Refer to the case State v Arkell (657 NW2d 883)
1) Arkell is the owner of Carriage Homes a company that made residential units in Minnesota.
2) Some houses built by Carriage did not comply with State Building Code and warned Arkell. Arkell failed to resolve the addressed problems. The state sued
3) Arkell was found guilty and appealed
The appeals court affirmed. Arkell contended that he had no control over the buildings compliances since it was the employees and contractors who failed to fix the problems. The court argued that under law Arkell is liable if he had the duty to prevent the issues but failed to do so. In this case Arkell was warned through a series of letters several times of the issue and Arkell and the responsibility to check building compliances throughout the project. Delegating the task to others does not relieve him of responsibility.
In this case as the owner of the gallery James have certain liabilities or should uphold extra responsibility in order to prevent his involvement in criminal activities. For example, James has no idea the origin of the paintings. James will have to find out the paintings origins in case these are stolen goods.
Additionally, James be wary of his customers. It is suspicious that most of the bidders of employed by a single olive company. The large purchase price is made by those employees should also arouse suspicion, these may be linked to criminal activities. James should report these suspicious activities to law enforcement to protect himself from implication from possible unlawful dealings.
Refer to the case US v Kravitz (738 F2d 102)
Facts of the case:
Mr. K (defendant) is the sole owner of AHP, Inc. Mr. K made bribes to undercover agents to secure a contract for his company. He was arrested and charged under RICO (Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization) Act, trial court ordered forfeiture of AHP stock and Mr. K appealed
The appeals court affirmed. Mr. K was in clear violation of RICO making more than one bribe to undercover agents. As to whether forfeiture of stock was necessary, court agreed with trial jury verdict that found AHP was used by Mr. K to maintain his RICO activities.