Criminal breach of trust has been in defined previously with the related provision which is section 405 of the Penal Code. In determining whether a person is liable to the offence of criminal breach of trust, there are several elements that must be satisfied first. The first elements are there must be some entrustment or dominion of property to the accused. Then, the accused also must dishonestly misappropriate or convert the property to his own use, or dispose of the property or wilfully suffers another person to do so. Last but not least, the accused also dishonestly disposes the property in violation of any direction of law or legal contract.
The first element which is there must be some entrustment or dominion of property to the accused.
…show more content…
As being stated in the section 24 and the phrases of wrongful gain and wrongful loss are stated in section 23. In section 23, wrongful gain is defined as a gain by unlawful means of property to which the person gaining it is not legally entitled while wrongful loss is defined as a loss by unlawful means of property to which the person losing it is legally entitled. To be precise, a person can be said as to gain wrongfully when such person retains wrongfully, as well as when such person acquires wrongfully. Then, a person is said to lose wrongfully when such person is wrongfully kept out of any property, as well as when such person is wrongfully deprived o …show more content…
When there is the evidence of the mental element of dishonesty, then that breach of trust case can give a rise to a civil suit for damages. Then, such breach becomes a penal offence which is punishable as criminal breach of trust. A breach of contract is implicit, in every case of criminal breach of trust. Every offence under the criminal breach of trust involves a civil wrong in respect of which the complainant may seek his redress for damages in the civil court, however a breach of trust in the absence of the requisite mens rea cannot legally justify a criminal prosecution. The factor that can be used in determining whether a case is considered as criminal breach of trust or criminal breach of contract is whether the accused had acted dishonestly as in the case of Er Joo Nguang and another v Public Prosecutor.
Most of the cases under criminal breach of trust, where the accused is found to be dishonest, the accused is actually fail to provide any adequate explaination of his conduct. As in the case of Tan Kim Hock Anthony v Public Prosecutor, it can be seen that in a criminal context, a man is dishonest if he intended by unlawful means, to cause wrongful gain or wrongful loss to person to another
"Article III." LII / Legal Information Institute. Cornell University Law School, n.d. Web. 31 Mar. 2014.
—. Spotlight on Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. 14 November 2012. Web. 20 February 2014. .
There is no such thing as being “more honest” or being “less honest”. There exists only two categories: honesty and dishonesty, and there are no other categories of honesty based on the effects it has. Furthermore, the effect itself cannot judged by someone outside the pool of the affected people. For example, of two corrupt employees of different companies facing trial for corruption, both had stolen money form the customers of the company. While one had overcharged $2000 to one very rich client, the other overcharged $10 to a 100 middle class clients. What is the measure of dishonesty here? Who is “more dishonest?” While one’s dishonesty had the greater figure, other’s on the other hand affected more people. How can we judge the severity of the effects? Furthermore, how can we judge the impact of losing money on the victims? It could be the rest of their savings or their throw away money. We cannot judge the importance of the money by comparing it with something completely irrelevant like, the price of .7 grams of gold or the cost of the advertisement of a small company. No one can be certain of the range of impact the effects of dishonesty has, except the victim. So, it is almost absurd to quantify honesty taking its effects into
Steel, Alex, ‘The Harms and Wrongs of Stealing: the Harm Principle and Dishonesty in Theft’ (2008) 31(3) UNSW Law Journal 712
accused of a crime. The individual has a right to a trial and to be judged by a
It is believed that a false conviction is the result of an “honest mistake,”. One could disagree because wrongful convictions
"That in all capital or criminal Prosecutions, a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for Evidence and be admitted counsel in his Favor, and to a fair and speedy Trial by an impartial Jury of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty, (except in the Government of the land and naval Forces in Time of actual war, Invasion or Rebellion) nor can he be compelled to give Evidence against himself. "
Trust is a two way street. Trusting people is somewhat second nature to some. Unfortunately, trust is very hard to come by these days with all of the deception and scams that people are using. A person may think that they could easily spot a scam or detect deception but it is not as easy as it seems. Deception and scams are important tools for illicit actors to use in order to gain the upper hand on whatever the situation may be.
A written agreement is deemed necessary to prove the crime of bribery; however, prosecutors must show corrupt intent for proof of this crime. For the majority of situations, both parties such as the offering and the acceptance of the bribe will be charged with bribery. Bribery also occurs within the criminal justice system and traditionally it was limited to the judges who took money in exchange for ruling a certain way on a particular crime that was committed. In the past,
“Me, I'm dishonest, and you can always trust a dishonest man to be dishonest. Honestly, it's the honest ones you have to watch out for.” This quote from Johnny Depp is his most famous quote. Johnny is a very well respected Hollywood actor and has become wise over his years. This quote is full of truth and is really thought provoking. People that you know are dishonest are hard to trust to do something, but at least you know that they are not trustworthy. Someone that you believe is trustworthy may be a dishonest person and you do not know it. So you put your trust in them and they take advantage of your trust and betray you. That is not always the case, but sadly it does happen more than you would know.
The court had reason that appellants may have been guilty of fraudulent conversion, or of larceny by bailee if the theory is accepted that a vendor retaining possession of goods sold by him becomes constructively a bailee of the purchaser, and criminally culpable for a failure to deliver them to his purchaser. Appellants were indicted for larceny only, and of that they clearly were not guilty.
Lying is an issue that has been debated on for a long time. Some people believe that lying is sometimes ok in certain circumstances. Some people believe lying is always acceptable. In contrast, some believe lying is always bad. Keeping all other’s opinions in mind, I believe that lying is a deficient way of solving problems and is a bad thing. I claim that only certain situations allow the usage of lies and that otherwise, lying is bad. Dishonesty is bad because it makes it harder to serve justice, harms the liar individually, and messes up records. Furthermore, it should only be said to protect someone from grave danger.
The primary purpose of the “Statute of Frauds” (SOF) is to protect the interests of parties once they are involved in litigating a contract dispute (Spagnola, 2008). The relevant statutes are reliant upon state jurisdictions to determine whether the contract falls under the SOF, and whether the writing of the contract satisfies the requirements of the statute of frauds (Spagnola, 2008). However, all contracts are not covered under the SOF. In essence, for a contract to be deemed as legal by definition of the SOF, there must be verification of the following requirements for formation of the contract, which are as follows: (1) There must be least two parties to the contract, (2) There must be a mutual agreement and acceptance on the price to pay for goods and services offered, (3) The subject matter or reason for entering the contract, must be clearly understood by all parties to the contract, (4) and there must be a stipulated time for performance of duties under the contractual obligations (Spagnola, 2008). Lastly, there are five categories of contracts that are covered under the SOF, which are as follows: (1) The transfer of real property interests, (2) Contracts that are not performable within one year, (3) Contracts in consideration of marriage, (4) Surtees and guarantees (answering to the debt of another), and (5) Uniform Commercial Code (U.C.C.) provisions regarding the sale of goods or services, legally valued over five hundred dollars ($500.00) (Spagnola, 2008).
In Spain there are many cases where politicians have charged illegal commissions in exchange for granting contracts, two large examples are “Gurtel case” and “three-percent scandal”. On both cases, politicians demanded a percentage in exchange for giving jobs or concessions. Another form of corruption present in Spain where this linkage is shown is the urban development with examples as “Operation Malaya”, where the perpetrators have been convicted of a multitude of illegal activities (bribery, embezzlement of public funds, breach of trust, influence peddling, etc.).
Corruption and fraud is a relevant topic in South Africa and will continue to be so until it is able to be limited. Corruption is committed mainly by people in power as they neglect and take advantage of this power in order to better themselves at the expense of others. Fraud and corruption is the wrongful or criminal deception that results in financial or personal gain. Government officials, police officers and some unexpected individuals such as law officials have been known to commit corruption and fraud. There have been cases of corruption in the 2014 elections and the political parties have seen that it is something the community is concerned over. Each party has addressed this concern and suggested ways in which to limit this corruption. Not only is corruption morally wrong, but it causes trust problems between the community and people in power, the people who are meant to help society. (1)