The presumption of innocence is an important component of the criminal law system. When a person is charged with a criminal offence the law regards the alleged offender as innocent until proved guilty. In other words, the prosecution bears the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is indeed guilty of the crime alleged. This position however, is somewhat different when persons are suspected of money laundering and terrorist financing offences. To say then, that the cardinal freedom of an individual (in this case the customer of a bank) to be presumed innocent until proved guilty is blown away by the enforcement of anti-money laundering and counter terrorism financing legislations in the Commonwealth Caribbean is true to a great extent.
That is why forensic accounting is a great career option. According to Kreuter (2017), “Forensic accounting is essentially litigation support involving accounting” (p. 6-8). Forensic accountants use their accounting skills to examine financial information and documents for use in legal cases to investigate fraud or embezzlement. The job requires technical skills in accounting, both investigative and legal. Forensic accounting is important because it represents the only truthful approach to gaining a deeper understanding on what exactly is going on behind the scenes of a business’s finances.
The criminal justice system is that subsystem of the national legal system which determines the circumstances in which and the procedure according to which individuals may be punished by the state for conduct that is defined as a crime. For the sake of convenience, a distinction is normally drawn between the substantive aspects of the criminal justice system and its procedural aspects. The study of criminal law generally focuses on substantive law; namely, the principles of law according to which criminal liability (guilt) is determined, whilst the law of criminal procedure, together with the law of evidence, focuses on the manner in which this is done, together with the way in which offenders and suspected offenders are to be treated by the
At common law, there exists a number of fundamental rights for those being questioned by police. In this regard, the emergence of the privilege against self-incrimination and the right to silence represents a ‘landmark event in the history of Anglo-American criminal procedure.’ As we shall see, these principles are intrinsically linked to the presumption of innocence and burden of proof. Policy makers in Northern Ireland contended that defendants were afforded too much of an advantage by virtue of these rights and that dealing with the ‘wall of silence’ in the interviewing of terrorist suspects necessitated the curtailment of these rights. After a short discussion on the history of these concepts, the focus in the second part will primarily
Principle of Mens rea When conducting a criminal investigation, three elements are usually considered and they include voluntary action, failure to act and the state of mind. Failure to take, action entails the inability of an individual to act in accordance to the law, for instance, getting a driver’s license before acquiring an automobile. Usually, for one to be convicted there must be proof of a criminal act and intent. It should, however, be noted that an act without a guilty mind makes the defendant devoid of guilty and it is the principle of natural justice that the intent and the act must both occur in tandem in order to constitute a crime (Ashworth and Campbell 1991). This paper focuses on the principle of mens rea together with actus reus and their effects with regard to determination of criminal cases.
Understanding the nature of the dispute, the stress involve in resolving dispute, the cost of involve, and the impact certainly act as a leeway when choosing a method to resolve a dispute. Crimes can be classified as civil or criminal, and both can be resolved following either alternative dispute resolution (ADR), litigation, or criminal prosecution. Although all three methods cannot go with every kind of crime, the nature and magnitude of the crime will easily determine which method to use. The three scenarios have been carefully studied and an appropriate method of dispute resolution had been allocated to each situation. The first situation involved workplace ethic and fraud, therefore criminal prosecution is best suited to handle the case.
The Rational Choice Theory, based on the theory that people can make their own choices regardless of the consequences, and the Illegal Enterprise Theory, that looks into the similarities of illegal and legal businesses, analyzing both in terms of Organized Crimes, are two great theories that can answer both of these questions and give vital information into Transnational Organized Crimes, why they have been able to exist for so long, why they are so damaging to national security, and what can be done to deter, combat, and or eradicate these crimes in the future. Having foreign and domestic leaders consistently on the same page with concerns and solutions on Transnational Organized Crimes will allow this global issue to be more focused on, combatted, and or possibly eradicated on a global
Further, the jurist “Rassat" observed that the principle of specialization was established in order to prevent corporations from committing crimes and being accountable under criminal law.Representatives or employees of a corporation might commit criminal acts under the corporation’s name and on its account. A corporation itself cannot commit those acts. Agents of the corporation may also be involved in activities punishable by law, such as the import of narcotic substances, or spoiled and counterfeit foods or financing terrorist operations. He also considered the criminal liability of the representatives or employees of the corporation for such criminal acts, even if such acts are committed for the corporation benefit. The legal responsibility here is a personal responsibility because the crimes are beyond the corporation’s
Introduction This question requires for an understanding on the rules and principles relating to criminal liability for an omission. As well as whether the rules and principles are too restrictive on individual freedom. In order to have an understanding of the rules and principles of omissions, one first must understand how criminal liability is imposed. For a person to be found guilty of a crime they must have both the mens rea and actus reus of the committed crime. Actus reus is the guilty deed or act and mens rea is the guilty state of mind.
This is so to ensure the protection of the rights of a particular individual on trial. In addition, the above constitutional provision, as a presumption, was well explained in the case of Woolmington v The Director of Public Prosecutions . In this case Viscount Sankey L.C. stated thus: “Throughout the web of the English Criminal Law one golden thread is always to be seen, that it is the duty of the prosecution to prove the prisoner’s guilt subject to what I have already said as to the defence of insanity and subject also to any statutory exception …” The above excerpt shows that the presumption of innocence places the burden of proof in criminal cases on the prosecution, who are to prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. In fact, Viscount Sankey L.C.