- [04/10] Police: Phoenix area man killed wife over HIV fear
- [04/10] Maine hermit suspected in 1,000 burglaries caught
- [04/10] Colorado officials find more court errors
Criminal Defense Articles
Disciplinary Licensing Actions
Most licensees have never been visited by a state licensing investigator. If you are not familiar with license disciplinary actions, you may essentially lose your license before a formal Accusation is even filed. When contacted by an investigator, you should be both cooperative and defensive. Licensees often think that the complaint is without merit, so they do not pay much attention to the investigation. Regardless of whether the complaint has merit, you should realize that the investigator usually gives great credibility to the complaining party. Simply denying any wrongdoing is usually not enough for the investigator to close his or her investigation without further action.
Handling False Allegations of Child Abuse Dos & Don'ts
As public awareness of child abuse increases, more and more instances of possible abuse are being reported. Conscientious reporters are taking the necessary first steps to protect children. However, not all reports of abuse are substantiated. Sometimes, even when the reports are made in good faith, further investigation reveals that the accusations are not true. In yet other situations, false allegations are intentionally raised in order to harm the subject of the allegations, such as in a bitter divorce in which custody of the children is contested. If you find yourself the victim of false allegations, whether from a well-meaning source or an embittered spouse or ex-spouse, you need to take immediate action. The following tips, together with experienced legal counsel, can lead you in the right direction.
White Collar Crime Case Summaries
[04/03] Cohen v. Cohen
District court's dismissal of plaintiff's fraud related claims against her ex-husband and his brother, of defendant SAC Trading Corp., for failure to state a claim and untimeliness is: 1) vacated and remanded in part, where the claims were sufficiently stated and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, common law fraud, and breach of fiduciary duty claims were timely, but 2) affirmed in part, where the unjust enrichment claim was untimely and properly dismissed.
[04/03] US v. Jennings
The district court's application of a two-level "sophisticated means" enhancement to defendants' sentences for tax fraud is affirmed, where: 1) conduct need not involve highly complex schemes or exhibit exceptional brilliance to justify a sophisticated means enhancement; and 2) the defendants' efforts to disguise funds taken for their own personal use as money paid to a third-party vendor for business expenses through use of a bank account with a deceptive name constituted a sufficiently complex method of concealment to warrant application of the sophisticated means enhancement.
[04/01] US v. Gelin
Convictions for health care fraud are affirmed, where: 1) the district court did not err in finding the no-fault automobile insurance program was a "health care benefit program" under the relevant statute; 2) the underlying fraud sufficiently affected interstate commerce, so defendants' constitutional challenge fails; and 3) the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to ask defendants' proposed voir dire questions concerning racial bias.
[03/04] US v. Nouri
Convictions of securities fraud and related charges are affirmed, where: 1) the honest-services wire fraud jury instructions incorrectly stated the law because it did not require the jury to find that the scheme involved the payment of bribes or kickbacks, but there was no objection to the charge, and the error did not affect substantial rights of the defendants; 2) the inappropriate references to honest services did not expose the defendants to a risk of conviction without the jury having found the essential elements of the securities fraud crime; 3) there was no error for failure to instruct on discretionary versus non-discretionary accounts; 4) there was no error in the judge's refusal to instruct the jury on defendant Martin's request regarding fraud incidental to the sale of a security, as opposed to "in connection with" the sale; 5) there was sufficient evidence to support defendants' convictions; 6) the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting the questioning of defendant Martin's witness; and 7) defendant's sentence was substantively and procedurally reasonable.
Criminal Defense Frequently Asked Questions
Associated Press text, photo, graphic, audio and/or video material shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium. Neither these AP materials nor any portion thereof may be stored in a computer except for personal and non-commercial use. Users may not download or reproduce a substantial portion of the AP material found on this web site. AP will not be held liable for any delays, inaccuracies, errors or omissions therefrom or in the transmission or delivery of all or any part thereof or for any damages arising from any of the foregoing.