Facebook
Home Criminal Page 4

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.

Right to be Informed

Right to be Informed

One of the more important rights afforded to the victims of a crime is the right to be informed on the status of their case, punishments and remedial actions taken against the criminal.  The will be informed of the proceedings and of any developments on the status of the victim.
All victims of a crime are entitled to a free copy of the police report related to their incident.  In addition, all victims of a crime receive access to the Victim Information and Notification Everyday (VINE) hotline where you may inquire about the status of an offender and the likely release date of that offender.  The victim of a crime will be informed on a number of procedural matters related to the criminal and will also be informed if the criminal is released or escapes from prison.
The authorities have an obligation to inform victims of crime on the parole status and location of the criminal after they have been released from prison.  The authorities will also inform non-victims of a crime if a dangerous criminal or sex offender moves into their area.
There is also a right to be informed for criminals, known as their Miranda rights, which protect the rights of the accused from self-incrimination.  This right to be informed benefits victims as it ensures that all evidence collected will be legitimate and has a better chance of holding up at trial, which ensures a fair and speedy trial.

Miranda Rights

Miranda Rights


The Miranda rights are a series of legal protections afforded to those that are accused of a crime.  These rights are present in the constitution but were clarified in the 1966 case of Miranda v. Arizona. Statements made by the accused before being informed of their rights are generally in admissible in court, except in certain cases.  Some physical evidence, such as blood alcohol testing will be admissible, even if it is taken before the suspect is informed on their Miranda rights.  Individuals in police custody need not be informed of their Miranda rights until they are actually accused of a crime.  Suspects that do not speak English or have limited English ability must be provided with a translated version of their Miranda rights.
What were the circumstances of Miranda v. Arizona?
Ernesto Arturo Miranda signed a confession provided to him by the police that states that he was guilty of rape and kidnapping and was confessing on his own free will.  He was not informed of his right to legal counsel and statements he had made to the police were construed as a confession, which was used at trial to sentence him to jail for 25 – 30 years.  The case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court where the majority ruled that police custodial confessions such as the one made by Miranda were coercive in nature and that accused needs to be informed of their rights before interacting with the police.
What are the Miranda rights?
Right against self-incrimination –
When in police custody and charged with a crime, the suspect is obligated to do two things.  The suspect must provide identification and must state his or her name.  The suspect must also comply with all DNA or blood testing in addition to fingerprinting.  You do not want to obstruct the investigation or impede police work.  Anything else, especially statements, must be made with the presence of an attorney.
One will incriminate themselves when they make a seemingly innocuous statement to the police.  For instance, making a statement signaling dislike for the victim but otherwise denying involvement in the crime will be enough admissible evidence to establish motive when the case goes to trial.  The police detective will testify to earing you say that you “did not like the defendant.”  Full or partial statements made in police custody after being issued a Miranda warning can, and will be used against you in a court of law.
The protection against self-incrimination is in the Fifth Amendment and gives individuals the right to refuse questions that may implicate them in illegal activity.  This right is waived when the suspect beings cooperating with police questioning.  Generally, one cannot selectively choose which questions to answer.  Pleading the Fifth cannot be used as an admission of guilt.  Those granted immunity from criminal prosecution is no longer allowed the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination.  One cannot plead the Fifth when being questioned about the activities of another and this information would not incriminate them.
Right to an attorney – 
The right to an attorney is found in the Sixth Amendment and guarantees the right to an attorney to all, including the poor and indigent.  For those that cannot afford an attorney, a public defender is appointed to handle the case.  The application of the Sixth amendment rights was spotty until the 1963 case of Gideon v Wainwright where the Supreme Court rules that jurisdictions were obligated to provide legal counsel for all accused of all crime.  The state of Florida, prior to this case, only provided counsel to those facing capital punishment.  The presence of legal counsel is essential to ensuring the suspect receives a fair trial, as per the provisions of the constitution.
Miscellaneous –
Some, but certainly not all states will also ask the defendant if they understand their rights and if they wish to speak with the officers after they understand their Miranda rights.
States bordering Mexico will often add that the accused may contact their consulate prior to police questioning.

What are usually the contents of a Miranda Warning?
Miranda warnings vary by state, but will generally have four essential statements
– You have the right to remain silent
– Anything you say will be used against you in a court of law
– You have the right to an attorney
– If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you
The miscellaneous provisions described above may be added at the discretion of the jurisdiction.
Why would law enforcement neglect to offer a Miranda Warning?
With full knowledge that the evidence they gather is not admissible in court prior to a warning, law enforcement may still try to interrogate the suspect.  They are allowed to act on statements and evidence gathered from the suspect that has not been informed of his or her rights.
In 2004, the Supreme Court ruled on Missouri v. Seibert, finding that the practice of coaxing confessions out of suspects prior to informing them of their rights, then informing them of their rights and obtaining a second confession was unconstitutional.
What are recent developments in the application of Miranda rights?
Berghuis v. Thompkins (2010), decided in the Supreme Court, has ruled that voluntary statements made by the suspect in police custody after being informed of Miranda rights can be interpreted as a waiver of those rights, making the statements admissible in determining the suspect’s guilt.  This is an important development that many suspects will not be aware of and may lead my in police custody to incriminate themselves through cooperating with the police.  The suspect must explicitly invoke his fifth amendment right to halt the police interrogation.
Maryland v. Shatzer (2010) found that the right to counsel would need to be invoked again if the suspect reentered police custody two weeks after being released.  This case derived from the questioning of Shatzer on child molestation charges that had an attorney for the first interrogation but lacked legal counsel three years later upon reopening the case and made incriminating statements that implicated him in the molestation charges.

Affirmative Defense

Affirmative Defense

What Is an Affirmative Defense?

An affirmative defense is a claim made by a defense that offers a justification for the action or behavior for which the defendant is on trial.  The intention of an affirmative defense is to admit to the plaintiff or prosecution’s claims but limit liability due to the circumstances surrounding your action.

What is the insanity defense?

The insanity defense is an affirmative defense where the defendant claims that they have no criminal liability due to a mental illness.  This mental illness prevents them from behaving like a “reasonable person.”  The assumption of a “reasonable person” is the foundation of modern civil and criminal law and this is the reason why this affirmative defense is often made.  A court appointed psychologist or expert witness is generally necessary to ascertain if the defendant is indeed mentally competent or unable to assume criminal liability for his or her actions.

What is self-defense?

Self-defense is an affirmative defense where the defendant justifies his or her actions, generally a violent action against another person, as necessary to protect themselves from potential harm.  Here the defendant puts the blame for the incident on the other party for acting in such a way that a reasonable person would have an honest and reasonable believe that they are in harm’s way.  The law will allow for self-defense in this case, although the self-defense must be consistent with the amount of danger and potential harm that could have come from that situation.

How is an affirmative defense used in practice?

The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that an affirmative defense must be based on "knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances” and must be made in good faith, rather than a frivolous legal strategy.  The burden of proof is on the party that uses the affirmative defense is to prove that the situation outlined in their defense is factual and backed by evidence. 

What are some examples of affirmative defenses in criminal law?

In addition to pleasing insanity or self-defense, one may plead that they were compelled to do the crime under duress.  Duress would implicate another party that threatens harm greater than the harm committed by the defendant.  The defendant must have a reasonable and logical belief that they are in danger and their refusal to cooperate in the criminal act will cause them immediate harm.  If successfully prove, an individual cannot be criminally liable for actions the committed under duress.

Alternatively, the defendant may mount an affirmative defense stating the statute of limitations for the crime has expired and the court has not authority to hear the case.  If the statute of limitations, as defined by law, has indeed been exceeded, then the individual may not be tried for past actions.

What are some examples of affirmative defenses in civil law?

There are a number of affirmative defenses in civil law, each referring to a specific situation.  Fair use is an affirmative defense in copyright law.  Contributory negligence is a popular affirmative defense in personal liability and accident cases, pleading that the plaintiff is at least partially responsible for his or her own injuries.

If you need legal advice and assistance, contact defense lawyers.

 

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

1...345...31Page 4 of 31
Facebook

EVEN MORE NEWS

POPULAR CATEGORY

©