DOCSLIB.ORG

Model Criminal Code

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Model Criminal Code MODEL CRIMINAL CODE CHAPTER 3 THEFT, FRAUD, BRIBERY AND RELATED OFFENCES Report December 1995 MODEL CRIMINAL CODE These are the final views of the Model Criminal OFFICERS Code Officers Committee. They do not represent COMMITTEE OF THE the views of the Standing Committee of STANDING COMMITTEE OF Attorneys-General ATTORNEYS-GENERAL MODEL CRIMINAL CODE CHAPTER 3 THEFT, FRAUD, BRIBERY AND RELATED OFFENCES REPORT Model Criminal Code Officers Committee of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General December 1995 This report contains the views of the Model Criminal Code Officers Committee. It does not represent the views of the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General ISBN 0 642 20848 4 PREFACE Background On 28 June 1990, the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (SCAG) placed the question of the development of uniform criminal codes for Australian jurisdictions on its agenda. That decision flowed from a request of the Northern Territory Attorney-General and took into account that most jurisdictions were either undertaking, or about to undertake, major reviews of their respective criminal laws. In order to advance the concept, SCAG established a Committee - originally known as the Criminal Law Officers Committee (CLOC) - which consisted of one or more officers from each jurisdiction who had special responsibility for advising his or her Attorney-General on criminal law issues. In November 1993, SCAG changed the name of the Committee to the Model Criminal Code Officers Committee (MCCOC) in order to communicate the Committee’s primary role more clearly. The first formal meeting of the Committee took place in May 1991, when it was decided that priority should be given to principles of criminal responsibility which were seen as the very foundations of any system of criminal justice. The Committee delivered a Discussion Draft of a proposed Chapter of a Model Criminal Code dealing with General Principles of Criminal Responsibility to SCAG in July 1992 and it was circulated for comment. Fifty-two written submissions were received in response to that Discussion Draft. In addition to these submissions, the Final Report reflects the substance of many meetings with criminal law experts and detailed comments from delegates to the Fourth International Criminal Law Congress held in Auckland in September 1992. SCAG approved the release of the Report on General Principles of Criminal Responsibility and the accompanying Draft Bill for public comment at its February 1993 meeting. The following jurisdictions have endorsed the Report on General Principles of Criminal Responsibility, except for the intoxication rule: ACT, Commonwealth, New South Wales, Queensland, Tasmania, Western Australia (WA have reserved on some issues) and the Northern Territory. SCAG has decided that the case DPP v Majewski [1977] AC 480 provides a better basis for the Model Criminal Code than O’Connor’s case (1980) 146 CLR 64. SCAG has requested preparation of a provision to give effect to this decision. This has been done. The Commonwealth has enacted the Chapter in the Criminal Code Act 1995. Theft, fraud, bribery and related offences The excesses of the 1980s have focussed a great deal of attention on the prosecution of fraud offences in Australia. Corruption in the public sector has also found focus in the FitzGerald Report in Queensland and WA Inc in Western Australia. i That focus finds the substantive law in areas such as theft, fraud, secret commissions and bribery fragmented and complex. The nine jurisdictions operate under nine sets of laws which adopt fundamentally different criteria. Despite the fact that large fraud cases or sophisticated rings trafficking in stolen car parts operate across the country, police interviewing suspects in Brisbane will have to consider a different range of offences and definitions from their counterparts in New South Wales and Victoria. Even the definitions of the basic theft offence are each fundamentally different from one another. Those differences necessitate different questions to establish liability. Where prosecutions are to ensue in those other jurisdictions, detectives from Melbourne, for example, will have to fly to Brisbane and do an entirely different interview based on the elements of the Victorian offences. For some of the offences, even the basic rules about criminal responsibility will be different in Victoria from those which will apply when the case comes to trial in Queensland. Each state will require different sets of prosecution and defence lawyers in each jurisdiction, thus adding to expense and working against moves to facilitate national legal practices and uniform evidence laws. The technical and complex nature of theft and fraud law compounds these problems, especially in the six jurisdictions which retain the common law or the Griffiths Code variations on the common law. Inexperienced police officers can be confronted with a choice between a myriad of specific theft or fraud type offences cobbled together over the years to plug gaps in the pre-existing law. For example, the New South Wales Crimes Act contains a multitude of offences relating to fraud and theft. Often the choices involve excessively technical distinctions about which offence is the correct one to choose. These choices can dog the case from the charge decision, to committal, to drawing the indictment, to the judge’s charge to the jury, to the jury’s decision over which charge, if any, to convict on. This complexity adds a layer of difficulty to cases - particularly fraud and forgery cases - which are already complicated by technical evidence, large quantities of documentary evidence, and outmoded rules of evidence and procedure. The Standing Committee of Attorneys-General has separate projects running on uniform evidence law (now passed in the Commonwealth and New South Wales) and the simplification of evidence and procedure in complex fraud cases. The current fragmentation and complexity of the substantive law threatens the success of these initiatives. But the case for consistency does not rest solely on grounds of efficiency. Whether a person gets convicted of theft, forgery or bribery or a related offence should not depend on those offences having different elements on one side of the River Tweed from the other. Justice and efficiency demand consistent if not uniform offence provisions. In September 1992, a special SCAG meeting on complex fraud cases requested MCCOC to give priority to fraud as the first substantive offence chapter of the Model Criminal Code. This request was based in part on recommendation 8 of the National Crime Authority’s Conference on White Collar Crime held in Melbourne in June 1992: That the various State laws and codes be revised so as to provide uniform fraud legislation as a mechanism for consistency for investigation and presentation of evidence in all Australian jurisdictions. The Standing Committee had in mind the revision of the various substantive fraud offences into a uniform fraud code as part of its reform agenda on the related issues of criminal procedure and laws of evidence applicable to serious and complex fraud. These evidentiary and procedural reforms are being addressed by the various jurisdictions. At an early stage of its deliberations on this topic, MCCOC decided that it would be impossible to deal with fraud in isolation from theft and related offences such as blackmail, forgery, bribery and secret commissions. All these offences involve dishonest acquisition of money or property and may generally be termed property offences. Modern codification projects in this area of the law - notably the Theft Act 1968 (UK), and the theft laws of Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory, which were based on the Theft Act - deal with most of these offences as a package. MCCOC has extended the Theft Act model to include the offences of forgery, bribery and secret commissions in that package. The relationship between the various offences is such that they cannot sensibly be dealt with in isolation from one another. The Theft Act model enables the application of similar concepts across the various offences to produce a logically consistent Code. MCCOC divided the offences into two groups to facilitate the consultation process. The first Discussion Paper (issued in December 1993) dealt with theft, fraud and aggravated forms of theft (robbery and burglary). The Committee argued that the first Discussion Paper provided the basis for reaching a national agreement on a very complex area of the law. More than most offences, fraud knows no jurisdictional boundaries and, in view of what has come to be termed “the excesses of the 80s”, the need for a uniform and principled approach to the problems of fraud and these related offences has never been greater. The vast majority of the submissions endorsed the adoption of the Theft Act model and the goal of uniformity in this area of the law. The second Discussion Paper (issued in July 1994) dealt with the related offences of blackmail, forgery, bribery and secret commissions. The Theft Act model included blackmail but the other offences are very much in need of modernisation. They also vary considerably between the jurisdictions. All of the offences have been codified employing concepts from the Theft Act model but with little alteration to their substance. The major exception in relation to the substance of the offences is the extension of bribery to include bribes offered in the private sector, a reflection of the increasingly blurred and artificial nature of the public/private distinction as a result of privatisation of government functions. More modestly, the forgery offences have been updated to reflect modern technology - innovations such as the computer and high quality photocopiers. In drafting the criminal responsibility chapter of the Model Code, MCCOC attempted to make the document comprehensive and yet concise and capable of being understood not only by legal practitioners but also by the general public. MCCOC felt that a Code which could only be interpreted by lawyers would fail a basic test of acceptability.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Comment Letter on File No. S7-12-06
    1 Nancy Morris 8/29/06 Secretary Securities and Exchange Commission Washington, DC RE: Amendments to Regulation SHO (Release No. 34-54154 File No. S7-12-06) Ms. Morris and SEC Commissioners, My name is Dr. Jim DeCosta and I thank you for this opportunity to comment on these much-needed amendments to Reg SHO. In studying the 51-page circular attached to the proposed amendments I can see that the SEC has put in a great deal of time and thought into this process and your efforts have been duly noted by the investment community and are greatly appreciated. On the other hand though I see that there are those among you that still don’t appreciate the pandemic nature of this systemic “Fraud on the market” or the emergent nature of it as victimized corporations are drowning today in a sea of unaddressed and archaic delivery failures. These unaddressed delivery failures have in turn procreated often unexercisable “Share entitlements” that nearly all investors believe to be legitimate “Shares” that they can vote and receive tax preferential treatment of cash dividends from. Nothing could be further from the truth, however, yet these mere “Share entitlements” are readily sellable as if they were legitimate shares and are capable of inflicting massive dilutional damage upon the share structures of targeted corporations when their numbers and their lifespan are not scrutinized meticulously and kept in check as per the Congressional Mandate of the DTCC management. I’d like to make some suggestions starting in more of a macro sense and then follow it up with some specific suggestions as to amending Reg SHO.
    [Show full text]
  • Imagereal Capture
    Some Aspects of Theft of Computer Software by M. Dunning I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this paper is to test the capability of New Zealand law to adequately deal with the impact that computers have on current notions of crimes relating to property. Has the criminal law kept pace with technology and continued to protect property interests or is our law flexible enough to be applied to new situations anyway? The increase of the moneyless society may mean a decrease in money motivated crimes of violence such as robbery, and an increase in white collar crime. Every aspect of life is being computerised-even our per­ sonality is on character files, with the attendant )ossibility of criminal breach of privacy. The problems confronted in this area are mostly definitional. While it may be easy to recognise morally opprobrious conduct, the object of such conduct may not be so easily categorised as criminal. A factor of this is a general lack of understanding of the computer process, so this would seem an appropriate place to begin the inquiry. II. THE COMPUTER Whiteside I identifies five key elements in a computer system. (1) Translation of data into a form readable by the computer, called input; and subject to manipulation by the introduction of false data. Remote terminals can be situated anywhere outside the cen­ tral processing unit (CPU), connected by (usually) telephone wires over which data may be transmitted, e.g. New Zealand banks on­ line to Databank. Outside users are given a site code number (identifying them) and an access code number (enabling entry to the CPU) which "plug" their remote terminal in.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Law Fraud Liability to Account for It to the Owner
    FRAUD FACTS Issue 17 March 2014 (3rd edition) INFORMATION FOR ORGANISATIONS Fraud in Scotland Fraud does not respect boundaries. Fraudsters use the same tactics and deceptions, and cause the same harm throughout the UK. However, the way in which the crimes are defined, investigated and prosecuted can depend on whether the fraud took place in Scotland or England and Wales. Therefore it is important for Scottish and UK-wide businesses to understand the differences that exist. What is a ‘Scottish fraud’? Embezzlement Overview of enforcement Embezzlement is the felonious appropriation This factsheet focuses on criminal fraud. There are many interested parties involved in of property without the consent of the owner In Scotland criminal fraud is mainly dealt the detection, investigation and prosecution with under the common law and a number where the appropriation is by a person who of statutory offences. The main fraud offences has received a limited ownership of the of fraud in Scotland, including: in Scotland are: property, subject to restoration at a future • Police Service of Scotland time, or possession of property subject to • common law fraud liability to account for it to the owner. • Financial Conduct Authority • uttering There is an element of breach of trust in • Trading Standards • embezzlement embezzlement making it more serious than • Department for Work and Pensions • statutory frauds. simple theft. In most cases embezzlement involves the appropriation of money. • Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. It is important to note that the Fraud Act 2006 does not apply in Scotland (apart from Statutory frauds s10(1) which increases the maximum In addition there are a wide range of statutory Investigating fraud custodial sentence for fraudulent trading to offences which are closely related to the 10 years).
    [Show full text]
  • Legitimizing Pay to Play: Marketizing Radio Content Through a Responsive Auction Mechanism
    LEGITIMIZING PAY TO PLAY: MARKETIZING RADIO CONTENT THROUGH A RESPONSIVE AUCTION MECHANISM Alon Rotem* I. INTRODUCTION ............................................. 130 II. RADIO REGULATION BACKGROUND / HISTORY ........ 131 A. Government Enforced Public Interest Standards...... 131 B. Marketization of the Public Interest Doctrine ........ 133 C. The Impact of the 1996 Telecommunications Act on License Renewals .................................... 134 III. PAYOLA RULES ............................................ 135 A. Payola Rules Impact on the Recording Industry ...... 136 B. A Brief History of Payola Transgressions ............ 137 C. Falloutfrom Recent Payola Prosecution .............. 139 D. Modern Payola Rules Ambiguity ..................... 139 IV. IMPACT OF TECHNOLOGY AND AUCTIONS ON BROAD- CAST SCARCITY ............................................ 140 A. The Rise and Evolution of Technology-Driven A uctions ....... ..................................... 141 B. Applying the Auction Mechanism to Radio Content Programm ing ........................................ 141 * J.D. Candidate 2007, University of California, Berkeley, Boalt Hall School of Law. B.S. Managerial Economics, 2001, University of California, Davis. I would like to thank my wife, Nicole, parents, Doron and Batsheva, and brothers, Tommy and Jonathan for their love, support, and encouragement. Additionally, I would like to thank Professor Howard Shelanski for his wisdom and guidance in the "Telecommunications Law & Policy" class for which this comment was written. Special thanks to Paul Cohune, who has generously de- voted his time to editing this and virtually every paper I have written in the last 10 years, to Zach Katz for sharing his profound knowledge of the music industry, and to my future col- leagues at Ropes & Gray, LLP. I am also very grateful for the assistance of the editors of the UCLA Entertainment Law Review. Mr. Rotem welcomes comments at alon.rotem@ gmail.com.
    [Show full text]
  • Ignorance and Mistake in Criminal Law
    Indiana Law Journal Volume 33 Issue 1 Article 1 Fall 1957 Ignorance and Mistake in Criminal Law Jerome Hall Indiana University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj Part of the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation Hall, Jerome (1957) "Ignorance and Mistake in Criminal Law," Indiana Law Journal: Vol. 33 : Iss. 1 , Article 1. Available at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol33/iss1/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Indiana Law Journal by an authorized editor of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. INDIANA LAW JOURNAL Volume 33 FALL 1957 Number I To perpetuate the memory of Professor Frank E. Horack, Jr., a scholarship and acquisition fund which will bear his name has been established by Indiana University. Readers of the Journal who desire to contribute to the fund are invited to send their gifts to either the Dean of the School of Law, or the I. U. Foundation, at Bloomington, Indiana. Checks may be made payable to the Foundation, and should indicate that they are to apply toward the FRANK E. HORACK, JR., MEMORIAL FUND. IGNORANCE AND MISTAKE IN CRIMINAL LAW JEROME HALLtI At the threshold of inquiry into the criminal liability of persons who commit harms under the influence of ignorance or mistake, one con- fronts an insistent perennial question-why should such persons be sub- jected to any criminal liability? Ignorantiafacti excwsat accords with the implied challenge.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Law: Conspiracy to Defraud
    CRIMINAL LAW: CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD LAW COMMISSION LAW COM No 228 The Law Commission (LAW COM. No. 228) CRIMINAL LAW: CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD Item 5 of the Fourth Programme of Law Reform: Criminal Law Laid before Parliament bj the Lord High Chancellor pursuant to sc :tion 3(2) of the Law Commissions Act 1965 Ordered by The House of Commons to be printed 6 December 1994 LONDON: 11 HMSO E10.85 net The Law Commission was set up by section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Commissioners are: The Honourable Mr Justice Brooke, Chairman Professor Andrew Burrows Miss Diana Faber Mr Charles Harpum Mr Stephen Silber QC The Secretary of the Law Commission is Mr Michael Sayers and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London, WClN 2BQ. 11 LAW COMMISSION CRIMINAL LAW: CONSPIRACY TO DEFRAUD CONTENTS Paragraph Page PART I: INTRODUCTION 1.1 1 A. Background to the report 1. Our work on conspiracy generally 1.2 1 2. Restrictions on charging conspiracy to defraud following the Criminal Law Act 1977 1.8 3 3. The Roskill Report 1.10 4 4. The statutory reversal of Ayres 1.11 4 5. Law Commission Working Paper No 104 1.12 5 6. Developments in the law after publication of Working Paper No 104 1.13 6 7. Our subsequent work on the project 1.14 6 B. A general review of dishonesty offences 1.16 7 C. Summary of our conclusions 1.20 9 D.
    [Show full text]
  • False Statements and Perjury: a Sketch of Federal Criminal Law
    False Statements and Perjury: A Sketch of Federal Criminal Law Charles Doyle Senior Specialist in American Public Law May 11, 2018 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov 98-807 False Statements and Perjury: A Sketch of Federal Criminal Law Summary Federal courts, Congress, and federal agencies rely upon truthful information in order to make informed decisions. Federal law therefore proscribes providing the federal courts, Congress, or federal agencies with false information. The prohibition takes four forms: false statements; perjury in judicial proceedings; perjury in other contexts; and subornation of perjury. Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the general false statement statute, outlaws material false statements in matters within the jurisdiction of a federal agency or department. It reaches false statements in federal court and grand jury sessions as well as congressional hearings and administrative matters but not the statements of advocates or parties in court proceedings. Under Section 1001, a statement is a crime if it is false regardless of whether it is made under oath. In contrast, an oath is the hallmark of the three perjury statutes in Title 18. The oldest, Section 1621, condemns presenting material false statements under oath in federal official proceedings. Section 1623 of the same title prohibits presenting material false statements under oath in federal court proceedings, although it lacks some of Section 1621’s traditional procedural features, such as a two-witness requirement. Subornation of perjury, barred in Section 1622, consists of inducing another to commit perjury. All four sections carry a penalty of imprisonment for not more than five years, although Section 1001 is punishable by imprisonment for not more than eight years when the offense involves terrorism or one of the various federal sex offenses.
    [Show full text]
  • Mistake of Fact Or Mistake of Criminal Law? Explaining and Defending the Distinction
    Boston University School of Law Scholarly Commons at Boston University School of Law Faculty Scholarship 2009 Mistake of Fact or Mistake of Criminal Law? Explaining and Defending the Distinction Kenneth Simons Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.bu.edu/faculty_scholarship Part of the Law Commons MISTAKE OF FACT OR MISTAKE OF CRIMINAL LAW? EXPLAINING AND DEFENDING THE DISTINCTION Boston University School of Law Working Paper No. 08-32 Kenneth W. Simons This paper can be downloaded without charge at: http://www.bu.edu/law/faculty/scholarship/workingpapers/2008.html Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1303049 Mistake of fact or mistake of criminal law? Explaining and defending the distinction by Kenneth W. Simons* Draft: November 17, 2008 Abstract: This article makes six points. First, under any plausible normative perspective, the distinction between mistake (and ignorance) of criminal law and mistake of fact must at least sometimes be drawn. Second, the fundamental distinction is between a mistake about the state’s authoritative statement of what is prohibited (“M Law”), and a mistake about whether that prohibitory norm is instantiated in a particular case (“M Fact”). Third, when an actor makes a mistake about an evaluative criterion whose content the fact-finder has discretion to elaborate, it is impossible both to allow this discretion and to faithfully realize a jurisdiction’s policy of treating M Fact and M Law differently. Fourth, the claim that every unreasonable M Fact is really a M Law elides important differences between the two kinds of mistake. Fifth, various borderline objections, such as the famous Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554
    Federal Communications Commission Washington, D.C. 20554 December 13, 2007 DA 07-4925 In Reply Refer to: 1800B3-RDH Released: December 14, 2007 Mr. Mark N. Lipp, Esq. Wiley Rein LLP 1776 K Street, N.W. Washington, DC 20006 In re: Multicultural Radio Broadcasting Licensee, LLC Station KAZN(AM), Pasadena, California Facility ID No. 51426 File No. BR-20050801CWN Multicultural Radio Broadcasting Licensee, LLC Station KAHZ(AM), Pomona, California Facility ID No. 61814 File No. BR-20050801CVN Polyethnic Broadcasting Licensee, LLC1 Station KMRB(AM), San Gabriel, California Facility ID No. 52913 File No. BR-20050801DCK Informal Objections to Applications for License Renewal Dear Mr. Lipp: This letter concerns the above-noted applications (collectively, the “Applications”) filed by Multicultural Radio Broadcasting Licensee, LLC to renew its licenses for Stations KAZN(AM), Pasadena, California and KAHZ(AM), Pomona, California, and by Polyethnic Broadcasting Licensee, LLC to renew its license for Station KMRB(AM), San Gabriel, California (collectively, the “Stations”). Also before us are three separate Informal Objections filed on October 31, 2005, by Liu-Chun Lin 1 Polyethnic Broadcasting Licensee, LLC, was the Licensee of Station KMRB(AM) at the time of the filing of the instant application for renewal of station license. On November 27, 2006, an Application for Consent to Assign Broadcast Station Construction Permit or License (BAL-20061114ADK) was granted by the Commission. Pursuant to this application, the License for Station KMRB(AM) was voluntarily assigned from Polyethnic Broadcasting Licensee, LLC, to Multicultural Radio Broadcasting Licensee, LLC. Both entities are controlled by the same individual and the assignment was sought as part of the merger of these two entities.
    [Show full text]
  • False Statements and Perjury: an Overview of Federal Criminal Law
    False Statements and Perjury: An Overview of Federal Criminal Law Charles Doyle Senior Specialist in American Public Law May 11, 2018 Congressional Research Service 7-5700 www.crs.gov 98-808 False Statements and Perjury: An Overview of Federal Criminal Law Summary Federal courts, Congress, and federal agencies rely upon truthful information in order to make informed decisions. Federal law therefore proscribes providing the federal courts, Congress, or federal agencies with false information. The prohibition takes four forms: false statements; perjury in judicial proceedings; perjury in other contexts; and subornation of perjury. Section 1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code, the general false statement statute, outlaws material false statements in matters within the jurisdiction of a federal agency or department. It reaches false statements in federal court and grand jury sessions as well as congressional hearings and administrative matters but not the statements of advocates or parties in court proceedings. Under Section 1001, a statement is a crime if it is false, regardless of whether it is made under oath. In contrast, an oath is the hallmark of the three perjury statutes in Title 18. The oldest, Section 1621, condemns presenting material false statements under oath in federal official proceedings. Section 1623 of the same title prohibits presenting material false statements under oath in federal court proceedings, although it lacks some of Section 1621’s traditional procedural features, such as a two-witness requirement. Subornation of perjury, barred in Section 1622, consists of inducing another to commit perjury. All four sections carry a penalty of imprisonment for not more than five years, although Section 1001 is punishable by imprisonment for not more than eight years when the offense involves terrorism or one of the various federal sex offenses.
    [Show full text]
  • A Timely History of Cheating and Fraud Following Ivey V Genting Casinos (UK)
    The honest cheat: a timely history of cheating and fraud following Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords [2017] UKSC 67 Cerian Griffiths Lecturer in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, Lancaster University Law School1 Author email: [email protected] Abstract: The UK Supreme Court took the opportunity in Ivey v Genting Casinos (UK) Ltd t/a Crockfords [2017] UKSC 67 to reverse the long-standing, but unpopular, test for dishonesty in R v Ghosh. It reduced the relevance of subjectivity in the test of dishonesty, and brought the civil and the criminal law approaches to dishonesty into line by adopting the test as laid down in Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Tan. This article employs extensive legal historical research to demonstrate that the Supreme Court in Ivey was too quick to dismiss the significance of the historical roots of dishonesty. Through an innovative and comprehensive historical framework of fraud, this article demonstrates that dishonesty has long been a central pillar of the actus reus of deceptive offences. The recognition of such significance permits us to situate the role of dishonesty in contemporary criminal property offences. This historical analysis further demonstrates that the Justices erroneously overlooked centuries of jurisprudence in their haste to unite civil and criminal law tests for dishonesty. 1 I would like to thank Lindsay Farmer, Dave Campbell, and Dave Ellis for giving very helpful feedback on earlier drafts of this article. I would also like to thank Angus MacCulloch, Phil Lawton, and the Lancaster Law School Peer Review College for their guidance in developing this paper.
    [Show full text]
  • PB DATE Dec BO
    DOCUMENT RESUME A 'ED 203 274 CG 015 276 Homeless Youth: The Saga of "Pushouts" and . "Throwaways" in America. Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-Sixth Congress, Second Session; INSTITUTION Congress of the U.S., Washington, D.C. Senate Committee on the Judiciary. PB DATE Dec BO . NOTE 2520: Not available in paper ;copy dui to small 4/41ILAHLE FROM Superintendent.of Documents,'M.S. Government Printing Offitei Washington, DC '20402. EDRS PRICE MFOtlilus Postage. PC Not Available from EDRS. DESCRIPTORS: *Adolescents: *Child. AbuSe:',,,Chi.lid,Neglect: Family Orobiems:.HelpinT:RelatiOnship:', Juvenile Courts; *Parent Child RelatiOnthip: PrOblem.Zolving: *RuhawayWViolencei *youth Rrograms juisTgApT This report of the-,SenateSubcommittee,on the Comstitution examines the' )henOmenon OehOieljets yoUthoinCluding the population, fheirfamiliese. survival tactics, the availabiLityof services, and futureoutlOokSA SectiOnretriewingths:legal constraints imposed on young people Aidhaffect their, ability to 1iVe: on their own.,it folloWecf,b/ a review of the agenclesserving: 11,0MelesSyouth With dita,:aimpressionSdoliected:from;0 Interviews.. A:desdpiptiOnof runaway litogratsthroughoUt.the:United Stites. ncluded. Data frOm ou.6'sits pto.greOnyiSitsanUinterviei0 with. agency personnel,,policeofficets,:and InvenileAUstiCe, 'corrections, public assistanCes, mental health4 and childcare personnel, are reported. 4:41 .are .'also included frbm case reOardSof runaways and interviews )Conducted.with-homeless youth about. the quality of their liveti StirViValHtethrigues,'difficult,ies'endOuntered in obtaining,foodo shelterand:'emPloyment and their. hopes for*Oefuture.HS'lle appendices contain the Juvenile Justice and.:Runtway yoUth acts and amendments, additiOnalreports on hoieless youth and child-abuse, and interview ,torms for agency'Tersonnel and.youthS.
    [Show full text]