Deck 7: Business Crime

Question 1

Of what significance is Jewel McCoy's testimony in establishing mens real

Answer 1

In legal language, men's rea basically refers to the knowledge of an offense that constitutes part of a crime, as opposed to the action or conduct of the accused.
In light of the case, Mr. J's testimony in establishing men rea is of high significance in the following way:
• Mr. J's testimony in establishing men's rea is a gentle reminder to the offenders who knowingly violated rules and regulations and took part in illegal activities that has the tendency to harm people.
• The testimony would allow the plaintiff to claim requisite compensation in the future on the grounds of men's rea. Moreover, it would play a vital role in preventing injustice to the victim in case of any uncertain hazard.
These are some of the valid points that are of relevance to Mr. J's testimony in establishing men's rea.

Question 2

What is the difference between knowledge of the law and knowledge of conduct? What is the significance of Mr. Ahmad's testimony that he thought he was discharging water?

Answer 2

The knowledge of the law basically refers to the education about the country laws and regulations and the consequences attached to it.
The knowledge of the conduct on the other hand means knowingly performing the tasks and being aware of the repercussions of the conduct.
The importance of Mr. A's testimony that he thought he was discharging water is explained below:
• Though Mr. A violated the rules of Clean Water Act but he made efforts to stop leakage in one of the high-octane gasoline tanks at the location.
• Mr. A's testimony can save him from any legal tussle because he was throughout under the impression that he was discharging water instead of gasoline.

Question 3

What does the court explain is required for the state of mind under the Clean Water Act?

Answer 3

Mr. Ahmad was charged with certain violations of Clean Water Act (CWA). The CWA charged him of knowingly discharging the gas into the waters and putting others into a big trouble. Mr. Ahmad said he did not do it knowingly as he thought he was discharging water and not gas.
According to the CWA under U.S.C 1319(c)(2) (A), if a person who knowingly violates other sections of CWA commits a felony. Here, Mr. Ahmad knowingly violated something that is not very clear. Mr. Ahmad claims that he did not do this knowingly as he thought he was discharging water and not gas. The law requires that the person committing the felony could have done it by knowing each and every element of the offence.

Question 4

Of what significance is the fact that Dow's plant could be seen from the air?

Question 5

Did Dow take any steps to protect its privacy?

Question 6

What objections do the dissenting judges raise to the decision?

Question 7

What general advice would you give a business about its access to employees' text messages based on the decision in this case?

Question 8

Feigned Addictions and Reduced Sentences
In 1994, Congress passed a law that permitted nonviolent convicts to reduce their sentences by up to 12 months if they completed a drug-rehab/counseling program. When the program was first created, 3,755 inmates entered the program. In 2008, 18,000 federal prisoners were in the program and there was a waiting list of 7,000 inmates.
Dr. Sam Waksal, the former CEO of ImClone, served nine fewer months than his original seven-year sentence because he participated in a prison rehab program for inmates who have a problem with substance abuse. However, when Dr. Waksal was interviewed for the presentencing report, he told the probation officer that he was a "social drinker" and had perhaps five glasses of wine per week. One month after the interview with the probation officer, Waksal's lawyers informed a federal judge that Waksal now had a "dependence on alcohol" and requested approval for Waksal's entry into a prison rehab program.
The former mayor of Atlanta, Bill Campbell, was admitted into a federal rehab program and got a nine-month reduction on his 30-month sentence for tax evasion. He was admitted to rehab despite that fact that his lawyers argued at his sentencing hearing that he had no substance abuse problem and that he hated the taste of alcohol, therefore urging the judge to conclude that Campbell's imprisonment was not necessary.
The Bureau of Prisons indicates that it is cracking down on admissions to the program, looking more closely at doctors' letters and past histories of the inmates.
Evaluate the ethics of the inmates who feign addiction. Evaluate the ethics of the consulting firms that help them get into the program.

Question 9

Why are alternative methods for searching the text messages not relevant?

Question 10

Arthur Andersen had served as the auditor for Enron, with David Duncan as the partner handling the account. On October 16, 2001, Enron refused to change its earnings release in response to Andersen's concerns. Andersen then had to end its audit engagement, and its legal counsel sent to employees a copy of the company's document destruction policy. Enron announced publicly that it was facing an SEC inquiry. During this time, employees at Andersen began shredding and destroying both paper and electronic documents.
The SEC began a formal investigation on October 30, 2001. On November 8, 2001, Andersen received subpoenas for its records on Enron. Duncan's secretary sent the following e-mail: "Per Dave-No more shredding.… We have been officially served for our documents." Enron filed for bankruptcy less than a month later. Duncan was fired and later pleaded guilty to witness tampering (a plea he was later permitted to withdraw).
Applying the Park case and the obstruction statute, who is criminally liable for shredding the documents? the employees who did it? the managers who ordered it to begin? the company itself? Were the employees who were shredding technically not in violation of the law while documents were being destroyed because there was no formal notice until November 8? [ Arthur Andersen LLP v. U.S., 544 U.S. 696 (2005).]

Question 11

How does the court deal with the issue of expectation of privacy on the parts of the officers' family and friends?

Question 12

Rooney Enterprises Inc. operated a cemetery in Franklin County, Virginia. A state law requires companies that receive advance payments for funeral expenses and burial plots to put those funds in a special trust account. Instead of doing so, Rooney used the funds for operating expenses. Rooney later became insolvent, so all customers who had prepaid for their burial plots and expenses lost both their money and their plots. The Virginia Attorney General brought criminal charges against Patrick Rooney, as president, for his failure to follow the requirements for trust fund deposits. Mr. Rooney said that he was unaware of the requirement, that the requirement was not in effect when his company purchased the cemetery, and that only the company could be prosecuted for the failure to follow the requirements for trust funds. Decide whether Mr. Rooney should be convicted. [Rooney v. Com., 500 S.E.2d 830 (Va. App. 1998).]

Question 13

Emma Mary Ellen Holley and David Holley, an interracial couple, tried to buy a house in Twenty-Nine Palms, California. A real estate corporation, Triad, Inc., had listed the house for sale. Grove Crank, a Triad salesman, prevented the Holleys from obtaining the house for racially discriminatory reasons. The Holleys brought a lawsuit in federal court against Mr. Crank and Triad. They claimed, among other things, that both were responsible for a fair housing law violation. The Holleys later filed a separate suit against David Meyer, the sole shareholder of Triad and its president and CEO. They claimed that Mr. Meyer was vicariously liable in one or more of these capacities for Mr. Crank's unlawful actions, which were a violation of the Fair Housing Act. Are the Holleys correct? [ Meyer v Holley , 537 U.S. 280 (2003)]

Question 14

The New York City Department of Health is responsible for the inspection of Manhattan restaurants to determine whether they comply with the city's health code. Forty-six of the department's inspectors were inducing restaurateurs to pay money to them for permit approval or for a favorable inspection. Is this activity a basis for a crime? What crime? What would a prosecutor be required to prove? Are the officers and the restaurateurs equally criminally liable? [ U.S. v Tillem , 906 F.2d 814 (2d Cir. 1990)]

Question 15

The IRS attached levies to the property and other assets of G.M. Leasing Corp. for nonpayment of taxes. To satisfy the levy, the IRS seized several automobiles from the street in front of G.M.'s offices. Also without a warrant, the IRS entered G.M.'s offices and seized business books and records. Has the Fourth Amendment been violated with the seizure of the cars? of the books and records? [GM. Leasing Corp. v. United States, 429 U.S. 338 (1977).]

Question 16

What problems did the FDA find in the Acme warehouses, and over what period of time did the FDA find the problems?

Question 17

What is the significance of the warnings Mr. Park was given?

Question 18

Is it enough to avoid criminal liability to tell an employee to take care of the problem? What does this case tell you an officer must do to avoid criminal liability?