Gucci Sues Alibaba Over “Counterfeit Goods”

Posted by Wing Sze Yu.

This article talks about China’s leading online marketplace, Alibaba, being sued by the owner of Gucci, Yves Saint Laurent, Puma, Kering Group, and other fashion brands for selling fake goods. This is not the first time that Alibaba is being complained about selling fake goods. The company states that it is taking action to fight against fake goods on its various websites.

Kering took legal action against Alibaba last, but the case was later dropped. However, Alibaba insisted that “it was enforcing a zero tolerance policy towards fakes.” To help customers to figure out if the products are authentic or not, Alibaba has recently announced a new anti-counterfeit technology. “The firm has announced a tie-up with an Israeli start-up to offer visual markers – similar to but less obtrusive than QR codes – that can be scanned with its Taobao app to prove that goods are genuine. Manufacturers are being invited to add the ‘dotless visual codes’ to their labels to help prove they are authentic.”

Wing is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2018.

Chase Settles Lawsuit Over Debt Collection

Posted by Alyssa Cohen.

This year, JPMorgan Chase will settle the charges made against it for the use of illegal debt-collection practices made between 2009 and 2013. The lawsuit follows “a national settlement over similar allegations.” The nation’s largest bank miscalculated the amounts owed by customers, and sold debt to collectors that had been filed improperly against 125,000 Californians. It also obtained default judgment against active military personnel, which is against state and federal laws. While it is not illegal for a bank to attempt to collect overdue debt, the methods used by JPMorgan Chase were unethical and considered illegal by all states, as well as the federal government.

“In addition to other state penalties, Chase will pay $50 million in restitution to customers who were victims of its debt-collection practices.” It also agreed to conditions governing how they can collect or sell consumer debts to outside companies.

It just is not fair to customers who have not been able to notify the bank of their inability to pay. However, I believe that default judgment should be made against customers who were actively avoiding to pay back their debt. Dismissing the lawsuits that were filed improperly was a great sign of the progress that the bank has made to take responsibility for their wrongdoing, as well as not filing “any credit card debt suits against customers” since 2011.

Jumping ahead to filing lawsuits against a bank’s customers will no doubt hurt JPMorgan’s reputation. As with most lawsuits brought by the government, the majority of the fines collected went to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in order to help consumers take control of their own financial decisions. Protecting the consumer by educating and enforcing federal laws can make a great difference in the health of our economy.

Alyssa is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

GNC: Hidden Chemical Lawsuit

Posted by Amber Piskunov.

GNC is a widely known and trusted nutritional health retailer that is now being sued for allegedly selling products known to contain an illegal amphetamine-like stimulant. The two chemicals are called Picamilon and BMPEA. In addition to selling the illegal drug, GNC clearly intended for it to be hidden because the chemical was not listed under the nutritional facts or ingredients. In today’s world, many people want to see fast results, such as losing weight or gaining muscle. Stimulants can do that by reducing digestion and hunger, while also increasing your energy output. However, it should be known that these drugs are illegal, addictive, and sometimes deadly. GNC didn’t properly label the product, making it dangerous for the consumers without prior knowledge of purchasing. The investigation is being aided by the US Food and Drug Administration; they have announced that the chemical is illegal and should not be sold to consumers. After this was found by the FDA, GNC has taken all products containing the chemical off the shelves for sale.

The lawsuit states that “GNC sells products obtained from third-party vendors that GNC knows or should have known it contained unlawful and potentially unsafe ingredients.” Being a previously trusted 2.6 billion dollar retailer of “nutritional and healthy supplements,” GNC has now publicly hurt their name because of the chemicals found. Consumers are most likely going to be worried about buying products from GNC because of the secret ingredients that were previously hidden. GNC has since denied any knowledge of the drug in their products or on their shelves, and the ones in question have been removed. They have also mentioned they are protected by federal regulations. The company is denying the claims against them and is strongly defending themselves against the lawsuit.

GNC has caused their company to have bad publicity, a decline in stocks, and also a decline in profits. This is a serious lawsuit regarding consumer safety. GNC was not properly selling their product and did not have the best intentions for the well being of the consumers. With that being said, GNC is now trying to gain sales back by promoting lower prices and a better store experience. This is a way for the company to try to stay stable while dealing with the negative attention the lawsuit has brought. The warning made by the FDA stated the product is, “a substance that does not meet the statutory definition of a dietary ingredient.” The laws were not followed when the company decided to not only put the chemicals in the product but to also not have it labeled for consumer knowledge. The public will now be safer with the product being off shelves. GNC ended up losing profits instead of gaining profits because statutory laws were not met.

Amber is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business at Montclair State University, Class 2017.

Sources used:

Volkswagen Emissions Scandal

Posted by Amber Piskunov.

The well known German car maker, Volkswagen, has made headlines regarding a scandal involving software that cheats diesel emissions testing. This software has affected over 11 million diesel fueled cars creating many lawsuits. The cheating software covered up nitrogen oxide emissions and underestimated greenhouse gas emissions and also fuel consumption. This scandal has created many more lawsuits against the car maker regarding the violations of the US environmental laws. Volkswagen has admitted to installing the software due to the investigation which also involves whistle-blowers of the company. There has been a lack of progress with this lawsuit because there is not a valid explanation as to whom allowed the decision for the cheating software.

The investigation is still ongoing; the EPA has called for the employees of Volkswagen to come forward with any information regarding the matter. They have until November 30th to provide information regarding the truth to the scandal. A statement was made by US law firm Jones Day stating, “Those who come forward before the deadline have nothing to fear from the company in the way of repercussions on the job such as being fired or held liable for damages.” However, this offer is only for those protected by the collective bargaining pact. This is a way for workers to feel less threatened by the scandal and to help the law firm gain information to further reach a decision. Volkswagen has said they have no influence over decisions made by other employees who decide to come forward. Volkswagen is trying to cover up as much information as they can to prevent further actions against them.

Volkswagen has been under the spotlight since the scandal was announced. Following the announcement, Volkswagen has had a drop in sales from all around the world. The company also announced they will begin fixing the emissions problem in January. Not only is Volkswagen beginning to fix the problem, they are also offering gift cards as a form of goodwill in hopes to help maintain their reputation. Compensation to car owners is still being discussed as the lawsuit continues.

The impact this has had on the car maker should have been looked upon before the decision was made to install the software. Volkswagen clearly knew this was an issue and still decided to produce the vehicles in hopes of profits. Not only did they get caught with illegally installing software that goes against the Environmental Protection Agency, they now have a massive lawsuit causing bad publicity and a decline in sales. All in all, Volkswagen has affected many aspects of their company along with the public and environment.

Amber is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Cyber Fraud Targets JP Morgan, Others

Posted by Kirill Ivanov.

This article discusses a team of cyber criminals accused of cyber fraud for targeting various companies within the United States. Gery Shalon, Joshua Aaron, and Ziv Orenstein were charged in a 23-count indictment alongside crimes targeting 12 different companies. Their unlawful behavior is stated to be traced as far back as 2007. These men ran an enterprise that has been accused of pumping up stock prices, running online casinos, processing payments for criminals, laundering money, and exchanging illegal bitcoins. Prosecutors stated that the illegal proceeds from their manipulation of stock prices equaled tens of millions of dollars. One particular quotation that stands out describes the defendants’ schemes:

The alleged conduct also signals the next frontier in securities fraud – sophisticated hacking to steal nonpublic information, something the defendants discussed for the next stage of their sprawling enterprise. Fueled by their hacking, the defendants’ criminal schemes allegedly generated hundreds of millions of dollars in illicit proceeds.

The future of cyber crime could be moving into this “next frontier,” and it may even evolve to encompass other crimes such as insider trading. What if hackers discover a way to access a company’s emails and databases, then use the this inside information to trade outside the company? This ability would allow such criminals to operate from “within” the company without physically setting foot in its headquarters; these cyber criminals would, in essence, operate as ghosts.

Kirill is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2018.


Title: “U.S. charges three in huge cyber fraud targeting JPMorgan, others”

Author: Jonathan Stempel and Nate Raymond

Published: November 10, 2015 4:43pm EST

Link: ( )

Business Law Blogs Archives

Both sides of the political isle are pressuring the Fed to be more transparent regarding its monetary policy and cease “cozying up” to the banks it oversees. There are several legislative proposals that some prior Presidents of the Fed consider to be a threat to its independence. If any one of them are passed, it would be the first major overhaul of the institution since the Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act of 1978.

Senate Banking Committee Chairman Richard Shelby is concerned with the Fed’s portfolio, because since 2008 the Fed more than quadrupled its balance sheet to $4.5 trillion. It purchased bonds to suppress longer-term interest rates, but Shelby is at a loss to discover as to what the Fed is going to do with them.

Sen. Rand Paul, along with 29 other Republican Senators, the Majority Leader, and one Democrat, is sponsoring a bill requiring the Fed to be subject to “regular audits” of its monetary policy by the General Accounting Office (GAO). Paul reasoned it is “‘unseemly that an organization that we’ve given the power, the monopoly, of making money uses that power then to try to thwart transparency.’”

Representative Bill Huizenga of Michigan, head of the House Financial Services panel’s subcommittee on monetary policy, wants to require the Fed to use a mathematical rule when it changes interest rates. New Jersey Republican Representative Scott Garrett has introduced a bill entitled, the “Federal Reserve Transparency and Accountability Act” that “would require the central bank to perform a cost-benefit analysis of any new banking rule, submit internal audits and performance reviews to Congress and send a top official to testify before lawmakers on financial rule-making.”

There is at least some change to the selection of governors. Current law now requires at least one member of the seven-member Board of Governors to have community banking experience. It brings experience other than the traditional “academic” or “megabank” experience, as the proponent of the original bill, Sen. David Vitter of Louisiana, described. Individual governors on Fed’s Board of Governors are required to be confirmed by the Senate. The Board of Governors makes important decisions on interest rates and how banks are regulated. But specific expertise in banking is not a requirement for any of the positions. “Of the board’s current five members, three are economists and two are lawyers.” The addition of a governor with community banking experience, however, lends more diversity in the decision-making process.

The New York branch has been the target of Democrats, in particular Sen. Elizabeth Warren from Massachusetts. She has been critical of the current president, William C. Dudley, of being too chummy with big banks. Warren wants more congressional oversight of the central bank. Democratic Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island suggests that selection of the New York Fed president should be confirmed by the Senate and has proposed a bill requiring it. Currently, the bank’s directors select the twelve district bank presidents who are then sent on for approval by the Fed board located in Washington.

A lot of criticism surrounds the amount of power the president of the New York branch has over policy set by the Federal Open Market Committee (FOMC). The president of the New York bank is the only president that does not have to rotate on the committee. Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher called for the “stripping” of the New York president’s permanent role on the FOMC, because the New York branch wields too much power and influence. The Independent Community Bankers of America, a Washington lobby consisting of 6,500 members, agree.

Both Democrats and Republicans want a more accountable Fed, but there are detractors who believe that legislation would only have the effect of politicizing the central bank. In one poll, 24% of Americans polled believe that politics should stay out of the Fed.

The defendant in the Chris Kyle murder case argued he was insane at the time of the killing. There are various forms of the defense, but in essence it is the defendant’s inability to know that his actions are right or wrong, or that a mental disease somehow impaired his free will to act.

Normally, the burden is upon the defendant through his counsel to show that he was insane at the time of the murder. But in some states such as Colorado, the burden falls upon the prosecution to show that the defendant was sane at the time of the murder.

Grand juries function to investigate criminal wrongdoing and screen out charges that do not warrant prosecution. Secrecy in the proceedings is paramount to carry out its duty. Therefore, litigants in a civil action cannot request that grand jury proceedings be disclosed, unless there must be a particularized need for the disclosure. That need must outweigh the public interest in its secrecy.

But why should these proceedings remain secret when court proceedings are generally conducted in public? The United States Supreme Court has said there are five reasons why grand jury proceedings should remain secret:

(1) To prevent the escape of those whose indictment may be contemplated; (2) to insure the utmost freedom to the grand jury in its deliberations, and to prevent persons subject to indictment or their friends from importuning the grand jurors; (3) to prevent subornation of perjury or tampering with the witnesses who may testify before grand jury and later appear at the trial of those indicted by it; (4) to encourage free and untrammeled disclosures by persons who have information with respect to the commission of crimes; (5) to protect innocent accused who is exonerated from disclosure of the fact that he has been under investigation, and from the expense of standing trial where there was no probability of guilt.

United States v. Proctor & Gamble, 356 U.S. 677, 681 n. 6, 78 S. Ct. 983, 986 n. 6, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1077, 1081 n. 6 (1958)).

One of the concerns is keeping witness names secret for fear that exposure could have a chilling effect on future witness cooperation in grand jury proceedings. Another concern is damage to the reputation to those investigated if they are not indicted by the grand jury or if the indictment is subsequently dismissed by a judge for legal or factual defects in it.

Particularized need requires the party requesting the grand jury information to show its relevance to the case and without it the party would suffer prejudice or an injustice. Courts may require the party seeking the information to exhaust all other means provided by the discovery process first. And if granted, the court may opt to review the material in camera to make sure the party’s need outweighs the public policy for grand jury secrecy.

The Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the United States Constitution states:

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

While federal law trumps state law, nothing under the Supremacy Clause compels a state court’s interpretation of a federal law to give way to a lower federal court. In Lockhart v. Fretwell, Justice Thomas stated in his concurrence that “a state trial court’s interpretation of federal law is no less authoritative than that of the federal court of appeals in whose circuit the trial court is located.” 506 U.S. 364, 375-76 (1993).  Justice Thomas gave the following example: “An Arkansas trial court is bound by this Court’s (and by the Arkansas Supreme Court’s and Arkansas Court of Appeals’) interpretation of federal law, but if it follows the Eighth Circuit’s interpretation of federal law, it does so only because it chooses to and not because it must.”

The Supreme Court is the final interpreter of federal law. When it rules, then the states are bound.

In Heien v. North Carolina, the Supreme Court held that where a police officer makes a stop based upon a reasonable mistake about a law, the stop is justified.

In this case, an officer stopped a vehicle because one of its two brake lights was out, based on a misunderstanding that the North Carolina law permitted only one working brake light. The officer stopped Heinen’s vehicle because one light was not working and then proceeded to a consensual search of the car. The search turned up a bag of cocaine located in a duffle bag in the trunk. Heinz was arrested and convicted of attempted drug trafficking. The question presented to the Court was whether a police officer’s reasonable mistake of law can give rise to the reasonable suspicion necessary to uphold a seizure of an automobile and the occupants in it under the Fourth Amendment.

The North Carolina statute reads that a car must be:

equipped with a stop lamp on the rear of the vehicle. The stop lamp shall display a red or amber light visible from a distance of not less than 100 feet to the rear in normal sunlight, and shall be actuated upon application of the service (foot) brake. The stop lamp may be incorporated into a unit with one or more other rear lamps. N. C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §20–129(g) (2007).

The Court concluded that the statute required only one stop lamp to be working. However, the officer was under a different impression of the law at the time. A nearby statute requires that “all originally equipped rear lamps” be functional. N. C. Gen. Stat. Ann. §20–129(d). The officer made the stop under a mistake in law. Nevertheless, the Court held that even if an officer reasonably misunderstood the law, as long as the officer conducts a search or seizure reasonably under the Fourth Amendment he is acting justifiably.

“To be reasonable is not to be perfect, and so the Fourth Amendment allows for some mistakes on the part of government officials, giving them ‘fair leeway for enforcing the law in the community’s protection.’” Reasonable mistakes of fact are permissible. For example, when someone consents to the search of a home, the search will be considered valid even if the officer mistakenly believes that the person consenting is the owner.

Reasonable mistakes of law are also permissible. “Reasonable suspicion arises from the combination of an officer’s understanding of the facts and his understanding of the relevant law. The officer may be reasonably mistaken on either ground.” Even laws that police enforce that are later declared unconstitutional by a court does not rebut an officer’s reasonable assumption that the laws were valid at the time.

Heinen argued that there is no margin of error for an officer’s mistake of law. He argued the legal maxim: “Ignorance of the law is no excuse.” If persons cannot get out of trouble by claiming they were mistaken about the law, then neither can the police.

But the Court concluded the law protects against only “reasonable mistakes,” and therefore, “an officer can gain no Fourth Amendment advantage through a sloppy study of the laws he is duty-bound to enforce.” The Court further concluded Heinen’s reliance on the legal maxim is misplaced. A person cannot escape criminal liability by claiming he did not know the law, but neither can the government impose criminal liability by a mistaken understanding of the law. The Court explained:

If the law required two working brake lights, Heien could not escape a ticket by claiming he reasonably thought he needed only one; if the law required only one, Sergeant Darisse could not issue a valid ticket by claiming he reasonably thought drivers needed two. But just because mistakes of law cannot justify either the imposition or the avoidance of criminal liability, it does not follow that they cannot justify an investigatory stop.

In this case, Heien did not appeal his brake-light ticket. Instead, he appealed a cocaine-trafficking conviction, as to which he did not claim the police made either a mistake of fact or law.

The United States Supreme Court has denied certiorari leaving in place a ruling by the D.C. Circuit that a fee cap set by the Federal Reserve Bank at $.24 per transaction. Each time a customer swipes his or her debit card, a retailer is charged the fee.

Retailers complained when the Fed appeared to be abusing Congress’ mandate to create a ceiling on debit card swipes. The Fed originally proposed a $.12 cap, but retailers claim it was under pressure by bank lobbyists to double that amount and include fees and expenses that are not permitted under law.

The D.C. Circuit rejected that argument and determined the Fed’s interpretation of the law was reasonable. “The Fed rule doesn’t apply to credit cards, government-issued debit cards, prepaid cards or cards issued by banks and credit unions with assets under $10 billion.” Retailers vowed to “continue to press the issue in the courts over the ‘anti-consumer and anti-competitive practices of the card industry.’”

In class, students learn about bribery of public officials and its criminal penalties. Bribery can also be an ethics violation. Generally, public officials are prohibited from accepting gifts in relation to their official duties. Both federal and state governments have fashioned rules regarding acceptance of gifts and these rules can extend to family members.

In Section III of the New Jersey Uniform Ethics Code, for example, it states that no state officer or employee “shall accept any gift, favor, service or other thing of value related in any way to the State official’s public duties.” The same holds true for federal judges. Under the Regulations of the Judicial Conference of the United States under Title III of the Ethics Reform Act of 1989 Concerning Gifts, judges “shall not accept a gift from anyone who is seeking official action from or doing business with the court . . . .”

But there are exceptions to the rules and each one has to be carefully construed. Some, like the New Jersey Uniform Ethics Code, will permit certain “gifts or benefits of trivial or nominal value” as long as the gift “does not create an impression of a conflict of interest or a violation of the public trust.” Other codes may provide a dollar-limit. For example, the “Regulations” for federal judges above provide that gifts having “an aggregate market value of $50 or less per occasion” are permitted “provided that the aggregate market value of individual gifts accepted from any one person . . . shall not exceed $100 in a calendar year.”

Common sense is the foundation of these rules. If the gift has the appearance of impropriety, it is better to graciously decline it.

Hacking into computer systems is nothing new, and government and businesses alike have always been aware that they must be one step ahead of computer criminals. But the attack on Sony Pictures Entertainment was more than that. It was a shot across the bow in what appears to be a potentially rampant future form of warfare. As a result, every cyber attack on government or business systems must now be carefully examined to see whether it is either criminal or an act of war.

In the face of evidence from the FBI that North Korea was responsible for the Sony attack, senior Republican senators disagree with the administration that it was only a form of “cybervandalism.” Sen. McCain stated this attack “is a new form of warfare, and we have to counter that form of warfare with a better form of warfare.” Sen. Lindsey Graham called “the cyberhacking ‘an act of terrorism’ and suggested re-imposing sanctions on North Korea and adding the country to the terrorism list.” In 2001, President George W. Bush called North Korea part of the “Axis of Evil,” along with Iran and Iraq.

The FBI concluded the attack on Sony was evidenced by IP addresses directly linked to North Korea. This attack was similar to those that occurred last year against South Korean banks and media outlets. The FBI stated:

We are deeply concerned about the destructive nature of this attack on a private sector entity and the ordinary citizens who worked there. . . . Further, North Korea’s attack on SPE reaffirms that cyber threats pose one of the gravest national security dangers to the United States. Though the FBI has seen a wide variety and increasing number of cyber intrusions, the destructive nature of this attack, coupled with its coercive nature, sets it apart.

North Korea’s actions were intended to inflict significant harm on a U.S. business and suppress the right of American citizens to express themselves. Such acts of intimidation fall outside the bounds of acceptable state behavior.

There will most likely be more cooperation between business and government in sharing information and technology. Only together can this new threat to our national security and economy be defeated.

Bank of America must pay a Florida couple for failing to answer a harassment complaint.  The couple received relentless phone calls from the bank regarding past due payments on a mortgage.

BofA alleged the calls “were not to collect debt, but help the couple avoid foreclosure.”  The couple, however, claimed they received about 700 calls over a four year period.  At times, both their cell phones and home phone would ring in succession.  The couple filed suit in federal court under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act for harassment and subsequently received a default judgment. The judge refused to reconsider the order.

Default judgment is taught in business law class. This case exemplifies the importance of obeying court rules and responding promptly to a complaint.

The European ATM Security Team (EAST) discovered that ATM hackers are now drilling holes in ATM machines near the card reader and installing electronic devices which tap into the “read head” of the magnetic strip reader to steal information.  Normally, thieves would “skim” the information on the magnetic strip through an “overlay” device that would actually read the magnetic strip outside the machine when an unwary customer would insert his or her card.

Instead, these new devices work like a wiretap inside the machine and read the information as it passes through the head of the reader.  The hole is then covered up with a decal after the device is removed with the stolen data.  EAST still classifies the crime as “skimming” even though “‘the the magnetic stripe [on the customer/victim’s card] is not directly skimmed as the data is intercepted.’”

Cameras are still used by thieves to steal PIN numbers; therefore, EAST suggests customers cover the keypad with their hand before entering their PIN.

Facebook to Appeal a Belgian Court’s Ruling on Data Privacy

Posted by Wing Sze Yu.

In this article, Facebook intends to appeal a data privacy ruling in Belgium. This privacy ruling forces social media to stop collecting digital information from people who are not its users. There is a tough line about how American technology companies, such as Facebook, gain access to, manage and use people’s information on their website even for the European Court of Justice, as well as the European Union’s highest court. In Monday’s ruling, a court in Brussels states that Facebook has no right to collect person information in Belgium who do not have an account with the social network.

Prior to the data privacy rule, Facebook had collect data from people’s online activities, both Facebook users and non Facebook users through digital cookies. Facebook responds that it had been using digital cookies to collect information without facing complaints, so it would appeal the ruling. Yet, Facebook promised to stop collecting online information from people in Belgium who do not have a social media account.

Wing is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

Mark Cuban Cleared of Insider Trading

Posted by Emmanuel Martinez.

Mark Cuban who is well known for his high profile lifestyle has recently been acquitted from the charges against him for insider trading. The SEC brought a “civil lawsuit against Cuban in November 2008. A judge dismissed the suit in 2009 but an appeals court revived the case the following year.” Cuban decided to go to trial.

The lead prosecutor in the case, Jan Folena, accused Mark Cuban of getting a private tip to avoid a loss of about $750,000 when he sold his interest in  Cuban was accused of getting a tip from Chief Executive Guy Faure, who supposedly gave him a heads up about the company planning a private placement, which would had affected the investment Cuban had in the company;  his investment amounted to about $7.9 million dollars. dropped 9.3% after the private placement offering. Mark Cuban was accused of insider trading because he sold his shares two weeks prior to the stock dropping. Cuban stated that potential investors were being contacted to participate in the private placement and this is how he made his judgment to sell his shares. He denied any inside information being given to him that the public did not have.

Emmanuel is an accounting major at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

Former General Counsel of South Florida Law Firm Sentenced for Fraud

Posted by Connie Huang.

According to Merriam Webster dictionary, fraud is “the crime of using dishonest methods to take something valuable from another person; a person who pretends to be what he or she is not in order to trick people; [or] a copy of something that is meant to look like the real thing in order to trick people.” Therefore, a person who pretends to be something they’re not in order to trick people and using dishonest ways to take something valuable from someone is fraud.

A former general counsel of a law firm in South Florida was sentenced to 18 months in federal prison. He was sentenced to federal prison because he helped a managing partner  “swindle investors by selling them ‘income’ from faked settlements.” He will probably be testifying against other defendants.

According to the article, defendant’s attorney argued that his client “had been punished enough by losing his New York law license and his home and declaring bankruptcy.” I agree that defendant has been punished enough, because losing one’s ability to work and make money (a law license) and maintain a house is hard on his life as it is. That is a lot to lose. The defendant apologized in court to his family members, which I believe is a rightful thing to do. He has declared he has been guilty to charges relating to wire fraud.

“Former General Counsel of Notorious Rothstein Law Firm Gets 18 Months for Fraud.” ABA Journal. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Feb. 2015.

Connie is an international business major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

HSBC Offices Raided Over Money Laundering Allegations

Posted by Connie Huang.

HSBC is a bank with locations in Europe. Two branches raided on or about February 18, 2015 by Swiss authorities are located in Geneva. They raided the banks, because the banks are accused of money laundering.

Money laundering is “a financial transaction scheme that aims to conceal the identity, source, and destination of illicitly-obtained money.” The bank’s Swiss arm was aiding their clients in hiding $100 billion in Swiss accounts, as reported by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ). This allowed let them evade taxes.

According to the article, the bank told their clients that it would not divulge to national authorities details of accounts. HSBC talked about “moves that [would] ‘ultimately allow clients to avoid paying taxes in their home countries.’” As said by the ICIJ, HSBC has served clients like Hosni Mubarak, former Egyptian President, the current ruler of Syria Bashar al-Assad, and Ben Ali, the former Tunisian President.

“HSBC Switzerland Offices Raided over Money Laundering Allegations – Feb. 18, 2015.” CNNMoney. N.p., n.d. Web. 22 Feb. 2015.

Connie is an international business major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.