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.

Source:

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: ( http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/10/us-hacking-indictment-idUSKCN0SZ1VM20151110#c1rBtki5qh764cBV.97 )

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.

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 Momma.com.  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.

Mamma.com 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.

Posted by Kesha Patel.

In 2012, four employees of tech giant Apple filed a lawsuit against their employer in San Diego. Apple allegedly failed to give their employees proper meal and rest breaks in addition to not paying them in a timely manner. In 2013, the case became a class action lawsuit that included about 21,000 employees who had worked at Apple between 2007 and 2012.

California law states that any employee that works for five hours or more must get a thirty-minute meal break; any employee that works for four hours is required to get a 10 minute rest break.

Jeffrey Hogue, an attorney representing the class action said the $2 million verdict had came but Apple could owe more. Although Apple made scheduling changes in 2012, the aura of secrecy keeps its employees from discussing the company’s working conditions.

Kesha is an accounting student at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Carlos R. Rodriguez.

The article “Ex-U.S. Tax Court Judge, Husband Indicted in Tax Case” written by The Associated Press mainly discusses the topic of how a former U.S. Tax Court Judge, Diane Kroupa and her husband, Robert Fackler have been charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, tax evasion, making and subscribing false tax returns and obstruction of an IRS audit, U.S. Attorney Andrew Luger announced. The charges were brought in Minnesota and allege that the couple conspired to evade at least 400,000 dollars in federal taxes. In a statement, U.S. Attorney Andrew Luger stated that “Tax laws apply to everyone, and those of us appointed to federal positions must hold ourselves to an even higher standard.”

Diane Kroupa was served as a tax court judge by then-president George W. Bush in 2003 and retired in 2014. The charges brought on her and her husband allege that between 2004 and 2010, the couple understated their taxable income by about $1 million and they owe at least $400,000 in taxes. Also, federal prosecutors accuse Kroupa and Fackler of fraudulently deducting at least $500,000 of personal expenses they listed as expenses at Fackler’s consulting firm, and another $450,000 in purported business costs for which clients had reimbursed Fackler, the Star Tribune reported. Kroupa also failed to report about $44,520 that she received from the sale of land in 2010 in South Dakota instead of claiming it as an unrelated inheritance which was stated in the court documents.

In my opinion, as a Tax Court judge, Diane Kroupa should be held to a higher standard of ethics. Also, any tax cases for which she was present should be investigated because Diane’s judgment is clearly out of line if she is found guilty for these charges. Given her comprehensive understanding of tax laws, it should be obvious to her that reporting personal expenses as business expenses is a way to defraud the IRS and it was done intentionally in order to evade taxes. Going forward, a solution to an issue of this nature should be that government officials should be checked for things like tax evasion more often because if their moral judgment is incorrect, their decisions can be detrimental to the country as a whole.

Carlos is a graduate accounting student with a certificate in forensic accounting at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Posted by Michael Cappelluti.

It is no surprise that our society is on the brink of a technological revolution. It is projected that “65% of elementary school students will hold jobs that do not exist yet when they enter the workforce” (Frank Diana). By 2029, Ray Kurzweil predicts we will have technology that will allow us to live forever. While these technologies may benefit us, our society will be forced to react to these changes. Ethics and law will be crucial in making these reactions a reality. A more pressing issue, though, is the introduction of autonomous vehicles on the road. The article, “Law & the Problem of Autonomous Cars” by Nicholas Stringfellow, offers a legal perspective on the implications of this new technology.

Autonomous vehicles will disrupt many aspects of law, but the article starts off by discussing statutory law. Stringfellow believes that the state and federal levels of government will have to create a body of law about self driving cars—specifically about what happens when the “autopilot system” fails and the passengers are forced to disengage the autopilot and take control. Four states currently have a statutory law for autonomous vehicles, but they differ in some ways. Some states require a person to sit in the driver’s seat in case something were to go wrong, whereas some are more lax about an “emergency driver.” A huge ethical issue will be whether the car is programmed to defend the passengers at all cost, or, from a utilitarian standpoint, make whatever decision will save the most lives in the scenario.

The article also goes on to discuss Tort law, specifically, products liability law. “Injured persons could bring manufacturing defect, design defect, failure to warn, or breach of warranty claims [to a court]” in the instance of an accident (Stringfellow). Courts will be forced to respond by “adopting a negligence standard, a strict liability standard, or by refusing to impose liability on carmakers.” Essentially, if a car is programmed to protect the most amount of lives in a situation—what happens? For example, if a car spins out of control onto the sidewalk to avoid a fatal accident pile-up on the road ahead, will the pedestrians killed by the disoriented car be able to file a law suit? These questions are unknown, at this point. This topic will be heavily discussed by futurists, ethical analysists, and lawyers in the near future—and this will pave way to the future of how we transport ourselves as human beings.

Michael is a marketing and management major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Brennan Smith.

A judge, a deputy constable, and a supervisor of all police, fire, and emergency operations walk into a bar…

Although a common play on the setup of a hysterical joke, the indictment of John I. Waltman, Robert P. Hoopes, and Bernard T. Rafferty is not something the members of Bucks County and Lower Southampton Township are laughing about. The three men named are the judge, supervisor, and deputy constable—respectively—referenced above, who just got indicted for money laundering.

Here’s what happened: “The trio conspired to launder about $400,000 in funds represented by investigators to be the proceeds of health care fraud, illegal drug trafficking and bank fraud, according to a federal court indictment unsealed Friday morning, a statement from the U.S. Attorney’s Office said. The men allegedly took laundering fees of $80,000,” (theintell.com). In order to launder the money, the trio went through a series of processes. One source of revenue, and by far the most prominent one, was through Raff’s Consulting LLC—a company with which Rafferty had full control—with which the three used “bogus documents” in order to turn a profit.

To understand how they did this, the facts of the case must be examined. Per the research done by theintell.com, Robert P. Hoopes would arrive to an office building in an unmarked Lower Southampton Township Police car, exchange the false documents for $100,000 cash, and bring the money back to the car (where John I. Waltman and Bernard T. Rafferty would be waiting). From there, Waltman and Rafferty would go to the Philadelphia Credit Union to deposit the money—after paying Hoopes and pocketing their own cuts—into the Raff’s Consulting LLC accounts. The operation lasted from June 2015 to November of 2016 with the trio laundering $400,000 between June and August of 2016—earning $80,000 in laundering fees (Philadelphia.cbslocal.com).

Because of their crimes, the FBI was forced to get involved and finally caught them in an undercover sting. The three will each face one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering, and three counts of money laundering. District Judge John I. Waltman has been suspended without pay, with the other two removed from their positions.

Brennan is a sports management and marketing major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Sources:

http://www.theintell.com/news/crime/bucks-county-district-judge-constable-lower-southampton-public-safety-director/article_f23e17b6-f07a-5e1b-8abb-6edf11a47ecc.html

(Article)

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2016/12/16/authorities-judge-director-of-public-safety-deputy-constable-charged-with-conspiracy-money-laundering/

(Article)

In class, we discuss the Fourth Amendment as it pertains to a variety of searches and seizures by government actors. Even though the New Jersey analog is practically identical to the federal Fourth Amendment, the New Jersey Supreme Court has interpreted more protections for privacy than the United States Supreme Court has under the federal amendment.

In a recent case, the New Jersey Supreme Court overturned a prior 2009 decision requiring police officers conducting an automobile search to have probable cause and exigent circumstances, such as time constraints and safety concerns, and obtain a warrant from a judge prior to the search. The court held  officers now merely have to have probable cause to conduct the search–a retreat to the federal standard.

From time to time, courts will break with stare decisis when circumstances permit. The decision in this case, however, drew criticism from two of the Justices and the defense bar. Justice LaVecchia wrote in her dissent, “‘One can only wonder why the State and the majority of this Court find it appropriate to turn from the progressive approach historically taken in this State to privacy and constitutional rights of motorists.’”

But the court held the old standard was “unworkable.” Police were required to get a telephonic warrant in these circumstances; yet, many of them resorted to merely getting the owner of the vehicle to sign a “consent form” for the search instead of calling a judge.

Justice Barry T. Albin, writing for the majority held the standard applied in the 2009 decision “does not provide greater liberty or security to New Jersey’s citizens and has placed on law enforcement unrealistic and impracticable burdens.” The court found that the 2009 standard had the “unintended consequence” of causing an “‘exponential increase in police-induced consent automobile searches,’” suggesting officers may be pressuring drivers to volunteer for searches instead of taking the time to obtain a warrant.

“‘The heavy reliance on consent searches is of great concern given the historical abuses associated with such searches and the potential for future abuses,’” Justice Albin wrote.

Posted by Danielle Lindsay Feoranzo.

It was on June 4^th 2015 that the U.S Supreme Court found the State of Maryland’s system of personal income taxation violated the nondiscrimination prong of the Dormant Commerce Clause. This clause states Congress has been given power over interstate commerce, and that states cannot discriminate against interstate commerce, nor can they unduly burden interstate commerce, even in the absence of federal legislation regulating the activity. The Court found that Maryland did not grant a resident credit for county income tax paid on income earned and taxed in another state. What to keep in mind is this particular state’s personal income tax scheme is of composed of three elements:

(1) A state tax imposed on all income of Maryland residents and the income of nonresidents from sources within Maryland, (2) a county tax (collected by the state) imposed on all income of state residents, and (3) a special nonresident state tax imposed on the income of nonresidents from sources within Maryland, which tax is said to be in lieu of the county tax and is imposed at a rate equal to the highest county tax within the state (pg. 1; Bright, Schulder, Upham).

In this instance, the Wynnes were state residents and subject to tax in 39 other states because they owned a corporation that resides in multiple states. The Wynnes were able to take a tax credit in Maryland against taxes paid to other states on their corporation income but were not allowed to take a credit against Maryland county tax for taxes paid to other states on the corporation income. The Court held that:

Maryland’s personal income tax system was not internally consistent under the Commerce Clause and therefore unconstitutionally discriminatory. According to the Court, if every state imposed their personal income tax in the same way as Maryland, an individual who lived in one state and worked in another would always be subject to a higher tax burden than an individual who lived and worked in the same state. The taxing scheme gave preferential treatment to purely intrastate activities versus interstate activities.

Therefore, the Court concluded that Maryland’s personal income tax system was not consistent under the Dormant Commerce Clause, and thus, unconstitutional.

In conclusion, the Wynnes were within their constitutional right to get a tax credit not only on their state tax but also on their county tax. This because it was protected under the Dormant Commerce Clause not to discriminate wherever that income is earned.

Danielle is a business administration major with a concentration in management information and technology at Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

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.