Case Brief- U.S. v. Martha Stewart and Peter Bacanovic, 305 F. Supp. 2d 368 (SDNY 2004)
December 5, 2016
Martha Stewart was CEO of her own publicly traded company. Bacanovic was a stock broker at Merrill Lynch who handle the stock sale. The criminal charges against Stewart and Bacanovic came about on December 27, 2001 after the sale of 3,928 shares of stock in ImClone Systems, Inc. ImClone was a biotechnology company. ImClone had a new cancer treatment drug named Erbitux and had classified it as their lead product. On December 28, 2001, ImClone announced that the Food and Drug Administration had rejected the company’s application for approval of Erbitux. The indictment alleges that on the morning of December 27, 2001, defendant Bacanovic learned that …show more content…
The government asserted that defendant lied about the reasons for selling stock she owned in ImClone is order to cover up an illegal trade. Also, the government asserted that defendant made materially false statements regarding the sale of the stock with the intention to defraud and deceived investors in order to slow or stop the erosion of the value of her company’s securities.
In the civil securities fraud context, the Supreme Court has held that intent indicates that the plaintiff act willfully with a realization that she was acting wrongfully, Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S> 185, 193, 47 L.Ed. 2d 668, 96 S. Ct. 1375 (1976). Or in the criminal securities indictment did the plaintiff have a mental state embracing intent to deceive, manipulate, or defraud, United States v. Dixon, 536 F.2d 1388, 1395 (2d Cir. 1976).
The issue is not which definition of intent to apply, but whether, taking into account the heightened standard of proof in criminal cases, is there sufficient evidence of Stewart’s intent to deceive investors.
Click here to unlock this and over one million essaysShow More
Case: Carl M. Miles, et al., vs City council of Augusta, Georgia, et al. 710 F.2d 1542 Facts: In 1983, Mr. and Mrs. Miles were conducting an activity where they utilized a kitten’s linguistic ability for a course of speech therapy which enabled them to obtain moneys from passersby in the City of Augusta, Georgia. After being reported to the police, Mr. and Mrs. Miles were told they would have to purchase a $50 business license for a business and the activity would be taxable in accordance with City of Augusta’s Business License Ordinance. Mr. and Mrs. Miles eventually challenged the constitutionality of the Business License Ordinance enacted by City of Augusta, Georgia. Procedural History: Plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. Miles brought the case to
In the case of Adelphia, the individuals found guilty in this case neglected their duties as managers and their duties to the SHAREHOLDERS. With the positions as Chairman of the board of directors, President, and Vice President, they all had "fiduciary duties to both the corporation and its shareholders" Beatty & Samuelson (2016). The SEC's suit against them for multiple frauds on different counts, did not protect them from the BUSINESS JUDGEMENT RULE based on the fact that they weren't acting in good faith by putting the company in debt and manipulating statements to conceal the
Linda Brown was 7 years old when her father and 12 other families tried to enroll their children in the all white public school in their neighborhoods. Linda had to walk seven blocks in freezing weather and then take a bus for another two miles. Her trip to school took two hours even though there was a school only three blocks from her home. She was sad and confused that she couldn't go to school with the other kids in her predominantly white neighborhood. Linda's father was a minister and leader in his community.
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The United States, by the United States Attorney for the Northern District of New York and the undersigned Assistant U.S. Attorney, submits this opposition to defendants’ jointly-filed motion to dismiss the indictment for lack of venue. The People allege that the defendants, Doug O’Dwyer, Josh Johnston, and James Johnston, were active participants in a criminal conspiracy to commit offenses against the United States, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 846. The activities of this conspiracy ranged from Syracuse, NY to Toledo, Ohio. Syracuse is within the Northern District of New York, thereby providing a proper basis for venue.
I. FACTUAL HISTORY On August 16, 2011, Defendant pled guilty for conspiracy to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. There were no disputed facts at the time of the sentencing. A Presentence Investigation Report was conducted, by the Probation Office, to identify ameliorating
The reading gives the interview of an individual named Robert, a former lawyer, who was arrested for the crime ‘structuring’ and ended up being convicted on ‘conspiracy to defraud the Internal Revenue Service.’ The whole situation started in the handling of money as Robert gives the examples that sometimes his clients needed to borrow money to close on a mortgage or would lend money to him, a couple of these individuals turned out to be his secretary’s cousins who would later do work for. Her cousins lent Robert a large sum of money and to avoid depositing the $10,000 all at once and having to deal with the subsequent requirements of depositing such a large sum, he simply broke up the amount and deposited $9,500 over a period of days to avoid detection. This went on for months, during this time the
Case Brief Title & Citation: 1. Kent V United States 2. 383 U.S. 541 (1966) The Facts: The police detained and questioned 16-year old Morris A. Kent Jr., in connection with several incidents involving theft by force and rape. After admitting to having some involvement, the juvenile court canceled its legal control, allowing the court to try Kent as an adult.
Cristina Terrell Attorney General of Texas, Ken Paxton a top law enforcer, found himself on the other side of the law. In 2014, Paxton was faced with three felony charges, including fraud, back in 2011 when Paxton was a lawyer. The charges that Paxton is being accused of, are of security fraud before Paxton took office, before he became the state’s Attorney General. The charges brought before Paxton, were two counts of first degree securities fraud, and one count of third degree failure to register as an investment adviser with the state regulators. Of the lesser charges, “Paxton admitted to violating state securities law by not disclosing to regulators, the Texas Ethics Commission, that he was receiving commissions.
On June 4, 2003, a federal grand jury indicted Stewart and her vulnerable of nine criminal counts, Stewart resigned as chairman and CEO of Martha Stewart's living Omnimedia the same day, but remained on the board. On January 20, 2004, the trial began for Martha Stewart, who continually maintained her innocence. On February 27, 2004, Judge Cedarbaum threw out the most serious charge against Ms. Stewart, which was securities fraud. On March 5, 2004, Martha was found guilty on the four remaining counts. The maximum time she faced with 20 years.
They appealed the ruling. Issues presented or questions of law: (1) The first issue is whether the court had sufficient evidence to prove special agent Althouse was in the line of duty, in accordance with 18U.S.C.&1114. (2) Whether the court erred in improperly admitted evidence of an uncharged misconduct is relevant to this case (3) Whether the Plaintiff erred in cross-examine the codefendant about drug use. Arguments or Objectives of the parties: Plaintiff: The Plaintiff argues that Special Agent Althouse was in a duty status, according to 18 U.S.C. &1114, when carjacked.
POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO DEMURRER Plaintiff, Alicia Mandolin, submits these Points and Authorities in opposition to Defendant Elvin Evans's demurrer. STATEMENT OF FACTS In our case, Alicia Mandolin bought a 100-year-old house from Gerald Ross about a year ago. Ross bought the house from Elvin Evans, Evans told Ross that he had rewired the entire property and done a good job before selling the house to him. Evans lied, some portion of the property's wiring had been replaced but the majority of the wiring was not replaced.
Kent v. United States 383 US 541 (1966) PROCEDURAL FACTS The defendant, Morris Kent Jr., was arrested by authorities under the Juvenile Court of the District of Columbia under charges of housebreaking, robbery, and rape. The defendant was subject to exclusive jurisdiction under the Juvenile Court as he was 16 at the time. Juvenile court jurisdiction was waived and Kent was sent to trial under the regular procedure of the District Court. The defendant was convicted under the District Court of the District of Columbia on six counts of robbery and housebreaking but was acquitted of the rape charges by plea of insanity.
There were a number of serious disclosure issues in this case that had to be resolved which in turn led to other, fairly large, party discoveries. CIBC’s defense to the wrongful dismissal of Mr. Saturley is just cause. Mr. Saturley was accused of causing trades for many clients without their consent, and that he had performed a task which was outside of his duties to perform. Throughout the trial Mr. Saturley had been pushing for details of the accusations towards him.
The mens rea is the mental element of an offence. It refers to the mental state of the accused in terms of the offence. If no mens rea is present the accused cannot be convicted with the exception of absolute or strict liability. In order for a person to be guilty of a specific crime it is expected that the defendant has the necessary mens rea.(4) ‘Intention means the conscious objective or purpose of the accused.’(1) Intention is not the same as motive or desire to achieve a particular result.
Mens rea is the element of a crime which alludes to what is known as the “guilty mind”. The case of R v Mohan  QB 1 , the case dealing with the meaning of intention in the context of the offence of murder, James LJ clarified that intention meant ‘aim’ or ‘a decision to bring about a certain consequence’ whilst mens rea is generally related with motive what it more directly links to the notion of intention. There are two types of intention, direct intention and oblique intention .Oblique intention is difficult for a jury to infer and difficult for a prosecutor to prove. Defining mens rea of intention precisely is very difficult over the years.