested an investigation into this person’s identity and supporting evidence. However, the trial court rejected these requests, asserting they “would not contribute to the trial,” citing Articles 206 and 217 of the Turkish Criminal Procedure Code. The Court ruled that this failure to allow the defendant to present evidence and counter the prosecution’s claims violated the principles of equality of arms and adversarial proceedings, as guaranteed by Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. This ruling underscores the paramount importance of the right to a fair trial, particularly in cases involving complex financial crimes such as wire fraud and identity theft. It emphasizes that courts must give adequate consideration to evidence requested by the defense, limiting the dismissal of such requests based solely on abstract reasoning, like their perceived lack of contribution to the trial. This decision represents a significant shift in how complex financial crimes are addressed in Turkish law, ensuring that all evidence contributing to determining material facts is thoroughly reviewed. The Court also stressed that by Articles 206 and 217 of the Criminal Procedure Code, evidence in criminal trials must be collected and evaluated to uncover the material truth. The decision is expected to encourage a more comprehensive examination of all potentially exculpatory evidence in retrials, particularly in fraud and other financial crime cases, fostering fairer trial processes. Moreover, the Court addressed the detrimental impact of procedural shortcuts, often used to expedite proceedings, on the right to due process and fairness. This decision represents a significant advancement in protecting defendants’ rights within the Turkish criminal justice system, particularly in #financial #fraud and related offenses. It also emphasizes the need for greater diligence in conducting judicial proceedings to ensure justice is served in the fight against financial crimes. https://lnkd.in/e2bP-CQa #Turkishlaw

#Fraud lessons from 45 years of audit and studies of past frauds – 200 Do  #laws help rather than hinder fraudsters? Continued from 199 Recently in a case of lawyers  trying to bribe a key witness, the Delhi High Court ordered that they be prevented from appearing before the court or subordinate courts for all of four months, and imposed a Rs 2,000 fine. That’s a classic case of slap on the wrist! We come across in practice, many such slaps on the wrist, even in frauds. (While we should not be making  it difficult to prosecute cases or just give a slap on the wrist,  it is also important to follow due process to guard against arbitrary and over-zealous action by the State. That’s why Supreme court in a recent case said that an  accused under PMLA should be provided with ‘ reason to believe’ statement and this has been followed by Mumbai special court in another Money Laundering case.) I am also not saying heavy sentences will do away with frauds. Vietnam gives death penalty for fraud, but fraud happens there too! The frauds may however come down from the situation where all the fraudster faces,  is a slap on the wrist! In an article ‘Legal loopholes and underenforced laws’  (American Business law journal) I came across this para: “For loophole, Roget's Thesaurus lists "excuse, pretense, pretext, evasion, escape, and subterfuge" as synonyms. But at times the clever use of a legal loophole might be applauded as a smart and effective business tactic. Occasionally a court will compliment a lawyer for a crafty maneuver, denounce the legis lature for sloppy draftsmanship, and the party asserting the loophole will prevail” We have many such cases in OTT series like Boston Legal and Suits. A famous  lawyer who is very well paid can use a number of smart moves to badger the prosecution or witness and make the case go away! Sometimes if the judge is considered ‘un-cooperative’ or ‘tough’ they will change the court or wait till the judge moves on. Let’s see what other problems in laws are discussed in this article. The loop hole in law sometimes  derives from the narrow language employed by the legal text, coupled with a change in technology. (One reason why criminal laws were recently changed fully is this) Another arrangement is a so-called "step transaction." Each individual step is beyond reproach,  but taken collectively the steps achieve an outcome that is contrary to law. This is how many corporate strategies work by ‘working around’. Also we are aware of  Government ‘notifications’ which apply to only one or few corporates! This way a loop hole is introduced when there is none! Or simply the law may be changed. This is achieved by ‘Lobbying’- after all politicians have to collect funds for elections and there will be some quid pro quos. To be continued All views are personal

While amusing or odd stories can seem like rare occurrences, the truth is that peculiar incidents crop up more frequently than one might expect. This particular story may strike us as unique, but such strange situations are not as uncommon as we tend to assume. #fraud #legal #AntiCorruption #BriberyScandal #JudicialCorruption #insiderthreats

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

Understanding the Nuances of "Proceeds of Crime" under Section 2(1)(u), PMLA, 2002! Greetings everyone, While working on a recent legal proposition, I came across a fascinating topic:- ‘The interpretation of the term "Proceeds of Crime" under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002’. So, what constitutes "Proceeds of Crime"? Section 2(1)(u) of PMLA defines "proceeds of crime" as: "Any property derived or obtained, directly or indirectly, by any person as a result of criminal activity relating to a scheduled offence, or the value of any such property [or, where such property is taken or held outside the country, the property equivalent in value held within the country or abroad]." An important clarification was added through the 2019 amendment, which provides: "For the removal of doubts, it is clarified that 'proceeds of crime' include not only property derived or obtained from the scheduled offence but also any property which may directly or indirectly be derived or obtained as a result of any criminal activity relating to the scheduled offence." This definition makes it clear that "proceeds of crime" encompass any property, whether directly or indirectly obtained, resulting from criminal activity or a scheduled offence. The key question that arises is: Can property acquired before the commission of a predicate offence or criminal activity be attached under PMLA? The Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts, while addressing this issue, have provided the following observations: 1. Pavana Dibbur v. Enforcement Directorate, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1586 Para 31 C: "The first property cannot be said to have any connection with the proceeds of the crime, as the acts constituting the scheduled offence were committed after the property was acquired." 2. Seema Garg v. Deputy Director, 2020 SCC OnLine P&H 738 Para 51 (ii) : "Property acquired prior to the commission of the scheduled offence or the introduction of PMLA cannot be attached unless property obtained or acquired from the scheduled offence is held or taken outside the country." 3. Satish Motilal Bidri v. Union of India, 2024 SCC OnLine Ker 3410 Para 18: "The provisionally attached immovable property was purchased in 2004, more than a decade and a half before the alleged commission of the predicate offence. Therefore, the attachment order is ultra vires the statute and is both illegal and arbitrary with respect to the property." Conclusion: Upon the understanding of these judicial observations, it is pertinent to note that any property acquired or derived prior to the commission of a criminal or predicate / schedule offence is generally not subject to attachment under the PMLA, per say Sec. 5(1), but again it would completely depend upon the factual circumstances of each & every matter. #PMLA #Proceedsofcrime #2(1)(u) #Property #Acquiredproperty #predicateoffence #scheduledoffence #pmla2002 #criminaloffence #criminallaw #moneylaundering #attachmentofproperty.

Supreme Court Acquits Accused in Passport Fraud Case, Concludes Evidence Did Not Meet the Standard Required for Conviction Court's Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was acquitted of all charges. The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the Trial Court and the High Court. Facts: The appellant was charged with facilitating the issuance of a second passport to another accused, who was already in possession of a passport. It was alleged that the second passport application was processed through the appellant, who later demanded Rs. 5,000 for its delivery. Upon refusal of payment, the appellant returned the passport to the Passport Office. The other accused involved in the conspiracy were acquitted at trial. Issues: Whether the appellant knowingly facilitated the issuance of a second passport despite the accused already holding one. Whether the conviction of the appellant was sustainable, given the acquittal of other accused with similar charges. Precedent Analysis: The Court referred to the principle of parity from a recent ruling, stating that identical evidence against multiple accused cannot result in one being convicted and another acquitted. This principle was critical in evaluating the appellant’s conviction, as similar evidence was used to acquit others. Court's Reasoning: The Court found that the prosecution had failed to provide conclusive evidence proving that the appellant was aware of the prior passport or knowingly facilitated the issuance of the second passport. The evidence from key witnesses was found to be unreliable, and the expert’s testimony on handwriting did not definitively connect the appellant to the crime. The Court concluded that the evidence presented did not meet the standard required for a conviction. Conclusion: The Court set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant due to insufficient evidence. The acquittal of similarly placed accused further undermined the prosecution’s case against the appellant. Implications: This judgment reiterates the importance of parity in criminal cases, emphasizing that identical or similar evidence must lead to consistent outcomes for all accused. It also underscores the necessity for reliable and corroborated evidence to secure convictions in cases involving serious offenses. #SupremeCourtOfIndia #JudicialAcquittal #PassportFraudCase #IndianJudiciary #CourtRuling #LegalUpdate #CriminalLaw #JusticeDelivered #Acquittal #LegalProfession #JudicialSystem #LegalPrecedent #EvidenceLaw #LegalInsights #SupremeCourtJudgment #LawAndJustice #CriminalAppeal #CourtDecision #LawyersOfIndia #LegalPractitioners

Incident Investigation and Legal Ramifications Unfold Following Unlawful Actions After yesterday's incident where individuals flagrantly abused their power and took advantage of a situation where they did not even want to accept evidence of wrongdoing, fraud, corruption and organized crime. They didn't even let you contact anyone. And the General Inspection of the Security Forces is also from this. From a professional point of view, the lines were crossed, as evidenced by the video footage of the unfortunate events. The incident involved a gross mishandling of documentation and a deliberate effort to withhold information from authorities. Unsubstantiated claims were made in an attempt to incite aggression, leading to a situation where I found myself compelled to navigate administrative hurdles in the sweltering heat, dehydrated, all in pursuit of securing essential identification documents required for necessary proceedings. It became evident that within the confines of the state prosecutors' office, vested interests prevailed, shielding criminal activities and thwarting legitimate attempts to present factual evidence as mandated by protocols. This is corroborated by my formal complaints following established guidelines. The cautionary advice emerges against factual accuracy as it presents a perilous undertaking. Those in positions of power are subject to potential legal repercussions lasting several years if proven to manipulate facts. Upon meticulous examination of their records, fabricated allegations surfaced, constituting acts of fraud, corruption, and abuse directed towards individuals of authority and legislative representatives, contravening European directives. This issue has been under investigation since February, as initial attempts to hold wrongdoers accountable were thwarted by the very security entities entrusted to uphold the law. The persistent persistence of criminal elements underscores the necessity of reinforcing judicial integrity and ensuring that justice is served to. T.č, that's what the bodies have on the table to start the meeting. Josef Anger, the CEO, Owner, and Board Member of CNBC