DOCSLIB.ORG

SEC Complaint: Sujata Sachdeva, and Julie Mulvaney

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
SEC Complaint: Sujata Sachdeva, and Julie Mulvaney UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN UNITED STATES SECURITIES ) AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No.: ) SUJATA SACHDEVA, AND ) Jury Trial Demanded JULIE MULVANEY, ) ) Defendants. ) COMPLAINT Plaintiff, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission ("the Commission"), alleges the following against Defendants Sujata Sachdeva ("Sachdeva") and Julie Mulvaney ("Mulvaney"): SUMMARY 1. This case involves wide-ranging fraud committed by senior members ofthe accounting department ofKoss Corporation ("Koss," or ''the Company"). Over a period of years, Sachdeva - the former Principal Accounting Officer, Secretary and Vice-President of Finance at Koss - stole over $30 million from the Company. Sachdeva used the embezzled funds to finance an extravagant lifestyle, including lavish spending sprees at department stores, designer boutiques, jewelry stores, and other high-end retailers. 2. Sachdeva and Mulvaney concealed and facilitated the theft from the Company by preparing materially false accounting books and records. Mulvaney, working in concert with Sachdeva, prepared false journal entries to disguise Sachdeva's misappropriation offunds. Sachdeva and Mulvaney attempted to hide the embezzlement in the Company's financial 1 Case 2:10-cv-00747-RTR Filed 08/31/10 Page 1 of 20 Document 1 statements by overstating assets,expenses, and cost ofsales, and by understating liabilities and sales. 3. Based on the fraudulent accounting books and records prepared by Sachdeva and Mulvaney, the Company prepared materially false fmancial statements and filed materially false current, quarterly, and annual reports with the Commission. After discovering the ,.- _. embezzlement, the Company amended and restated its financial statements for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 and the first quarter offiscal year 2010 (through September, 2009). 4. Sachdeva recently pled guilty to federal wire-fraud charges. Sachdeva admitted her multi-million-dollar theft from the Company, and admitted her scheme to falsify the Company's accounting books and records to hide her embezzlement. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to Sections 21 (d), 21 (e), and 27 ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the "Exchange Act") [15 U.S.C. §§ 78u(d), 78u(e) and 78aa] and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. 6. Sachdeva and Mulvaney, directly or indirectly, made use ofthe means or instrumentalities ofinterstate commerce and/or ofthe mails in connection with the acts, practices, and courses ofbusiness alleged in this Complaint. 7. Certain ofthe acts, practices and courses ofbusiness constituting the violations alleged herein occurred within this judicial district. THE DEFENDANTS 8. Sujata Sachdeva is a resident ofMequon, Wisconsin. From 1992 to 2009, Sachdeva was the Principal Accounting Officer, Secretary, and Vice-President ofFinance at Koss. The Company terminated Sachdeva on December 23,2009. 2 Case 2:10-cv-00747-RTR Filed 08/31/10 Page 2 of 20 Document 1 9. Julie Mulvaney is a resident ofMilwaukee, Wisconsin. From 2001 to 2010, Mulvaney was the Company's senior accountant and was responsible for making journal entries, reconciling accounts receivable, reconciling the Company's bank statements, ordering cashier's checks, processing wire transfers, and checking the daily bank account balances. Mulvaney was second in seniority in the Company's accounting department and reported directly to Sachdeva. The Company tenninated Mulvaney on January 4,2010. THE COMPANY 10. Koss is a Delaware corporation with a principal place ofbusiness in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Koss designs, manufactures and sells stereo headphones. Koss is an issuer of securities registered pursuant to Section 12 ofthe Exchange Act [15 U.S.C. § 781], and its shares are listed on the NASDAQ stock exchange. FACTS The Theft 11. As the Principal Accounting Officer, Secretary and Vice-President ofFinance, Sachdeva (along with senior management) shared responsibility for maintaining the integrity of the Company's accounting books and records. Instead, Sachdeva used her position to embezzle tens ofmillions ofdollars from the Company. Sachdeva and Mulvaney then falsified the Company's accounting books and records in an attempt to disguise Sachdeva's theft, leaving the Company in a worse financial condition than reported to the public and the Company's shareholders. 12. From 2004 until December 2009, Sachdeva stole more than $30 million from the Company. Sachdeva embezzled the funds through a variety ofmeans, including fraudulent cashier's checks, fraudulent wire transfers, and unauthorized payments from petty cash. 3 Case 2:10-cv-00747-RTR Filed 08/31/10 Page 3 of 20 Document 1 13. Beginning on or about 2004, Sachdeva fraudulently authorized and directed the issuance ofmore than 500 cashier's checks totaling more than $15 million from Company . accounts. Sachdeva used the cashier's checks to pay for personal purchases, including payments totaling approximately $10 million to American Express for her personal credit card. 14. Sachdeva also used the cashier's checks to make direct payments to retailers, such as Neiman Marcus and Saks Fifth Avenue. At times, Sachdeva attempted to conceal the identities ofthe recipients.ofthe checks by using acronyms. For example, Sachdeva authorized and directed the issuance ofcashier's checks from Company accounts to "S.F.A. Inc." for Saks Fifth Avenue, "N.M. Inc." for Neiman Marcus, "M.F. Corp." for Marshall Fields, "A.Z. Inc." for Zuckerman Jewelers, and "H. Inc." for Holtzman's Furs, among others. 15. The improper use ofcashier's checks from Company accounts for Sachdeva's personal gain totaled over $2 million in fiscal year 2005, over $2 million in fiscal year 2006, over $3 million in fiscal year 2007, over $3.5 million in fiscal year 2008, over $1.3 million in fiscal year 2009, and over $2.3 million in fiscal year 2010. 16. In addition to the cashier's checks, Sachdeva fraudulently authorized and directed numerous wire transfers offunds. Sachdeva wired funds from Company bank accounts to American Express bank accounts, and did so to pay for personal purchases on her credit card. From 2008 through December 2009, Sachdeva fraudulently authorized over 200 wire transfers totaling more than $16 million, using corporate funds to pay for personal expenses. 17. The unauthorized wire transfers totaled over $1.3 million in fiscal year 2008, over $7 million in fiscal year 2009, and over $7.8 million in fiscal year 2010 (through December, 2009). 4 Case 2:10-cv-00747-RTR Filed 08/31/10 Page 4 of 20 Document 1 18. Sachdeva also misappropriated funds by misusing the Company's petty cash. Sachdeva issued checks payable to "petty cash" on a Company bank account. Sachdeva directed the Company's employees to negotiate these checks and obtain cash, which Sachdeva then used to pay her personal expenses. In addition, Sachdeva manually issued checks from Company funds to make other unauthorized paYments. All told, the misappropriation offunds using petty cash and other unauthorized checks totaled hundreds ofthousands ofdollars. 19. Sachdeva also fraudulently converted traveler's checks, which the Company had purchased for use by its employees travelling on Company-related business, for her personal use and the use ofothers. 20. Sachdeva used the embezzled funds to lead an extravagant lifestyle. Sachdeva purchased personal items such as designer clothing, furs, purses, shoes, jewelry, automobiles, china, statues, and other household furnishings with the money stolen from the Company. Sachdeva also used the stolen funds to pay for hotels, airline tickets, and other travel expenses for herselfand others, to pay for renovations and improvements to her home, and to compensate individuals providing personal services to her and her family. The Cover-Up 21. Sachdeva received substantial assistance from Mulvaney in covering up Sachdeva's multi-million-dollar embezzlement. Working in concert, Sachdeva and Mulvaney "cooked the books" through an elaborate scheme ofaccounting fraud. Sachdeva and Mulvaney colluded over a period ofyears to conceal the improper use ofcorporate funds. Sachdeva and Mulvaney falsified the Company's accounting books and records, disguising the fact that millions ofdollars were flowing from the Company for Sachdeva's personal gain. 5 Case 2:10-cv-00747-RTR Filed 08/31/10 Page 5 of 20 Document 1 22~ Sachdeva and Mulvaney primarily hid the embezzlement by making false entries on the Company's general journal. The false journal entries disguised the theft by making a variety ofreclassifications to the Company's accounts. For example, Sachdeva and Mulvaney overstated assets, expenses, and cost ofsales, and understated liabilities and sales. 23. The false journal entries included improper adjustments to the Company's balance sheet, by overstating assets and understating liabilities. For example, in the first two quarters of fiscal year 2010 (through December, 2009), Sachdeva and Mulvaney overstated the Company's assets and understated the Company's liabilities by over $7.5 million. By overstating assets and understating liabilities, Sachdeva was able to steal millions ofdollars from the Company without any apparent impact on the Company's balance sheet. 24. The false journal entries also included improper adjustments to the Company's income statements. Sachdeva and Mulvaney understated sales, and overstated cost ofsales and expenses. From fiscal year 2004 to the second quarter offiscal year 2010 (through December, 2009), the
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Failing in Corporate Governance and Warning Signs of a Corporate Collapse
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Abid, Ghulam; Ahmed, Alia Article Failing in corporate governance and warning signs of a corporate collapse Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS) Provided in Cooperation with: Johar Education Society, Pakistan (JESPK) Suggested Citation: Abid, Ghulam; Ahmed, Alia (2014) : Failing in corporate governance and warning signs of a corporate collapse, Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences (PJCSS), ISSN 2309-8619, Johar Education Society, Pakistan (JESPK), Lahore, Vol. 8, Iss. 3, pp. 846-866 This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/188173 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ www.econstor.eu Pak J Commer Soc Sci Pakistan Journal of Commerce and Social Sciences 2014, Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Crimes Act 2016
    REPUBLIC OF NAURU Crimes Act 2016 ______________________________ Act No. 18 of 2016 ______________________________ TABLE OF PROVISIONS PART 1 – PRELIMINARY ....................................................................................................... 1 1 Short title .................................................................................................... 1 2 Commencement ......................................................................................... 1 3 Application ................................................................................................. 1 4 Codification ................................................................................................ 1 5 Standard geographical jurisdiction ............................................................. 2 6 Extraterritorial jurisdiction—ship or aircraft outside Nauru ......................... 2 7 Extraterritorial jurisdiction—transnational crime ......................................... 4 PART 2 – INTERPRETATION ................................................................................................ 6 8 Definitions .................................................................................................. 6 9 Definition of consent ................................................................................ 13 PART 3 – PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY ................................................. 14 DIVISION 3.1 – PURPOSE AND APPLICATION ................................................................. 14 10 Purpose
    [Show full text]
  • Fraud Risk Management: a Guide to Good Practice
    Fraud risk management A guide to good practice Acknowledgements This guide is based on the fi rst edition of Fraud Risk Management: A Guide to Good Practice. The fi rst edition was prepared by a Fraud and Risk Management Working Group, which was established to look at ways of helping management accountants to be more effective in countering fraud and managing risk in their organisations. This second edition of Fraud Risk Management: A Guide to Good Practice has been updated by Helenne Doody, a specialist within CIMA Innovation and Development. Helenne specialises in Fraud Risk Management, having worked in related fi elds for the past nine years, both in the UK and other countries. Helenne also has a graduate certifi cate in Fraud Investigation through La Trobe University in Australia and a graduate certifi cate in Fraud Management through the University of Teeside in the UK. For their contributions in updating the guide to produce this second edition, CIMA would like to thank: Martin Birch FCMA, MBA Director – Finance and Information Management, Christian Aid. Roy Katzenberg Chief Financial Offi cer, RITC Syndicate Management Limited. Judy Finn Senior Lecturer, Southampton Solent University. Dr Stephen Hill E-crime and Fraud Manager, Chantrey Vellacott DFK. Richard Sharp BSc, FCMA, MBA Assistant Finance Director (Governance), Kingston Hospital NHS Trust. Allan McDonagh Managing Director, Hibis Europe Ltd. Martin Robinson and Mia Campbell on behalf of the Fraud Advisory Panel. CIMA would like also to thank those who contributed to the fi rst edition of the guide. About CIMA CIMA, the Chartered Institute of Management Accountants, is the only international accountancy body with a key focus on business.
    [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]
  • Dr Stephen Copp and Alison Cronin, 'The Failure of Criminal Law To
    Dr Stephen Copp and Alison Cronin, ‘The Failure of Criminal Law to Control the Use of Off Balance Sheet Finance During the Banking Crisis’ (2015) 36 The Company Lawyer, Issue 4, 99, reproduced with permission of Thomson Reuters (Professional) UK Ltd. This extract is taken from the author’s original manuscript and has not been edited. The definitive, published, version of record is available here: http://login.westlaw.co.uk/maf/wluk/app/document?&srguid=i0ad8289e0000014eca3cbb3f02 6cd4c4&docguid=I83C7BE20C70F11E48380F725F1B325FB&hitguid=I83C7BE20C70F11 E48380F725F1B325FB&rank=1&spos=1&epos=1&td=25&crumb- action=append&context=6&resolvein=true THE FAILURE OF CRIMINAL LAW TO CONTROL THE USE OF OFF BALANCE SHEET FINANCE DURING THE BANKING CRISIS Dr Stephen Copp & Alison Cronin1 30th May 2014 Introduction A fundamental flaw at the heart of the corporate structure is the scope for fraud based on the provision of misinformation to investors, actual or potential. The scope for fraud arises because the separation of ownership and control in the company facilitates asymmetric information2 in two key circumstances: when a company seeks to raise capital from outside investors and when a company provides information to its owners for stewardship purposes.3 Corporate misinformation, such as the use of off balance sheet finance (OBSF), can distort the allocation of investment funding so that money gets attracted into less well performing enterprises (which may be highly geared and more risky, enhancing the risk of multiple failures). Insofar as it creates a market for lemons it risks damaging confidence in the stock markets themselves since the essence of a market for lemons is that bad drives out good from the market, since sellers of the good have less incentive to sell than sellers of the bad.4 The neo-classical model of perfect competition assumes that there will be perfect information.
    [Show full text]
  • • False Representation • Failure to Disclose Information When There Is a Legal Duty to Do So • Abuse of Position
    Fraud, Corruption & Bribery Policy Policy Statement The Trust is committed to the prevention of fraud, corruption, bribery and any other forms of dishonesty and will promote an anti-fraud, anti-corruption and anti-bribe culture. The Trust operates a zero-tolerance attitude to fraud, corruption and bribery and requires those who act on behalf of the Trust to act honestly and with integrity at all times, and to report all suspicious activities. The Trust will investigate all suspicious activities committed by staff, charities, consultants, suppliers, the ELM and other third parties. It is the Trust’s policy to conduct its business in an honest and ethical manner and expects the ELM to have processes and policies in place to achieve a zero-tolerance approach to fraud, bribery and corruption. The Trust and its staff are committed to acting professionally, fairly and with integrity in all business dealings and relationships. Policy Headline: The Trust operates a zero tolerance approach to fraud, bribery and corruption. Policy Context What is fraud and corruption? The Fraud Act 2006 introduces a statutory single offence of fraud which can be committed in three different ways: • false representation • failure to disclose information when there is a legal duty to do so • abuse of position. For practical purposes fraud can be defined as dishonest conduct with the intention to make gain, cause a loss, or cause the risk of a loss to another. Existing offences such as theft, corruption, false accounting, forgery, counterfeiting and blackmail continue to be offences under previous relevant legislation. ‘Corruption’ is defined as the offering, giving, soliciting, or acceptance of an inducement or reward which may influence any person to act inappropriately.
    [Show full text]
  • Theft Act 1981
    c i e AT 21 of 1981 THEFT ACT 1981 Theft Act 1981 Index c i e THEFT ACT 1981 Index Section Page Definition of “theft” 5 1 Basic definition of theft .................................................................................................. 5 2 “Dishonestly” .................................................................................................................. 5 3 “Appropriates” ............................................................................................................... 6 4 “Property” ........................................................................................................................ 6 5 “Belonging to another” .................................................................................................. 7 6 “With the intention of permanently depriving the other of it” ................................ 8 Theft, robbery, burglary, etc 8 7 Theft .................................................................................................................................. 8 8 Robbery ............................................................................................................................ 8 9 Burglary ............................................................................................................................ 8 9A Trespass to install surveillance devices ....................................................................... 9 10 Aggravated burglary ...................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Fraud, Bribery and Money Laundering Offences: Definitive Guideline
    Fraud, Bribery and Money Laundering GUIDELINE DEFINITIVE Offences Definitive Guideline Fraud, Bribery and Money Laundering Offences Definitive Guideline 1 Contents Applicability of guideline 4 Fraud 5 Fraud by false representation, fraud by failing to disclose information, fraud by abuse of position Fraud Act 2006 (section 1) Conspiracy to defraud Common law False accounting Theft Act 1968 (section 17) Possessing, making or supplying articles for use in fraud 13 Possession of articles for use in frauds Fraud Act 2006 (section 6) Making or supplying articles for use in frauds Fraud Act 2006 (section 7) Revenue fraud 19 Fraud Conspiracy to defraud (common law) Fraud Act 2006 (section 1) False accounting Theft Act 1968 (section 17) Fraudulent evasion of VAT; False statement for VAT purposes; Conduct amounting to an offence Value Added Tax Act 1994 (section 72) Effective from 1 October 2014 2 Fraud, Bribery and Money Laundering Offences Definitive Guideline Fraudulent evasion of income tax Taxes Management Act 1970 (section 106A) Fraudulent evasion of excise duty; Improper importation of goods Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 (sections 50, 170 and 170B) Fraud Cheat the public revenue (common law) Benefit fraud 27 Dishonest representations for obtaining benefit etc Social Security Administration Act 1992 (section 111A) Tax Credit fraud Tax Credits Act 2002 (section 35) False accounting Theft Act 1968 (section 17) False representations for obtaining benefit etc Social Security Administration Act 1992 (section 112) Fraud by false representation,
    [Show full text]
  • Uganda Vs Lwamafa Jimmy and 2 Others
    REPUBLIC OF UGANDA IN THE HIGH COURT OF UGANDA ANTI CORRUPTION DIVISION, AT KOLOLO. CRIMINAL SESSION CASE 9 OF 2015 UGANDA…………………………………………………………PROSECUTOR VRS. LWAMAFA JIMMY AND 2 ORS ………………………………..ACCUSED BRFORE: GIDUDU, J 1 JUDGMENT. M/S Lwamafa Jimmy hereinafter referred to as A1, Kiwanuka Kunsa Stephen, hereinafter referred to as A2 and Obey Christopher, hereinafter referred to as A3 are jointly indicted with ten counts as listed below. A1 was the Permanent Secretary/ Accounting Officer. A2 was the Director Research and Development. A3 was the Principal Accountant. All worked in the Ministry of Public Service. Count One: Causing Financial Loss C/S 20(1) of the ACA, 2009. Particulars are that the three accused irregularly spent UGX 44,121,294,607 in the FY 2010/2011 knowing or having reason to believe that the act would cause financial loss to the GOU. Count Two: Causing Financial Loss C/S 20(1) of the ACA, 2009 Particulars are thatthe three accused irregularly spent UGX 44,120,490,323 in the FY 2011/2012 knowing or having reason to believe that the act would cause financial loss to the GOU. Count Three: Abuse of Office C/S 11(1) of the ACA, 2009. Particulars are that the three accused in FY 2010/2011 in abuse of their offices made budgetary provision of UGX 44,121,295,000 as Social Security Contributions (NSSF) with knowledge that Public Service Employees are exempt from contributing to NSSF. Count Four: Abuse of Office C/S 11(1) of the ACA, 2009. Particulars are that the three accused in FY 2011/2012 in abuse of their offices made budgetary provision of UGX 44,121,295,000 as Social Security Contributions (NSSF) with knowledge that Public Service Employees are exempt from contributing to NSSF Count Five: False Accounting by Public Officer C/S 22 of the ACA, 2009.
    [Show full text]
  • Fairer Rules for Prosecuting Companies for Fraud and Money Laundering: Financial Services Bill Amendment This Briefing Is F
    Fairer rules for prosecuting companies for fraud and money laundering: Financial Services Bill amendment This briefing is for amendment NC4 for the Financial Services Bill - ‘Facilitation of economic crime’ (see wording below). The amendment It would create a new corporate criminal offence for facilitating or failing to prevent economic crime. The specific economic crimes covered by the proposed amendment are money laundering, fraud, and false accounting. The new offence would be applicable to companies or bodies regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA). If accepted, it would mean that not only could corporations be held to account and fined for facilitating or failing to prevent economic crimes, so too could the directors or employees involved. Failure to prevent offences are already in place for bribery and tax evasion and have been proven to be an effective way for holding companies to account and improving corporate behaviour. Introducing this corporate criminal offence for money laundering, fraud and false accounting would ❖ create consistency in how the UK tackles economic crimes, ❖ establish a level playing field between small and large companies when it comes to prosecution of these crimes, ❖ ensure the UK is on a more equal footing with its international allies, and ❖ build greater public confidence in how the UK tackles economic crime, particularly fraud in public procurement. The problem The current rules for holding large companies and financial institutions to account for economic crime are unfair, ineffective,
    [Show full text]
  • Cap. 16 Tanzania Penal Code Chapter 16 of the Laws
    CAP. 16 TANZANIA PENAL CODE CHAPTER 16 OF THE LAWS (REVISED) (PRINCIPAL LEGISLATION) [Issued Under Cap. 1, s. 18] 1981 PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY THE GOVERNMENT PRINTER, DARES SALAAM Penal Code [CAP. 16 CHAPTER 16 PENAL CODE Arrangement of Sections PARTI General Provisions CHAPTER I Preliminary 1. Short title. 2. Its operation in lieu of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Saving of certain laws. CHAPTER II Interpretation 4. General rule of construction. 5. Interpretation. CHAPTER III Territorial Application of Code 6. Extent of jurisdiction of local courts. 7. Offences committed partly within and partly beyond the jurisdiction, CHAPTER IV General Rules as to Criminal Responsibility 8. Ignorance of law. 9. Bona fide claim of right. 10. Intention and motive. 11. Mistake of fact. 12. Presumption of sanity^ 13. Insanity. 14. Intoxication. 15. Immature age. 16. Judicial officers. 17. Compulsion. 18. Defence of person or property. 18A. The right of defence. 18B. Use of force in defence. 18C. When the right of defence extends to causing abath. 19. Use of force in effecting arrest. 20. Compulsion by husband. 21. Persons not to be punished twice for the same offence. 4 CAP. 16] Penal Code CHAPTER V Parties to Offences 22. Principal offenders. 23. Joint offences. 24. Councelling to commit an offence. CHAPTER VI Punishments 25. Different kinds of punishment. 26. Sentence of death. 27: Imprisonment. 28. Corpora] punishment. 29. Fines. 30. Forfeiture. 31. Compensation. 32. Costs. 33. Security for keeping the peace. 34. [Repealed]. 35. General punishment for misdemeanours. 36. Sentences cumulative, unless otherwise ordered. 37. Escaped convicts to serve unexpired sentences when recap- 38.
    [Show full text]
  • PCS 2020 Catalogue of Definitions
    Police Crime Statistics Guidelines for Maintaining the Police Crime Statistics Catalogue of Definitions 2020 Version of 01/01/2020 PCS 2020 Catalogue of definitions Content Preliminary remarks 4 Notes for the reader 4 Definitions 5 False accounting in the healthcare sector 5 Investment fraud (sect. 263 PC) 5 Non-payment of fare (sect. 265a PC) 5 Fraud to the detriment of insurance companies and insurance abuse (sects. 263, 265 PC) 5 Insurance abuse (sect. 265 PC) 6 Fraudulent obtaining of motor vehicles 6 Offences directly aimed at procuring drugs 1 6 Lodging fraud 6 Non-payment of fare (place of action) 6 False payment cards (Use of ...) 6 Garden house 6 Dangerous interference with road traffic 7 Cash couriers (Robbery of ...) 7 Injured party/person 7 Violent crime 1 7 Internet 7 Kiosk 8 Motor vehicle 8 Credit fraud (commercial sector (sect. 265b PC)) 8 Obtaining credit by fraud (sect. 263 PC) 8 Loan procurement fraud 8 Shoplifting 8 Fraud by failing to provide service as agreed 9 Fraud by obtaining service on credit 9 Victim 9 Body of persons 9 Politically motivated crime 10 Prospectus fraud (investment fraud, sect. 264a PC) 10 Fraud involving commissions 10 Drug-related crime 1 10 Fraud involving donations 12 Rail vehicle 12 Software piracy 12 Social security fraud 12 V 1.0 PCS 2020 Catalogue of Definitions Offences against state security1 12 Offences against provisions designed to protect young persons1 12 Street crime1 12 Subsidy fraud (sect. 264 PC) 12 Daytime burglary of a residence 13 Non-payment of a fuel bill 13 Pickpocketing 13 Instrument of crime: Internet - special category 13 Place of action in cases of non-payment of fare1 14 Place of action in cases of non-payment of fare1 15 Telecommunications services (Misuse of) (sect.
    [Show full text]