Home Criminal Page 4

Criminal

Accessory

Accessory

An accessory to a crime is a person that helps to enable a crime but does not commit the crime themselves.  There is a legal distinction for “mens rea” or “guilty mind,” meaning that the person must be aware that their actions will help in the commission of a crime.  Therefore, one cannot be an unknowing accessory to a crime.  An accessory to a crime generally provides a criminal with the means or opportunity to commit a crime.

What are terms related to accessory?
Principal – the principal is the individual that actually commits the crime.  The accessory can be charged as severely as the principal depending on the jurisdiction.
Conspiracy – an accessory that provides assistance prior to the commission of a crime by the principal will usually be considered in conspiracy to commit a crime with the principal.  One that incites principals to commit crimes is also an accessory in conspiracy with another.  The accessory is an active participant in a conspiracy rather than having mere knowledge of it.

Does an accessory have to be a part of the crime?
An accessory merely enables the commission of a crime, which means that they need not participate in the actually commission of a crime.  For example, an accessory to burglary can provide the actual burglar with access codes or keys to enter the property.  The accessory does not steal any items but has served as an accessory to another in the commission of a crime.  Some laws may even label an individual an accessory to a crime if they have reasonable suspicion that their aid will be sued to commit a crime but choose to proceed with their actions anyway.  This is called criminal facilitation.
What is the typical penalty for accessory to a crime?
Due to the distinction for a “guilty mind” and the establishment that the accessory had full knowledge of the crime, the accessory is generally punished with the same severity as the person that committed the crime.  This of course, varies by jurisdiction.  Penalties for participating as an accessory will however be somewhat severe as the accessory to a crime had the potential to stop the crime, either through ending cooperation or informing the authorities.  Accessory punishments may vary depending on the nature of the crime and the level of participation on their part.
What are distinctions to accessory charges?
An individual can be charged as an accessory “before” or “after the fact.”  Accessory before the fact is assistance given to a criminal before the crime is committed, similar to the previous example.  Accessory after the fact generally involves helping a criminal conceal a crime or intentionally failing to report the crime to the authorities.
Most laws prevent an individual from being charged as an accessory to the crime until the principal that committed the crime is convicted.  

What is the contemporary American legal definition of accessory?
The US federal criminal code defines accessory charges with the terms “aiding and abetting.”  This law specifically states that any individual that “aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures” for the commission of a crime will receive the same punishment as the principal.  The elements of aiding and abetting include mens rea, a guilty principal and evidence that the individual acted as an accessory.

Scott Peterson

Scott Peterson

 


Scott Peterson

 

Scott Peterson is a convicted murderer whose case met with a large degree of publicity due to the many lurid circumstances involved. He married Laci Rocha in August 1997.  Five years later, he called the police on Christmas Eve of 2002 to report her disappearance. At the time of her disappearance, Laci Peterson was eight months pregnant.

 

The initial police investigation did not consider Scott Peterson to be a suspect in the case. However, he soon became a target of their investigation as evidence emerged that he had engaged in serial extramarital activities. At the time of Laci Peterson's disappearance, Scott Peterson had been conducting an affair with Amber Frey. Amber Frey did not realize that Scott Peterson was married to a technically missing person when they began their relationship. Upon learning so, she contacted the police.

 

Remains of a fetus, followed by the body of Laci Peterson, were found in April 2003 in an area where Scott Peterson had taken a boating trip on Christmas Eve. However, due to the amount of time the remains had spent in the water and the attendant decomposition, an autopsy was unable to determine a precise date or cause of death. Subsequently, a piece of hair from the body of Laci Peterson was found on Scott Peterson's boat.

 

Scott Peterson was arrested three days after the body of his wife was found. His trial commenced in June 2004 in Redwood City rather than his home town of Modesto, since the publicity accorded to the case in the area made it unlikely that an unbiased jury could be convened. His defense attorneys made the lack of direct evidence linking him with the homicide the basis of their argument. Aside from the hair found on his boat, no direct proof could be found of his commission of the crime.

 

The trial was marred by the replacement of two jurors. The first juror was replaced by an alternate when video footage revealed that the juror had spoken with the older brother of Laci Peterson, thereby creating a conflict of interests. Later, jury foreman Gregory Jackson requested that he be removed from his position, citing threats he had received while serving as a juror. He was also replaced by an alternate.

 

The trial reached its conclusion on November 12 when the jury found Scott Peterson guilty of both the first-degree murder of his wife and the second-degree murder of her fetus. After an interim of three weeks, the jury reconvened on November 30 to determine what his penalty should be. After another two weeks, the jury concluded that Scott Peterson should be awarded the death penalty.

 

In March 2005, Scott Peterson was sentenced to death by lethal injection. As of October 2012, Scott Peterson remains in custody on death row. In July of 2012, one of his attorneys filed an appeal with the court, citing a number of legal errors committed during the trial.

Enforcement

Enforcement

For victims of a crime, one of their rights is the right to have punishments prescribed and enforced on offenders.  This means that the government, courts and law enforcement is responsible for ensuring that the criminal abides by the sentencing provisions in the conviction.  For instance, a criminal on parole must be monitored by the relevant authority to ensure that they do not break parole rules.
What are punishments enforced on criminals?
The most obvious form of enforcement is sentencing the offender to jail.  In the jail or other correctional facility, the criminal will be monitored and restricted.  The criminal will not be able to intimidate of threaten the victim and contact with others outside the prison will be strictly limited.
There are times when alternative enforcement may be necessary.  If the criminal is mentally incompetent or otherwise handicapped, it is the responsibility of the authorities to enforce a confinement to a mental institution or mandatory mental health services.  The authorities fail in their duty of enforcement if they allow an individual to continue with destructive behavior that may harm either the victim or others.
A criminal may be eligible for early release, depending heavily on their conduct and nature of this sentence.  It is the responsibility of authorities to monitor and enforce the terms of parole, with the threat of a return to jail and other penalties for violating this condition.
A sex offender is punished not only through jail time, but also through registration as a sex offender.  This is a type of enforcement that protects the community from a potential dangerous criminal.

Bruce Rappaport

Bruce Rappaport

 


Bruce Rappaport

 

Bruce Rappaport, who died in 2010, was a controversial international banker and philanthropist associated with a number of criminal investigations. He primarily was associated with activities which occurred in Antigua, known as a tax haven for illicit transactions, and was often associated with the nation's controversial prime minister Lester Bird.

 

in 1983, Bruce Rappaport founded the Swiss American Bank Ltd. in Antigua. This institution was sued in 1999 by the United States government on behalf of John E. Fitzgerald, a financier who had agreed to a plea bargain in return for testifying about laundering $7 million through the bank. The lawsuit alleged that rather than returning the funds to the United States, Swiss American Bank Ltd. distributed the funds between payments to the government of Antigua and Barbados, as well as a sum entered into a privately held account in the Bank of Barbados. This legal action against Bruce Rappaport did not proceed.

 

In 2006, Bruce Rappaport was sued by the government of Antigua and Barbados for criminal offenses dating back to 1984, when the government contracted with the Japanese company IHI for the construction of a power plant and another desalination plant. Subsequently, the government was unable to maintain its payments for this contract, as well as two separate debts to the companies Foster Wheeler and Credit Suisse.

 

In response, in March 1990 Bruce Rappaport was placed in charge of making the appropriate payments, and was reauthorized in November 1996 to renegotiate the terms of the loans. It was agreed that Bruce Rappaport's company IHI Debt Settlement Company would would receive a monthly payment of $403,334 for 25 years for the purposes of paying all debts. At this time, another Bruce Rappaport company — the West Indies Oil Company — was granted an extension on its monopoly right to import oil into Antigua and Barbados.

 

A government investigation which began in 1997 determined that between December 1996 and January 1996, the payments collected by Bruce Rappaport were greatly in excess of what was owed to IHI and other debt payments. A complicated series of financial transfers placed excess sums totaling $14,414,904 were deposited in a number of bank accounts, including one maintained in Miami.

 

As a result, in 2006 the government of Antigua and Barbados obtained an injunction in Miami court freezing the transfer of all assets from the Miami bank. The lawsuit was dropped when Bruce Rappaport agreed to make a payment of $12 million to the government of Antigua and Barbados in return for immunity from prosecution.

 

Bruce Rappaport was a subject of interest in a number of other investigations concerning corruption and misappropriation of funds. For example, in 1999 a lawsuit was filed against the Bank of New York-InterMaritime as part of a larger investigation regarding the money laundering of some $10 billion, primarily in money obtained by Russian criminal enterprises.

Proceedings

Proceedings

A victim of a crime has a right to be present at the proceedings related to his or her case.  The victim also has a right to address the court and speak on matters relevant to the case, at his or her discretion.  This is called a victim impact statement.  The victim has several guarantees by the justice system in regards to the prosecution of the criminal.
The proceedings will begin as soon as possible and will avoid unnecessary delays.  This is an obligation to both the victim and the accused.  The speedy trial will run according to established proceedings, according to the law and will avoid technicalities and other complications that might compromise the case.  
The proceedings must be fair and account for all admissible evidence.  The evidence must be obtained legally, according to the proceedings and this is an obligation to the victim to prosecute the case thoroughly.
Depending on the offense, there will be different proceedings.  Some offenses will entail a hearing, and the victim will have to be informed of every legal proceeding related to his or her case.  This includes pre-trial hearings and parole hearings.
All proceedings will begin with a presumption of innocence on the accused and the burden of proof is one the prosecution to use evidence and prove that the accused has the motive, means and opportunity to carry out the criminal act.  The proceedings will be open to the victim and every effort will be made to protect the victim during the proceedings.

Abul Manzoor

Abul Manzoor

 

Abul Manzoor

Abul Manzoor was a member of the Bangladeshi military who was part of a group of rebels responsible for the assassination of Bangladeshi president Ziaur Rahman in 1981.

 

Abul Manzoor was a career military officer whose friendship with Ziaur Rahman dating back to 1971. At that time, both men were involved in the 9-month Liberation war of Bangladesh, which was then known as East Pakistan. Subsequently, Ziaur Rahman was the founder of the Bangladesh National Party. In the wake of the formation of Bangladesh, a series of power struggles ensued.

 

A dispute emerged in 1977 over who should be appointed to the position of Cheif of Staff of the Bangladeshi army. While Abul Manzoor felt that he should be appointed to this position, Mir Shawkat Ali had seniority over him. Ziaur Rahman grew disgusted with both men's actions and instead appointed Hussain Muhammed Ershad to the position in 1978,

 

Subsequently, Ershad transferred Abul Manzoor to Dhaka. As a result, the infuriated Abul Manzoor decided to lead a coup attempt and led a group of rebel soldiers in the assassination of Ziaur Rahman, which occurred on May 30, 1981. The actual execution of the president was committed by another soldier, Matiur Rahman.

 

In response, Ershad ordered that the army apprehend the killers and arrest them. Abul Manzoor attempted to escape but was apprehended by the police. Upon his capture, he requested that he be put in police custody pending a trial, fearing that members of the army would otherwise kill him. The army caught up with Abul Manzoor after he had been put into a police van. Though the exact circumstances of his death are unclear, it is generally agreed that Abul Manzoor was shot by military members.

Restitution

Restitution

Restitution is a right of victims that allows for the recovery of benefit that the criminal gained from the victim.  This is the opposite of compensation where the criminal reimburses the victim for any losses incurred through their actions.  restitution is common in civil cases, although it may also be ordered in criminal cases is the criminal reaps a financial benefit from the victim due to the commission of the crime.
When is restitution common?
Any time a fiduciary duty between two persons is breached, the victim may receive restitution as the other person usually benefits financially as a result of the breach.  The victim in this white collar crime then has a right to restitution, in addition to possible criminal penalties.
What is an example of a breach of a fiduciary duty?
The relationship between a financial advisor and client will generally constitute a fiduciary duty.  The advisor may not benefit off the client unless specifically allowed to do so through written or other agreements.  If one member of party works against the best interests of the other, then the victimized party can seek restitution in court to recover the gains accrued by the other party.
How does restitution work?
The court will order restitution when appropriate and the criminal will be liable to pay the victim any gains through the criminal activity.  If sufficient funds do not exist, liens may be placed against their property or wages and other benefits may be garnished.  The restitution obligation is considered a debt to the victim and will impact their credit worthiness for the failure to pay restitution, as ordered by the courts.

DWI

DWI

What is a DWI?
A DWI is a criminal offense that involves the operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.  Many states will have laws that differ on the definition of a DWI, but generally, a Blood Alcohol Concentration of .08 will be sufficient to establish a DWI.
How does alcohol affect the operation of a vehicle?
Although the BAC level will depend on a number of factors, including the size of person and type of alcohol consumed, there are some general benchmarks as to how the body responds at certain levels of intoxication.
.02 – altered judgment, relaxation that prevents the individual from multitasking
.05 – lack of focus, relaxation that causes a lack of alertness or coordination
.08 – heavily impaired judgment, memory loss, poor perception
.1 – heavily impaired thinking, difficulty keeping movements controlled
.15 – impaired thinking and judgment, physical illness, no coordination
Are certain alcohols safer to drink to avoid a DWI?
No.  One should assume that every alcoholic beverage would impair them.  Alcohol affects individuals in different ways, although it universally impacts judgments and muscle control.  Different types of alcohol will have different concentrations of alcohol and one cannot readily estimate, even with typical benchmarks how high their BAC level will be after consuming alcohol.  It is best to avoid alcohol altogether when driving, so as to ensure you do not receive a DWI.
What are typical penalties for a DWI?
A first DUI offense can carry penalties as severe as 30 months in jail, a fines ranging from $500 – $5,000 dollars and a one year license suspension.  Some states may require additional fines paid to be paid into a DUI victim’s trust fund.  These penalties escalate with each offense, with minimum jail time, and breathalyzer ignition locks on the violator’s car.  States such as New York may impose stiffer penalties if there is a minor in the car while the driver is intoxicated.  A good DWI lawyer is necessary in this case to lessen the more severe punishments and present a reasonable case for your innocence, or at least to lessen liability.  Having DWI charges dismissed is a rarity and one should not expect this when going to court, unless there is clear cut evidence of police wrongdoing or a lack of admissible evidence.

Finding a DWI lawyer
When seeking a DUI/DWI lawyer, be sure of the circumstances surrounding the charges.  You will need to present the police report and your account of the situation to the DUI/DWI lawyer.  Only then can the DUI/DWI lawyer help you build a possible defense.  At the very least, the DUI/DWI layer will be able to accompany you to your administrative hearing to serve as your advocate and circumnavigate potentially complicated DUI/DWI laws.  If you do not request an administrative hearing, you may lose your license under state law, which is why you should consult a DUI/DWI lawyer before taking another action related to your case.  Expect a DWI lawyer to charge a retainer fee, hourly fee or both, depending on your circumstances.  Understand that these cases are not always successful and your DWI lawyer may have a difficult if not impossible time winning a favorable outcome based on your actions.

Gamer Hacked and Disabled New Hampshire Servers

Gamer Hacked and Disabled New Hampshire Servers


On November 15, 2012, the Department of Justice announced that a Dutch national was indicted by a federal grand jury in the District of New Hampshire after he conspired to hack into and disable servers belonging to Rampid Interactive.  The company is based out of New Hampshire, and it hosts an online game called “Outwar.”


The defendant’s name is Anil Kheda, and he is charged with one count of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion and one count of extortionate interstate threats.  


According to the indictment, Kheda and other members of the conspiracy hacked into the computer systems of Rampid without authorization from November 2007 to August 2008.  The conspirators caused the game to become unplayable for several days at a time.  They were able to gain access to user accounts, restore accounts for suspended players, and obtain a copy of the computer code for “Outwar.”  


From the computer code, the conspirators were then able to create an online game called “Outcraft” that competed with “Outwar.”  Throughout the infiltration into Rampid’s system, the conspirators also sent messages that stated they would continue to hack into the systems unless Rampid paid them money and provided other benefits.  


Rampid could not operate “Outwar” for a total of two weeks because of the hacking.  They lost $100,000 in the process after it had invested $1.5 million to create the game in the first place.  Kheda was able to make $10,000 off the “Outcraft,” and he had about 10,000 players worldwide participating in the game.  


He now faces up to five years in prison for the conspiracy charge and two years in prison for the threats.  The Justice Department has not released any information about the maximum amount of fines.  


The FBI investigated the case against Kheda.  


Source: Department of Justice

Two Charged in “Bonnie and Clyde” Style Bank Robbery

Two Charged in “Bonnie and Clyde” Style Bank Robbery


The days of armed bank robberies by husband and wife are far from over.  On November 7, 2012, the US Attorney’s Office for the District of New Mexico reported that Robert O’Dell Neihart and his wife, Denise Myrick, were charged for armed bank robbery.  They were indicted on October 23, 2012.  


The indictment indicates that Neihart and Myrick robbed the Wells Fargo Bank on 4601 Main Street in Farmington, New Mexico on September 21, 2012.  The indictment also specifies that Neihart used a firearm, pointed the firearm at a bank customer, and discharged the weapon after the robbery.  


Around 4:00 p.m. on September 21, 2012, Neihart entered the bank and gave a note to the bank teller demanding cash.  Neihart proceeded to place the cash in a bag and left the bank with the bag.  A bank customer followed Neihart into the parking lot, and Neihart pointed the gun at him.  


He then climbed into a black truck with Myrick at the wheel.  Neihart eventually climbed into the driver’s seat a short distance away, and a high-speed chase started around Aztec, New Mexico.  The chase continued all the way into Colorado.  Neihart fired shots at a San Juan County Sheriff’s Department vehicle, but nobody was injured.  The two defendants were arrested when they arrived to their residence in Ignacio.  


Each of the defendants now faces up to 25 years in prison for the bank robbery charge.  The charge for using a firearm during the crime comes with a mandatory 10 years in prison, and the sentence will be served consecutively with the bank robbery charge.  


The investigation was led by the FBI, the Farmington Police Department, the San Juan County Sheriff’s Office, the La Plata County Sheriff’s Department, and the U.S. Marshals Service.  


Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation