Words: 526
The Courts could charge Lois Wager with money laundering in the first degree, as defined in (NY PL 470. 20). Laundering Of Monetary Instruments (51956. Laundering of monetary instruments) If a person knowingly engages in a financial transaction which is illegal in nature, or conducts or attempts to conduct this illegal activity could face a fine not more then $500,000 or at least two times the property value, or imprisonment up to twenty five years.
The Second money laundering statute 51957 is broader then 956, which only requires transaction of 10,000 where 51956 has no minimum dollar amount They would have to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt that she had the intent to profit through illegal means, it would not matter that she knew that she carrying counterfeit money instead of plasma since both acts are illegal. This could be done By Kennedy proved willful blindness. Charles W. Golden Professor John Snyder Exam 2.
Experience 3 In the case of the Fraternity on the Balcony campus their actions fall under Strict Liability for the actions of everyone at their party. As in STATE v. GUMMING the owner was charged with violating section 340. 73 pursuant to 5340. 73 (1984) which places criminal liability on the owner of the restaurant for the actions of the waitress. Under (NY 15. 10) The conduct of the fraternity by spiking the punch was to get everyone drunk, it as their responsibility to ensure the safety of everyone at their party.
Although they can prove that they placed individuals in charge to ensure that no minors attended the party, they did not ensure that these individuals performed their duties under (NY 15. 15), this act constitutes recklessness or criminal negligence. Although David is almost 16 years of age, Marry parents can have him arrested for Statutory Rape under (NY 130. 05) Sex offence which demonstrates that an individual is incapable of consent when he or she is less then seventeen years old.
The college it’s self can be charged with criminal liability based on the actions of the fraternity Professor Shirley Sourwood, is well aware of her condition being a recovering alcoholic. And although she may have not known that there was alcohol in the punch, the fact that she woke up with Norman Naive the 16 year old, and it was evident that they had had sex Professor Sourwood can be charged with (NY 130. 05) Sex offence then seventeen years old. Do to the fact that alcohol was consumed by both parties she could also be charged with rape in the third degree. Both these charges are class
E felony which carry a still be charged with contributing to the delinquency of a minor, which adds to her problem is that she cannot Martin Myopic could be held culpable for the charge of Driving under the influence. Based on the case of State v. Miller, 309 Or. 362, 788 p. Ad 974, the Oregon Supreme Court held up a driving while intoxicated conviction. Because the defendant was not allowed to present evidence that unknown to him, someone had laced his drink with alcohol It was declared that this statute created strict liability since alcohol was present in his system