|🏛️ Justice, Police, 🔪 Crime, 🕵🏻♀️ Criminology, 👨🏻⚖️ Criminal Justice
Table of Contents
Bribery is said to be the practice of giving, offering, soliciting or receiving anything of value, due to the fulfillment of a mere purpose. It often helps in gaining an illicit benefit. There are two distinct classes of offense, according to the statues of federal, such as the bribery and graft. The statute for bribery is 18 USCS prec statute 201 (b). It is applicable for anyone who indirectly or directly offers, corrupts or promises various valuable items. Firstly, an offender can be punished by giving a verdict of fifteen years sentence or more. On the other hand, the alleged individual may have to end-up paying three times more than the offered bribery value. Lastly, if the case is even stronger then the offender can be disqualified or terminated from the trustworthy or honorary position. Alternatively, the special bribery statutes are also present in the federal government of U.S. Even the statute refrains the interstate commerce which is intended to engage onto various types of unlawful activity including the bribery. Commercial bribery is almost similar to the other types of bribery acts but only the difference is its relation with the commercial world. For example, the value things must not be given to the employees, agents, private agents, and fiduciaries with the intention of giving bribery.
One of the most prominent cases of bribery is the Kellogg Root & Brown LLC case. It was a global construction, engineering, and service company. KBR agreed for the 402 million dollars payment, according to the plea agreement (WPC, 2009). Nigerian government officials were bribed by the organization. The first agent was provided a lump sum amount of money, i.e., 132 million dollars. Several investigative assistances had to join from both the IRS and FBI. The bribery allegation was settled thereafter, by the company. On the other hand, the allegations were related to the foreign bribery. However, KBR cooperated with the government of U.S. via the extensive investigations that occurred during the preceding five years.
Perrin v. United States is one of those cases where it was observed that the petitioners conspired and violated the 18 U.S.C 1952’s Travel Act. After all, it is an offense, in the federal legislation to using an interstate commerce facility for committing bribery. It is unlawful in nature. The data of a geological exploration was stolen from nowhere but a company, which is based in Louisiana. As per the Court of Appeals, the Travel Act bribery intended by Congress must include only the public officials’ bribery and nothing else. The interstate commerce element was present in the case itself. Alternatively, the Congress never intended to apply the Travel Act in accordance with the criminal activities, associated with a single state only. The reason is that at certain times, various persons patronize the above-discussed aspect from other states. Thus, the interstate nexus sufficiency is hardly an issue, anymore. Hence, the presence of the interstate nexus requisition reflects a deliberate and clear intention of the Congress so as to alter the balance that exists between the state and federal.
an A-level paper for you.
The forgery offense in U.K. is quite distinct. A person is often found guilty of forgery, especially when he or she makes any instrument that is false mainly, with the intention of accepting or inducing someone for accepting the same. Even though it is convinced to the person as a genuine aspect yet the same is actually false. There are several instruments where the section can be applied are the postal orders, money orders, Inland Revenue stamps, postage stamps of U.K., share certificates, travelers’ checks, checks, promissory notes, bankers’ draft, credit cards, debits cards, and certified copies. In U.K., the Counterfeiting and Forgery Act was introduced in the year 1981. Its chapter 45 contains the above-mentioned aspects. On the other hand, fraudulency can be done by the virtue of positional abuse, false representation, disclosure information failing, and conspiracy to defraud.
There are many signature forgery cases in the U.K. It is primarily the act of forging others’ signature by means of different criminal methods. For example, a person can trace a signature in a deed or will for taking away the properties. However, varying types of signature forging symptoms can be witnessed. For instance, one can identify a forged signature by the pen’s lifts, size of signature, signs of retouching, and shaky handwriting. Even at times, prescription can be forged. For example, a doctor’s signature can be forged or the entire one can be falsely presented. Most importantly, prescription forgery is even more common these days. A large number of common forgeries can be witnessed, nowadays, for example, restitution, probation, fines, prison time, and many more.
The London’s mayor mainly, forged a document which resulted in a fraud, i.e., of 1700 dollars. On the contrary, Fontana was mainly convicted of the breach of trust, forgery, and fraud by an official (Jones, 2014). The House of Commons was submitted the forged document for the reimbursement. Alternatively, the judges were quite confused how a person of such a respectable position can perform the heinous crime of fraudulency.
Rahila Kausar v Regina is a forgery related to the properties and mortgage. Alternatively, the mortgage fraud term is often uses for the aspects such as the valuation, identity, and application. The accused may provide a forged document via any dishonest means, where false valuations can be witnessed. On the contrary, the misrepresentation can be done by anyone. For instance, a legitimate purchaser may misrepresent any particular data. In the second instance, another person’s identity can be stolen or hijacked by making the properties and mortgage’s applications. Last but not the least, various types of professionals and intermediaries such as the solicitors, surveyors, and brokers may apply any dishonest scheme by submitting the false property valuation. The above-mentioned case is concerned with the mortgage fraud. For instance, the appellant tried to cheat another involved party by preparing a false mortgage application. She wanted to deceive the lender, in this way, by the means of mortgage loan.
False pretenses in U.S.A.
Oftentimes, the properties can be obtained by the means of false pretenses. It is evident in the criminal law. On the contrary, it is valid if the acquisition can be witnessed from the misrepresentation of the existing facts or the past. There are many elements included in the false pretenses. However, the false pretenses are not only limited to the personal properties which are tangible in nature. A handful of the statues comprise the service and intangible personal properties, as well. In U.S., when the individual aims to commit various crimes via the false pretenses, mostly, they misrepresent a particular fact so as to take away someone else’s property. It is definitely a crime. Most of the states punish the same through the imprisonment practices and fines. The prosecutor has to prove the fact that the person accused has obtained another individual’s property merely by misstating a fact, intentionally. However, it is important not to mistake the larceny-by-trick with the false pretense cases. They are quite identical to one another. For instance, when a crime such as false pretense is taken place, the property’s title gets transferred in the perpetrator’s name. On the other hand, in the larceny-by-trick scenarios, such titles are not transferred. 18 U.S. Code statutes 1031 represents the major frauds that occur against the federal government of the U.S. In the above-mentioned crime, the false pretenses are also included. Both the properties and money must not be promised or represented to the states.
United States v Bell is the case which can vividly decipher the false pretense aspects. The petitioner opened a bank account at a banking institution by utilizing his name. Alternatively, the bank provides both the loans and saving option. On the other hand, his birth date, address, and social security number provide were not true (Justia, 2018). At another brand, later that day itself, the petitioner himself deposited a check of 10,000 dollars, of a third party. The petitioner’s account number was deciphered but by altering the endorsement made. Later, the petitioner received the remaining balance totally, in cash, after closing his account. The trial that took place in the district court of the Federal gave verdict that the convicted person violated 2113 (b). As per the proclamations of the Appeals’ Court, the statute considered all the takings which are felonious in nature. Even it was decided by the court that the alleged person obtained a havoc amount under the jurisdiction of the false pretenses. Contradictorily, a bank also requires the protection from the larceny-by-trick and pretenses.
The second case related to the scenarios of false pretenses is the United States v McNally. According the statute 18 U.S.C. 1341, the federal government prohibits the mails’ usage so as to execute any type of artifice to defraud any scheme or obtaining money via the false pretenses. Gray, the petitioner of this case, along with McNally was charged for the violation of the statute 1341. The Commonwealth’s government and the citizens were defrauded by the petitioners by means of a scheme devising (Department of Justice, 2018). However, the legislative and language-oriented history of the above-mentioned statute does not articulate about the intangible properties. The statute is big enough to include all the terms included in the conspiracy for various purposes such as the obstructing, impairing, and defeating the governmental department’s lawful functions.
Procedure and process of charging a person in the UAE before the criminal court
The criminal proceedings are considered to be quite complicated and intimidating in the UAE. It is even more disturbing for the expats. For instance, initially, the complaint must be filed by the plaintiff, against any offender. On the other hand, the complaint can be either an oral statement or in written format. The complainant’s statement will lead a witness to testify before the police. On the contrary, the accused may be contacted by the police for extracting his or her statements. The complaint can opt for the opportunity to call the witnesses for testifying things in his favor. As a result, the criminal offense can be best understood from the sequence and occurrence of the events. Even the police have to contact the designated opportunity to inform regarding the favor of an accused person. Alternatively, the police will decisively, boil down the necessary information and record the same. Often the police can refer back to the relevant departments for reviewing the complaints. Once the tasks are finalized and all the parties’ opinions are taken into account, the police force proceeds with the case. After the finalization of tasks, the public prosecution will refer to the complaints. The prosecution is that authority who is empowered to refer various cases of the criminal court. Hardly, any fees are required for proceeding with the criminal complaint filing, before the police. On the other hand, if the complainant’s legal services are sought then the attorney must be paid professional legal fees. The three categories of crime, under the jurisdictions of UAE are the felonies, misdemeanor, and contraventions. On the other hand, the main punishments settled are the Diyat, confinement, and fine of a thousand Dirhams. Alternatively, the felonies’ punishments are the temporary imprisonment, Diyat, death penalty, and life imprisonment. It is important to notice that the fines are taken by the government of UAE and not the victim.
The criminal court of Dubai is actually empowered to acquit, fine, and imprison all the accused persons, who are charged with varying range of criminal offenses. Most of the court proceedings are done in Arabic language. On the contrary, three different stages can be witnessed for the UAE’s court such as the Cassation court, Court of Appeal, and the First Instance’s Court. If the offender does not possess any prison sentence then it is not mandatory to physically remain present in the court’s proceedings. In such a case, a legal representative can remain present in the court, in lieu of the offender. On the other hand, the victims also remain permitted to hire their own legal representative.
The trials are started mainly by the judge. Alternatively, the public prosecution along with the victim presents their claims. Next, the accused person is asked to either deny or admit his or her charges. The hearing dates are given if there is not adequate proof to determine the guilt. Both the accused and victim possess the right for pleading thereby setting out the defense, claims, and other evidences. Written submissions are needed in this case. The hearings are conducted several times with a gap of 2 to 3 weeks, in between. Under the regulations of UAE, a criminal complaint is often made against the individuals for slander and libel, especially under the 380 and 371 Articles of the Penal Code. The plaintiffs are not responsible to prove their financial losses pertaining to the defamation. There are always two different parties; one, where the criminal complaint was filed against the employee of Dubai police. Afterwards, the public prosecutor accessed the review of various complaints. Lastly, the Cassation Court said that the defendant’s allegations were not valid. It is observable that it is not possible for everyone to know Arabia, explicitly. Hence, it may end-up creating problems for him or her, if struggling with any case in UAE.
- Department of Justice. 2018. McNally and intangible rights. Retrieved from: https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-945-mcnally-and-intangible-rights.
- Jones, A. 2014. London, Ont. mayor ‘devastated’ by guilty verdict in fraud case. Retrieved from: https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/london-ont-mayor-devastated-by-guilty-verdict-in-fraud-case-1.1867184.
- Justia. 2018. Bell v. United States, 462 U.S. 356 (1983). Retrieved from: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/462/356/case.html.
- Perrin v. United States  444 U.S. 37
- Rahila Kausar v Regina  EWCA Crim 2242
- United States v Bell  462 U.S. 356
- United States v McNally  483 U.S. 350
- WPC. 2009. Halliburton, KBR settle bribery allegations. Retrieved from: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/11/AR2009021103400.html.