The Federal Reserve Bank of New York has come under fire recently with the release of secret tapes supposedly of regulators planning to “go soft” on Goldman Sachs.  Carmen Segarra, a former employee who was assigned to Goldman, claims in a lawsuit that she was under pressure by her superiors to overlook certain findings she made concerning the company.  The Fed eventually fired her allegedly because she refused to comply and change the findings.

In the recordings, one supervisor tells Segarra that basically consumer laws do not apply to certain institutions.  Michael Lewis, best-selling author of “Flash Boys: A Wall Street Revolt,” said after listening to the tapes that, “The Ray Rice video for the financial sector has arrived.”

Segarra’s lawsuit was dismissed for failing to connect her firing with the alleged Goldman disclosures.  The suit is pending appeal.  Nevertheless, the tapes may prompt a Congressional investigation into the matter.  Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), a member of the Senate Banking Committee, stated, “When regulators care more about protecting big banks from accountability than they do about protecting the American people from risky and illegal behavior on Wall Street, it threatens our whole economy.”  She further stated, “Congress must hold oversight hearings on the disturbing issues raised by today’s whistleblower report when it returns in November.”

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.

Posted by Peyton Adams.

Avery was wrongly convicted for strangling Maryetta Griffin.  According to sources, Avery did not admit to the crime, and if he did, it was a forced confession.  However, the jury did not believe him.

The prosecution was able to sway the jury, which caused Mr. Avery to go to jail for SIX years. His image was severely damaged; he lost touch with his children and grandchildren due to being wrongfully convicted.

New DNA evidence surfaced proving that Avery was not the murderer of Maryetta Griffin.  Instead, the DNA testing was linked to Walter Ellis, a serial killer.  Avery was unjustly incriminated by the Milwaukee Police and Avery’s accusations of him not confessing, or confessing unwillingly were proved correct.

The police in this case, therefore, destroyed a man’s life by making up incriminating statements.  Avery lost touch with loved ones; his image was attacked; and he was ONLY awarded $1M.

John Stainthorp with Peoples Law Office in Chicago said, “If you think about it, six years while you’re in prison, you can’t get up when you want, you can’t see the people you want, go to bed when you want, read what you want.”  His life was ruined due to the fact that the police did not do the correct investigation to make sure that they had accused the correct man.

Mr. Avery was released after six years, but his life will never be the same AGAIN!  The Milwaukee Police should be questioned for the accusations they made in court against the plaintiff.

Peyton is a marketing major with minors in business law and nonprofit studies at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Bank of America reached a settlement with federal prosecutors over the sale of mortgage-backed securities in the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis.  BofA will pay 10 billion cash and about 7 billion in consumer aid.  Most of BofA’s trouble is inherited from its purchase of Countrywide Financial.  BofA was charged with misrepresenting the quality of loans it sold to investors.

BofA sold residential mortgages from borrowers who were unlikely able to repay their loans; yet, these securities were promoted as safe investments.  Subsequently, the housing market collapsed and investors suffered billions of dollars in losses.

The consumer aid component should come in the form of reducing the principal on loans BofA knows it cannot recover in full.  This is one of the “consumer-friendly” activities BofA can engage in order to achieve “credits.” Credits consist of a multiple for each dollar spent on each form of consumer relief.  Critics claim that because of credits, tax write-offs, and “other tricks” the fines paid by banks who break the law are worth only a fraction of the amount.

Posted by Stephen D’Angelo.

Friday morning, two days after the judge presiding the Uber class action lawsuit decided that drivers attempting to arbitrate can be included in the law suit, Uber sent drivers a new agreement. The document undermined the judge’s ruling by revising the arbitration clause.

Liss-Riordan and her team are filing an emergency motion that will be heard in front of Judge Edward Chen next Thursday; it asks the court to block Uber from enforcing this new driver agreement. “Uber has tried to fix the problem that Judge Chen ruled made the agreement unenforceable,” Liss Riordan told TechCrunch in an email.. The Private Attorney General Act gives “a private citizen the right to pursue fines that would normally only be available to the State of California. It also allows that private citizen to “seek civil penalties not only for violations that he personally suffered” but also for violations of “other current or former employees.”

According to Chen’s Wednesday ruling, the Uber driver agreement of 2014 and 2015 illegally waived drivers’ rights under PAGA, which informed Judge Chen’s decision that the arbitration clause could not be honored because it contained an illegal provision. This was the reason for the provision of the agreement, to quickly remove the illegality and include new provisions to the agreement.

The Private Attorney General Act protects uber drivers from what uber has tried to prevent, a large action against the company. Uber has agreed to resolve any claim against the company but only on an individual basis. Uber’s driver agreement provision also attempts to prevent workers from participating in any class collective or representative action against the company. Uber also rewrote the agreement to remove a requirement that arbitration between a driver and the company remain confidential. The language makes it clear that the agreement goes into effect only when a driver accepts it  not when a revision is published, therefore, protecting drivers who previously signed the agreement.

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

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.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed a ruling against Gotham Garage, a maker of replica automobiles from movies and television shows. Gotham Garage sells a “Batmobile,” which looks like the original. DC Comics claims it owns a copyright in the Batmobile and the design is protected intellectual property. The Ninth Circuit ruled the Batmobile’s appearance and other distinct attributes make it a “character” that cannot be duplicated without permission from its owner. “As Batman so sagely told Robin, ‘In our well-ordered society, protection of private property is essential,’” 9th Circuit Judge Sandra Ikuta, writing for a unanimous three judge panel stated in her opinion.

Larry Zerner, an attorney for defendant, said he was disappointed in the ruling. He argues the law states that automobile designs are not subject to copyright. “My client just sells cars,” Zerner said. “The car is not a character. The car is a car.”

The replica automobiles sell for $90,000 each.

Posted by Bridget Uribe.

During the month of March of 2014, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) charged three executives: Chairman Steven Davis, Executive Director Stephen DiCarmine, and Chief Financial Officer Joel Sanders of Dewey & LeBoeuf, the international law firm, with facilitating a $150 million fraudulent bond offerings. The SEC alleged that the three charged turned to accounting fraud when the firm needed money during the economic recession and steep costs from a recent merger.  They were afraid that their declining revenues might cause the bank lenders to cut off access to the firm’s credit lines. Thus, leading Dewey & LeBoeuf’s financial professionals came up with ways to artificially inflate income and distort financial performance.

The fraud didn’t stop there. Dewey & LeBoeuf then resorted to the bond markets to raise significant amounts of cash through a private offering that seized on fake financial numbers. Dewey & LeBoeuf since have officially went out of business, and the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office charged criminal charges against Davis, DiCarmine, and Sanders. According to the SEC’s complaint, the roots of the fraud dated back to late 2008 when senior financial officers began to come up with fake revenues by manipulating various entries in Dewey & LeBoeuf’s internal accounting system. The firm’s profitability was inflated by approximately $36 million (15%) at the end of the 2008 financial results. “The improper accounting also reversed millions of dollars of uncollectible disbursements, mischaracterized millions of dollars of credit card debt owed by the firm as bogus disbursements owed by clients, and inaccurately accounted for significant lease obligations held by the firm”(SEC Press Release).

Fast forward to the present, a New York judge declared a mistrial Monday bringing an end to the trial for the biggest law firm failure in U.S. history! The decision comes on the 22nd day of deliberations by a 12-member jury, which acquitted the ex-law firm leaders on several dozen counts of falsifying business records. The jury couldn’t reach a verdict on grand larceny and remained deadlocked on more than 90 counts charges facing Steven Davis, Joel Sanders, and Stephen DiCarmine. The three could have faced up to 25 years in prison if convicted of grand larceny, the most serious of the roughly 50 counts each brought against them. The defendants also faced related civil charges brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission and a private lawsuit brought by former Dewey investors who say, “They were duped into buying debt in a 2010 bond offering.” Both of those proceedings had been on hold pending the outcome of the criminal trial. Some highlights of the trial are: prosecutors had likened Mr. Davis to a drug kingpin, overseeing a criminal enterprise. Also, the defense side thought prosecutors didn’t present enough evidence to prove their case, thus choosing not to call any witnesses. Instead, the lawyers relied on the cross-examination of government witnesses to try to distance their clients from the actions taking place in the accounting department. At times, such questioning also prompted praise for the defendants from those on the stand. Where does this lead us now? How the Department of Justice completely lost the case or can a retrial give a favorable outcome in the future? It’s too early to tell, but what I do know is that the long deliberations and mistrial will raise questions about whether the case was too complex.

Bridget is a graduate forensic accounting student at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2016.

Posted by Radhika Kapadia.

The real cost of bribery is a question that often lacks a definitive answer.  It seems that Och-Ziff Capital Management, a hedge fund headquartered in New York City, is learning a hard lesson for allegedly engaging in bribery in Africa.  The firm is set to pay a hefty price of $412 million dollars, but the SEC has added the implicit cost of hindering fundraising by insisting that the firm clear any potential deals with investors with state regulators, adding considerably lengthy minutes and cumbersome dollars to the fundraising process.

Because of the massive bribery allegations, the firm was unable to obtain a waiver for the penalties corporations subject to civil law enforcement sanctions or criminal charges, such as bribery, typically face.   As a result, the company will be faced with the tremendous cost of an increased fundraising process and the more-than-ever watchful eye of the SEC over future investment transactions.   In the burgeoning era of bribery cases, the question of whether dollar penalties are truly enough to deter corporations from engaging in illegal acts is often difficult to assess.  However, the SEC is beginning to believe that financial consequences, coupled with other implicit penalization costs will truly begin to reduce bribery within the corporate world.

The allegations against Och-Ziff are primarily as a result of their dealings with Dan Gertler, an Israeli diamond-trade millionaire.  According to the Wall Street Journal, Gertler was known to use political connections in Africa to defeat competitors.  The Wall Street Journal noted that approximately “$250 million of Och-Ziff dollars were used to bribe the current president of the Democratic Republic of Congo in exchange for diamond mining rights.”  Despite blatant warnings and advisement from their lawyers, Och-Ziff executives, such as chief executive Daniel Och, chose to deliberately ignore corruption allegations against Gertler. Subsequently, the African subsidiary of Och-Ziff pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit bribery, resulting in one of the largest settlements under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.   It seems that Och-Ziff is slowly learning that the true cost of bribery is pervasive, and that ignorance truly is not bliss.

Radhika is a graduate student with a concentration in Forensic Accounting at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

Several states have statutes that make it a crime to refuse to take a breathalyzer if suspected of driving under the influence. Some states, like New Jersey, make refusal a civil offense. The High Court is reviewing statutes in North Dakota and Minnesota that make it a crime for people suspected of drunken driving to refuse to take alcohol tests. Drivers prosecuted under those laws claim they violate the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures.

The justices questioned lawyers representing the states as to why police cannot be required to get a telephonic warrant every time they want a driver to take an alcohol test. “Justice Stephen Breyer pointed to statistics showing that it takes an average of only five minutes to get a warrant over the phone in Wyoming and 15 minutes to get one in Montana.”  However, this may not be correct.

“Kathryn Keena, a county prosecutor representing Minnesota, suggested some rural areas may have only one judge on call, making it too burdensome to seek a warrant every time. She said even if a warrant were procured, a driver could still refuse to take the test and face lesser charges for obstruction of a warrant than for violating drunken driving test laws.”

Telephonic warrants have also been the rule in New Jersey since 2009. Recently, the New Jersey Supreme Court reversed itself, reverting back to the federal standard requiring police to obtain a warrant after establishing they have probable cause. Under the more stringent standard of using telephonic warrants, police were complaining it took to long to reach a judge. Police also used consent forms they carried, causing an outcry from the defense bar that such a practice may lead to further abuses. Justice Anthony Kennedy said the states are asking for “an extraordinary exception” to the warrant rule by making it a crime for drivers to assert their constitutional rights.

The problem for the states is that without the threat of a refusal penalty, the only proof available at trial as to whether someone was intoxicated while driving is the observations made by police. Observations, however, cannot prove blood alcohol level.