Quiz 8: Crimes
Case Summary : F was the owner of a company which brokered loans and operated the company without the proper license required. During 1982 to 1985, F brokered loans to five people. Upon investigation, it was discovered that F did not have the license necessary to engage in the brokerage business. F defended claiming that he was not aware of the fact that he had to acquire that license for conduct this business. The state of Indiana sued F under its RICO laws (racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations) and F claimed that the charges must be dismissed. F claimed that he had no intention of defrauding customers since he was not aware of this license and its importance. The state of Indiana has a law which requires loan brokers to obtain a license from the state before brokering loans. The defense that F had no knowledge of registration, and hence no intent of crime was deemed invalid by the court. The court ruled that "negligence of law" is not a valid defense in this case since opening up a brokerage business requires intensive research, through which F would have come across this law. Negligence of law does not justify the criminal intent of the defendant. Thus, F does not have a good defense.
Crime is referred as an action taken by a person which is punishable by law. Crimes which are less serious in nature and require person to spend less than 1 year in prison are called misdemeanors. While more serious crimes are referred as felonies. Case summary: Plaintiff is a group of people who are customers of N (defendant) a regional telephone company. Plaintiff sued defendant alleging defendant bribed members of Minnesota's Public Utilities Commission for favorable treatment in rates. Bribery is an act of providing monetary or non-monetary benefits to an individual in order to influence his decision in one's favor. Bribery is a white-collar crime. The plaintiff are civilians therefore, the action which was alleged under bribery statute of criminal law do not provide any private remedies as it contains no provision for such remedies. Bribery under common law also do not have any cause of action in Minnesota state. Under criminal law the civil action can only be taken if it appears that it was the legislative intent. Since there was no legislative intent to provide civil cause of action in criminal statute, the customers cannot bring the criminal action. Simply the private cause of action cannot come under the criminal statute. Thus, customers cannot bring the criminal action. .
Crime is referred as an action taken by a person which is punishable by law. Crimes which are less serious in nature and require person to spend less than 1 year in prison are called misdemeanors. While more serious crimes are referred as felonies. Case summary: Defendant including B broke into a W after 3:00 AM. When they were in process of moving some goods out of the store via the rear door, police came and arrested them before goods were taken out of the store. T's prosecution included the charge of grand larceny. B argued not being guilty under larceny. The criminal liability consists of two elements of crime namely: • Mental state : It refers to the intent of the action. It does not require any knowledge of guilt, that is the voluntary action alone is enough to prove mental state. • Act or omission : This refers to the conduct of person which when coupled with mental state form the crime. In this case the metal door was cut through with the acetylene torch and goods were moved from their intended place to rear door. The defendants trespass the property which is referred as unauthorized entry to the owner's property. This proves that intent of the act was to steal the goods from the store. Thus, it forms the mental state and omission of a crime. The larceny comes under common law crimes. It refers to taking the personal property of another person through fraudulent actions and intent. Depending upon the state the shoplifting comes under the larceny. The defendant contested that since goods were not moved from the store, they were not shoplifted. However, the goods were not in place where they should be or intended to be by the store. The only reason they were not able to shoplift them was because of timely arrival of police. The intent was fraudulent because of trespassing and the action was fraudulent too, which is trying to take away the personal property of other person or company. There must be asportation that is the goods must be moved after the trespass for crime to be considered. The goods were moved to rear door from their intended place after trespassing. Thus, it was case of asportation. There was no doubt that defendants had trespass into the store. The main contention was whether their handling of the goods fall under asportation. The court believed it did, reasoning that just moving the good within the store with the intention of taking it is asportation hence larceny. Thus, there was enough action and intention for a crime.