DOCSLIB.ORG

Inchoate Offences

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Inchoate Offences Consultation PaPer INCHOATE OFFENCES (lrC CP 48 – 2008) www.lawreform.ie coNsultatioN PaPer INCHOATE OFFENCES (lrc cP 48 – 2008) © coPyright law reform commission 2008 First Published February 2008 ISSN 1393-3140 i law reForM coMMissioN THE LAW REFORM COMMISSION’S ROLE the law reform commission is an independent statutory body established by the Law Reform Commission Act 1975. the commission’s principal role is to keep the law under review and to make proposals for reform, in particular by recommending the enactment of legislation to clarify and modernise the law. since it was established, the commission has published over 130 documents containing proposals for law reform and these are all available at www.lawreform.ie. Most of these proposals have led to reforming legislation. the commission’s role is carried out primarily under a Programme of law reform. its Third Programme of Law Reform 2008-2014 was prepared by the commission following broad consultation and discussion. in accordance with the 1975 act, it was approved by the government in december 2007 and placed before both houses of the oireachtas. the commission also works on specific matters referred to it by the attorney general under the 1975 act. since 2006, the commission’s role includes two other areas of activity, statute law restatement and the legislation directory. statute law restatement involves the administrative consolidation of all amendments to an act into a single text, making legislation more accessible. under the Statute Law (Restatement) Act 2002, where this text is certified by the attorney general it can be relied on as evidence of the law in question. the legislation directory - previously called the chronological tables of the statutes - is a searchable annotated guide to all legislative changes. after the commission took over responsibility for this important resource, it decided to change the name to legislation directory to indicate its function more clearly. ii INCHOATE OFFENCES MEMBERSHIP the law reform commission consists of a President, one full-time commissioner and three part-time commissioners. The commissioners at present are: President: The hon Mrs Justice catherine Mcguinness, former Judge of the supreme court Full-time Commissioner: Patricia t. rickard-clarke, solicitor Part-time Commissioner: Professor Finbarr Mcauley Part-time Commissioner: Marian shanley, solicitor Part-time Commissioner: Donal o’donnell, senior counsel iii law reForM coMMissioN LAW REFORM RESEARCH STAFF Director of Research: Raymond byrne bcl, llM (Nui), Barrister-at-law Legal Researchers: Áine clancy bcl, llM (Nui) Kate dineen llb, llM (cantab) Philip Flaherty bcl, llM (Nui), diop sa gh (Nui) Eleanor leane llb, llM (Nui) Richard McNamara bcl, llM (Nui) Gemma Ní chaoimh bcl, llM (Nui) Verona Ní dhrisceoil bcl (dlí agus gaeilge), llM (Nui) Jane o’grady bcl, llb (Nui), lPc (college of law) Charles o’ Mahony ba, llb (Nui), llM (lond), llM (Nui) Nicola white llb, llM (dub) attorney-at-law (Ny) Joanne williams llb, llM (Nui), barrister-at-law STATUTE LAW RESTATEMENT Project Manager for Restatement: Alma clissmann, ba (Mod), llb, dip eur law (bruges), solicitor Legal Researchers: John P. byrne bcl, llM (Nui), barrister-at-law John Kenny llb, llM (cape town), barrister-at-law LEGISLATION DIRECTORY Project Manager for Legislation Directory: Deirdre ahern llb, llM (cantab), dip e-commerce (law society), solicitor Legal Researchers: Eóin McManus ba, llb (Nui), llM (lond) Tina o’ reilly bcl (law and german), llM (Nui) iv INCHOATE OFFENCES ADMINISTRATION STAFF Secretary/Head of Administration: John Quirke Head of Administration and Development: John glennon Higher Executive Officer: Alan heade Executive Officers: Emma Kenny Darina Moran Peter trainor Legal Information Manager: Conor Kennedy ba, h dip lis Cataloguer: Eithne boland ba (hons), hdip ed, hdip lis Clerical Officers: Ann browne Ann byrne Liam dargan Sabrina Kelly PRINCIPAL LEGAL RESEARCHER FOR THIS CONSULTATION PAPER David Prendergast llb, llM (lond), barrister-at-law v law reForM coMMissioN CONTACT DETAILS Further information can be obtained from: Head of administration and development Law reform commission 35-39 shelbourne road Ballsbridge Dublin 4 TELEPHONE: +353 1 637 7600 FAX: +353 1 637 7601 EMAIL: [email protected] WEBSITE: www.lawreform.ie vi INCHOATE OFFENCES ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS the commission would like to thank the following people for their assistance in the preparation of this consultation Paper: Dr Bebhinn Donnelly, lecturer, school of law, swansea university Ms Elizabeth Howlin, office of the director of Public Prosecutions Full responsibility for the content of this publication lies with the commission. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Legislation xi Table of Cases xiii INTRODUCTION 1 A Background to the project 1 B Introduction to inchoate offences 2 C Scope of the project 3 D Outline of this Consultation Paper 4 CHAPTER 1 INCHOATE LIABILITY 7 A Introduction 7 B Historical development 7 C The rationale of inchoate offences 9 (1) Retributivism and harm prevention 9 (2) Rationale of conspiracy 10 D Criminal law theory engaged by inchoate offences 11 (1) Legality 11 (2) Subjectivism and objectivism 12 (3) The significance of mens rea for inchoate offences 12 E Inchoate liability and secondary liability 13 F Inchoate offences in practice 14 (1) Attempts 14 (2) Inchoate offences in the wide sense 15 (3) Conspiracy 16 G Codification of inchoate offences 17 CHAPTER 2 ATTEMPT 21 A Introduction 21 B The components of attempt 22 (1) The actus reus of attempt 22 (2) The mens rea of attempt 48 (3) The target of an attempt 56 C Impossible attempts 61 (1) Categories of impossible attempts 61 (2) Irish judicial comment on impossible attempts 63 (3) The debate about impossible attempts 64 (4) The irrelevance of impossibility 67 D Abandonment of an attempt 69 (1) The relevance of abandonment to attempt liability 69 (2) A defence of abandonment? 71 CHAPTER 3 CONSPIRACY 77 A Introduction 77 B Agreement in conspiracy 78 ix (1) Parties to agreement 79 (2) The mens rea of conspiracy 87 C The unlawfulness requirement 90 (1) The meaning of unlawful 90 D Specific common law conspiracies 92 (1) Conspiracy to defraud 92 (2) Conspiracy to corrupt public morals 93 (3) Other specific common law conspiracies 94 E Restricting conspiracy 95 (1) Arguments for and against restricting conspiracy to agreements to commit crimes 96 (2) The case for retaining conspiracy to defraud 97 (3) Developments and recommendations elsewhere 98 F Impossible conspiracies 99 G Abandonment of a conspiracy 101 CHAPTER 4 INCITEMENT 103 A Introduction 103 B The components of incitement 103 (1) The actus reus of incitement 103 (2) The mens rea of incitement 109 (3) The conduct incited 113 C Issues unique to incitement 116 (1) A perceived gap in liability 116 (2) Free speech 118 D Impossible incitements 120 E Abandonment of an incitement 121 CHAPTER 5 PROVISIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS 123 A Attempt 123 (1) Actus reus of attempt 123 (2) Mens rea of attempt 123 (3) Target of an attempt 123 (4) Impossible attempts 124 (5) Abandoned attempts 124 B Conspiracy 124 (1) Actus reus of conspiracy 124 (2) Mens rea of conspiracy 124 (3) The target of a conspiracy 124 (4) Impossible conspiracies 125 (5) Withdrawal from a conspiracy 125 C Incitement 125 (1) Actus reus of incitement 125 (2) Mens rea of incitement 125 (3) The target of an incitement 125 (4) Retaining incitement 125 (5) Impossible incitements 125 (6) Withdrawn incitements 125 x TABLE OF LEGISLATION Abortion Act 1967 1967, c. 87 Eng Child Trafficking and Pornography Act 1998 1998, No. 22 Irl Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) 1958, No. 6231 Aus Crimes Act 1961 1961, No. 43 NZ Criminal Attempts Act 1981 1981, c. 47 Eng Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) 1899 Aus Criminal Justice (Theft and Fraud Offences) Act 2001 2001, No. 50 Irl Criminal Justice Act 2006 2006, No. 26 Irl Criminal Law Act 1977 1977, c. 45 Eng Criminal Law Act 1997 1997, No. 14 Irl Explosive Substances Act 1883 1883, 46 & 47 Eng Vict. c. 3. Firearms Act 1925 1925, No. 17 Irl Firearms and Offensive Weapons Act 1990 1990, No. 12 Irl Immigration Act 1971 1971, c. 77 Eng Italian Penal Code Ita Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 1971, c. 38 Eng Non-Fatal Offences Against the Person Act 1997 1997, No. 26 Irl Offences Against the Person Act 1861 1861, 24 & 25 Eng Vict. c. 100 Offences Against the State Act 1939 1939, No. 13 Irl Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989 1989, No. 19 Irl Road Traffic Act 1961 1961, No. 24 Irl Serious Crime Act 2007 2007, c. 27 Eng Sexual Offences Act 1967 1967, c. 60 Eng South Australia Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 Aus Terrorism Act 2006 2006, c. 11 Eng xi TABLE OF CASES Anderton v Ryan [1985] AC 560 Eng Attorney General (SPUC) v Open [1988] IR 593 Irl Door Counselling Ltd Attorney General for England and [1986] IR 597 Irl Wales v Brandon Book Publishers Ltd Attorney General v Oldridge [2001] 2 ILRM 125 Irl Attorney General v Richmond (1935) 1 Frewen 28 Irl Attorny v Starling (1664) 83 ER 1164 Eng Board of Trade v Owen [1957] AC 602 Eng Brandenburg v Ohio (1969) 395 US 444 US Cawthorne v HM Advocate 1968 JC 32 Sco Churchill v Walton [1967] 2 AC 224 Eng Connolly v Loughney (1953) 87 ILTR 49 Irl Corway v Independent Newspapers [1999] 4 IR 484 Irl Davey v Lee [1967] 2 All ER 423 Eng de Gortari v Smithwick (No 2) [2001] 1 ILRM 354 Irl DPP v Armstrong [2000] Crim LR 379 Eng DPP v Carew [1981] ILRM 91 Irl DPP v Nock and Alsford [1978] AC 979 Eng DPP v Shannon [1975] AC 717 Eng DPP v Stonehouse [1978] AC 55 Eng DPP v Withers [1975] AC 842 Eng Ellis
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Descriptive Analysis of Georgia High School Teachers' Perceptions of Academic Dishonesty
    Georgia Southern University Digital Commons@Georgia Southern Electronic Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies, Jack N. Averitt College of Spring 2007 Descriptive Analysis of Georgia High School Teachers' Perceptions of Academic Dishonesty Amy Manning Rowland Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/etd Recommended Citation Rowland, Amy Manning, "Descriptive Analysis of Georgia High School Teachers' Perceptions of Academic Dishonesty" (2007). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 215. https://digitalcommons.georgiasouthern.edu/etd/215 This dissertation (open access) is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies, Jack N. Averitt College of at Digital Commons@Georgia Southern. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons@Georgia Southern. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS OF GEORGIA HIGH SCHOOL TEACHERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF ACADEMIC DISHONESTY by AMY MANNING ROWLAND (Under the Direction of Walter Polka) ABSTRACT This research study was conducted with the assistance of Georgia high school teachers for the purpose of examining teachers’ perceptions of academic dishonesty during the 2006-2007 school year. Data were gathered to establish teachers’ perceptions of academic dishonesty by exploring what behaviors teachers felt to be academically dishonest, how teachers addressed such occurrences, whether teachers felt any internal conflict regarding academic dishonesty, whether any external pressures were involved in instances of academic dishonesty, and how these experiences affected teachers’ attitudes toward their profession. Results of the study indicated that high school teachers in Georgia consider academic dishonesty to be a prevalent problem. Teachers consider some types of academic dishonesty to be more serious than other types of academic dishonesty.
    [Show full text]
  • Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE V
    Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/ 09/29/2021 03:25 PM CDT - 415 - Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets 305 Nebraska Reports STATE v. STABLER Cite as 305 Neb. 415 State of Nebraska, appellee, v. Eddy D. Stabler, appellant. ___ N.W.2d ___ Filed March 27, 2020. No. S-19-360. 1. Jury Instructions. Whether the jury instructions given by a trial court are correct is a question of law. 2. Judgments: Appeal and Error. When reviewing questions of law, an appellate court resolves the questions independently of the conclusion reached by the lower court. 3. Convictions: Evidence: Appeal and Error. Regardless of whether the evidence is direct, circumstantial, or a combination thereof, and regardless of whether the issue is labeled as a failure to direct a verdict, insufficiency of the evidence, or failure to prove a prima facie case, the standard is the same: In reviewing a criminal conviction, an appellate court does not resolve conflicts in the evidence, pass on the credibility of witnesses, or reweigh the evidence; such matters are for the finder of fact, and a conviction will be affirmed, in the absence of prejudicial error, if the evidence admitted at trial, viewed and construed most favor- ably to the State, is sufficient to support the conviction. 4. Sentences: Appeal and Error. An appellate court will not disturb a sen- tence imposed within the statutory limits absent an abuse of discretion by the trial court. 5. Jury Instructions: Proof: Appeal and Error. To establish reversible error from a court’s refusal to give a requested instruction, an appel- lant has the burden to show that (1) the tendered instruction is a correct statement of the law, (2) the tendered instruction is warranted by the evidence, and (3) the appellant was prejudiced by the court’s refusal to give the tendered instruction.
    [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]
  • Pattern Criminal Federal Jury Instructions for the Seventh Circuit
    Pattern Criminal Federal Jury Instructions for the Seventh Circuit The Committee on Federal Criminal Jury Instructions for the Seventh Circuit drafted these proposed pattern jury instructions. The Seventh Circuit Judicial Council, on November 30, 1998, approved these instructions in principle and authorized their publication for use in the Seventh Circuit. The Judicial Council wishes to express its gratitude to the judges and lawyers who have worked so long and hard to make a contribution to our system of criminal justice. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTORY INSTRUCTIONS ............................................1 1.01 THE FUNCTIONS OF THE COURT AND THE JURY ........................2 1.02 THE EVIDENCE ..................................................3 1.03 TESTIMONY OF WITNESSES (DECIDING WHAT TO BELIEVE) ......4 1.04 WEIGHING THE EVIDENCE-INFERENCES .........................5 1.05 DEFINITION OF “DIRECT” AND “CIRCUMSTANTIAL” EVIDENCE ...6 1.06 WHAT IS NOT EVIDENCE .........................................7 1.07 ATTORNEY INTERVIEWING WITNESS ............................8 1.08 PARTY OTHER THAN AN INDIVIDUAL ............................9 1.09 NUMBER OF WITNESSES ........................................10 1.10 REMINDER OF VOIR DIRE OBLIGATIONS ........................11 2.01 THE CHARGE - THE INDICTMENT .....................................12 2.02 LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE ....................................13 2.03 PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE - BURDEN OF PROOF .............15 2.04 DEFINITION OF REASONABLE DOUBT ...........................16 2.05
    [Show full text]
  • College Students' Understanding of Academic Dishonesty Heidi Johnston Taylor University
    Taylor University Pillars at Taylor University Master of Arts in Higher Education Theses Graduate Theses 2009 College Students' Understanding of Academic Dishonesty Heidi Johnston Taylor University Follow this and additional works at: https://pillars.taylor.edu/mahe Part of the Higher Education Commons Recommended Citation Johnston, Heidi, "College Students' Understanding of Academic Dishonesty" (2009). Master of Arts in Higher Education Theses. 4. https://pillars.taylor.edu/mahe/4 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Theses at Pillars at Taylor University. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master of Arts in Higher Education Theses by an authorized administrator of Pillars at Taylor University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. i COLLEGE STUDENTS’ UNDERSTANDING OF ACADEMIC DISHONESTY _______________________ A thesis Presented to The School of Graduate Studies Department of Higher Education and Student Development Taylor University Upland, Indiana ______________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts in Higher Education and Student Development _______________________ by Heidi Johnston May 2009 © Heidi Johnston 2009 ii Higher Education and Student Development Taylor University Upland, Indiana CERTIFICATE OF APPROVAL _________________________ MASTERS THESIS _________________________ This is to certify that the Thesis of Heidi Johnston entitled College Students’ Understanding of Academic Dishonesty has been approved by the Examining Committee for the thesis requirement for the Master of Arts degree in Higher Education and Student Development May 2009 __________________________ _____________________________ Tim Herrmann, Ph.D. Date Randall Dodge, Ph.D. Date Thesis Supervisor Member, Thesis Hearing Committee _____________________________ Skip Trudeau, Ed.D. Date Member, Thesis Hearing Committee ______________________________ Tim Herrmann, Ph.D.
    [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]
  • Clarksburg High School – Code of Academic Integrity Other
    Clarksburg High School – Code of Academic Integrity Clarksburg High School highly values academic integrity and does not permit any form of dishonesty or deception that unfairly, improperly or illegally enhances a grade on an individual assignment, assessment or a course grade. The following is a list of behaviors that constitute academic dishonesty. We are aware, however, that new forms of cheating, plagiarism and other forms of dishonesty may arise and, therefore, we expect every student to interpret the requirement of academic honesty and integrity broadly and in good faith. If you have any doubt as to whether a particular act constitutes academic dishonesty, ask a teacher before you do it. Academic dishonesty includes, but is not limited to: Cheating on Exams and Assignments Plagiarism in Papers and Assignments dsg 1. Copying from others or allowing others to copy 1. Giving or getting improper assistance by a from you on any assignment or assessment, parent or other person on an assignment meant including, but not limited to, homework, lab to be individual work. (When in doubt ask) reports, tests, and quizzes. 2. Including in any assignments turned in for 2. Having or using notes, formulas, or other credit any materials not based on your own information in a programmable calculator or research and writing. This includes: other electronic device without explicit teacher a) Using the services of a commercial review and permission. term paper company. 3. Having or using a communication device such b) Using the services of another student. as a cell phone, pager, PDA or electronic c) Copying part or all of another person’s translator to send or obtain unauthorized paper and submitting it as your own information.
    [Show full text]
  • Fakers and Forgers, Deception and Dishonesty: an Exploration of the Murky World of Art Fraud†
    Fakers and Forgers, Deception and Dishonesty: An Exploration of the Murky World of Art Fraud† Duncan Chappell and Kenneth Polk Abstract This article examines the problem of fraud in the contemporary art market. It addresses two major cases where persons have been convicted of art fraud in recent years in Australia, examining the legal context within which the prosecutions took place. It then examines problems in common terms such as ‘forgery’ and ‘fakery’. The final sections review the different ways that issues of authenticity in art are addressed in possible cases of art fraud, and examines the question of why so little art fraud comes to the attention of the criminal justice system. Introduction Art fraud, especially allegations of the circulation of spurious works of art, seems a common topic for contemporary mass media. Certainly, the present writers, as criminologists, have encountered numerous allegations of false works in the art market in our many interviews and contacts with leading figures in the Australian context over the past decade. At the same time, as we shall see, almost no cases of art fraud work their way through the court system, either in this country or overseas. This suggests that there may be significant barriers within the criminal justice system that make it difficult to prosecute successfully this form of fraud. The purpose of the present discussion is to examine the crime of art fraud in terms of the major elements that have to be established for a prosecution of the crime, based in large part upon two recent Australian prosecutions of this type which have been successful, and then go on to examine some of the reasons why such prosecutions are so rare.
    [Show full text]
  • Background Check 21: Frequently Asked Questions
    Background Check 21: Frequently Asked Questions Q. What is the Background Check 21? Every contract employee, contractor, or subcontractor must have a comprehensive background check before being assigned to Wells Fargo, an FDIC regulated facility. Wells Fargo must comply with Section 19 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (FDI Act.) See FDIC Policy. Q. Why has SecurTest with its patented iReviewNow® been selected to perform the Background Check 21? 1) SecurTest provides a fixed flat-rate price, which helps manage your budget. 2) SecurTest was ranked the number one background check provider by HRO Today two consecutive years. Customers, through independent audited surveys, named SecurTest the best provider based on customer satisfaction, delivery of accurate reports, legal compliance, and the ability to deliver to both large and small employers and users of background screening reports. 3) SecurTest is the only background screening provider with the patented iReviewNow. iReviewNow ensures reports are accurate and fair by treating the subject of the background check as part of the process. Q. Can I add additional background check criteria, such as employment verifications, credit checks, education verification, drug testing, I-9, and other features for an additional fee? YES. Call 800-445-8001, as we can develop background- screening solutions that incorporates the Background Check 21 mandates along with your other screening needs. © 2019 – SecurTest, Inc. and iReviewNow, LLC – All Rights Reserved. Refer to your legal counsel to ensure compliance with applicable federal and state 1 laws, as well as the FDI Act, Fair Credit Reporting Act, and EEOC regulations. Q. What convictions are included in the Wells Fargo Background Check 21 Program? Wells Fargo created the Background Check 21 Program.
    [Show full text]
  • Fidelity/Employee Dishonesty Coverage Three Reasons to Protect Your Business from Employee Crime
    CBIZ INSURANCE SERVICES, INC. Fidelity/Employee Dishonesty Coverage Three reasons to protect your business from employee crime As a business owner, the last thing you want to believe about your most important asset, your employees, is that they may be intentionally causing the company loss. When you consider the statistics, it’s clear that fraud prevention measures are not enough. Statistically speaking: . 33 percent of all employees admit to stealing at least once during their employment1 . 75 percent of all U.S. companies report they have been victims of employee fraud2 . Approximately 30 percent of all business failures are traced to employee theft2 To truly protect your organization from this risk, you need fidelity/employee dishonesty coverage. Here’s why: 1. Employee dishonesty is costly and pervasive In the Association of Certified Fraud Examiner’s 2016 Global Fraud Study, 5 percent of business revenues were lost as a result of occupational fraud and abuse. When applied to the U.S. Gross Domestic Product, this translates to losses of approximately $994 billion. Over 80 percent of occupational fraud involves asset misappropriations; cash is targeted 90 percent of the time. Fraud committed by employees causes a median loss of $65,000, fraud committed by managers cause a median loss of $173,000. When two individuals conspire in a fraud scheme, the median loss is $150,000. That number rises to $633,000 when five or more perpetrators are involved. By comparison, business owners/executives steal on average $703,000. Corruption schemes account for 35 percent of all occupational fraud and cause a median loss of $200,000.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Law
    Questions & Answers CRIMINAL LAW Ninth edition Mike Molan Professor of Legal Education and Executive Dean, Faculty of Arts and Human Sciences, London South Bank University http://www.pbookshop.com 2014 and 2015 1 000-Molan-FM.indd0-Molan-FM.indd iiiiii 112/2/132/2/13 111:041:04 AAMM 1 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford OX2 6DP United Kingdom Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries © Mike Molan 2014 The moral rights of the author have been asserted Sixth edition 2008 Seventh edition 2010 Eighth edition 2012 Impression: 1 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer Public sector information reproduced under Open Government Licence v1.0 (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/open-government-licence.htm) Crown Copyright material reproduced
    [Show full text]
  • FIRST English 24 Final.Indd
    Kuwait International Law School Journal Quarterly peer-reviewed Law Journal It is concerned with Publishing Legal and Sharia'a Studies and Research The first issue was published in March 2013 Volume 7 - Issue 1 - Serial Number 25 Jumada Al-Akhirah - Rajab /1440 - March 2019 Full text of the research is available in: Journal.Kilaw.edu.kw Kuwait International Law School Journal - Volume 5 - Issue 1 - Ser. No. 18 - Ramadan 1438 - June 2017 1 Editorial Board Editor - in - Chief Prof. Badria A. Al-Awadhi Managing Editor Dr. Ahmad Hamad Al-Faresi Editorial Consultant Prof. Abdelhamid M. El-baaly Prof. Seham Al-Foraih Prof. Yousri Elassar Prof. Ahmad A. Belal Prof. Magdi Shehab Prof. Amin Dawwas Dr. Abderasoul Abderidha The Journal Committee Dr. Ardit Memeti Dr. Farah Yassine Dr. Khaled Al Huwailah Dr. Ahmed Al Otaibi Dr. Yahya Al Nemer This is to certify that The Bachelor of Laws (LLB) programme offered at Kuwait International Law School is quality assured and has successfully passed a Curriculum Review with the following outcome The programme is well managed and complies with the European Standards and Guidelines (Part 1) 2015 and aligns with the QAA Subject Benchmark Statement: Law (2016). Review Conducted by The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (QAA) Douglas Blackstock, Chief Executive, Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, UK Valid until 30 September 2023 This is to certify that The Master of Laws (LLM) programme offered at Kuwait International Law School is quality assured and has successfully passed a Curriculum Review with the following outcome The programme is well managed and complies with the European Standards and Guidelines (Part 1) 2015 and aligns with the QAA Subject Benchmark Statement: Law (2016).
    [Show full text]