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.

Research proposal posted by Jessica Page.

Topic

The principle of double effect creates a set of guidelines to “determine when it is ethically permissible for a human being to engage in conduct in pursuit of a good end with full knowledge that the conduct will also bring about bad results” (The Principle of Double Effect). Generally, the principle states that when someone is deciding a certain conduct that has both good and bad effects, the course of conduct they choose is “ethically permissible only if it is not wrong in itself and if it does not require that one directly intend the bad result” (The Principle of Double Effect). The moral criteria for the principle of double effect generally states the action in itself must be good or indifferent, the good effect cannot be obtained through the bad effect, there must be a proportion between the good and bad effects brought about, the intention of the subject must be directed towards the good effect and merely tolerate the bad effect and there does not exist another possibility or avenue (What is the Principle of Double Effect?).

Pros and Cons

The issue with the principle of double effect is that each situation where the principle applies is different. If an act is bad, it cannot become good or indifferent by a good motive or good circumstances. If it is evil in nature, this will not change. That being said, the principle “the end justifies the means” must always be rejected. The idea that needs to be applied to each issue is the fact that a human must never do evil, but they are not bound to prevent the existence of evil. One example we can apply this to is the BP oil spill that was discussed in class. By not mandating a cut-off switch because of how expensive it was, even though the safety benefits were astronomical, when an explosion happened on one of the rigs, eleven workers were killed and seventeen were injured. Not to mention the five million barrels of oil that gushed into the ocean. Had the US mandated these switches like they wanted, even though BP lobbied against them, it could have avoided the deaths, injuries and pollution caused by the exploding rig. In this case, the deaths and havoc caused by the explosion did not justify the fact that BP was trying to save money for their own personal benefit. Another example where the principle of double effect is relevant today is the controversy of euthanasia. It is used to justify the case “where a doctor gives drugs to a patient to relieve distressing symptoms even though he knows doing this may shorten the patient’s life” (BBC). The doctor’s intention is not to kill the patient, but the result of death is a side-effect of reducing patient’s pain. One problem that people argue against this doctrine is the fact that they believe we are responsible for all anticipated consequences of our actions. Another is the fact that intention is irrelevant. A third issue, specifically in the euthanasia issue, is the fact that death is not always seen as a bad thing making the double effect irrelevant. Lastly, the double effect can produce an unexpected moral result.

Ethics and Principles

When looking at the incorporation of Catholic, one of the main issues that concerns this principle and the Catholic religion is that case where a pregnancy may need to end in order to preserve the life of the mother. The example most often given is a woman with uterine cancer. By removing the uterus, it will bring death to the fetus but the death is not “directly” intended and in turn, the mother will live. It is an issue that still is debated today (Soloman). Another similar case having to do closely with Catholic ideals is when a woman has an ectopic pregnancy and must receive surgery to remove the embryo. At a Catholic hospital, it can be questioned whether that specific procedure is considered a direct abortion, going against the Catholic ideals and morals, no matter what the means of the surgery are. “The principle of double effect enables bioethicists and Catholic moralists to navigate various actions that may or may not be morally justifiable in some circumstances” (Kockler). The idea of proportionate reasoning has also been condemned by Pope John Paul II. He categorized proportionalism as a species of consequentialism. This is condemned by the Church because no Catholic moralist would agree that a desirable end justifies any means (Kockler). These are serious issues, especially when considering the principle of double effect from a Catholic standpoint.

Works Cited:

Kockler, Nicolas. The Principle of Double Effect and Proportionate Reason. http://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/2007/05/pfor2-0705.html

“The Doctrine of Double Effect”. BBC. http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/euthanasia/overview/doubleeffect.shtml

“The Principle of Double Effect”. http://sites.saintmarys.edu/~incandel/doubleeffect.html

“The Principle of Double Effect”. http://www83.homepage.villanova.edu/richard.jacobs/MPA%208300/theories/double%20effect.html

“What is the Principle of Double Effect?” http://ncbcenter.org/document.doc?id=132

Posted by Peyton Adams.

The Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment have been overlooked by authorities many times in the past.  The Martinez vs Denver Police case is yet another time this has occurred.

The Denver police forcefully entered the Martinez house on January 27, 2009.  Instead of allowing Mr. Martinez to fully open the door to determine why the District 1 Special Crime Attack Team (SCAT) was at his door, SCAT forced their way into the house, without a warrant, after receiving information about this home being that of a drug dealer.  This Crime Team failed to realize that a new family had taken over the home since the tip was received.

The Denver police were apparently working on “stale information about the former tenants presumably being into drugs and prostitution and some bad stuff.”  The police failed to do their background checks; failed to do some investigation; failed to show any respect; and, failed to handle the situation in a proper manner.  Instead, the police asserted their power, entered the house, abused their power, and assaulted a family of a mariachi band.

The Martinez family were wrongly accused, but does the Denver police care? The Denver police instead ignored it and didn’t punish anyone on this raid.  They merely overlooked the fact that their team did not do their job.

The jury, however, came to a conclusion.  The Martinez family sued on two accounts: one, for excessive force, and two, for wrongful prosecution.  The jury did not see enough information to determine if the officers entered the house and abused their power, although there were broken windows and injuries sustained by the family.  Nonetheless, the jury found that the Martinez family was wrongfully prosecuted and awarded the Martinez family a monetary value of $1.8 million.

The officers planned on appealing the case.

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

Fox News’ Harris Faulkner, co-anchor of the daytime show Outnumbered, sued Hasbro toy company for $5 million. Hasbro sold a toy hamster named the “Harris Faulkner Hamster Doll” as part of their “Littlest Pet Shop” product line.

In the complaint, Faulkner alleges unfair competition under the Lanham Act and common law violation of right to publicity. She claimed she is “distressed” that her name would be associated with a toy that indicates it could be a potential “choking hazard” to children, and that portraying her as a rodent is demeaning and insulting.

She further claimed that since as a journalist she cannot be connected with a commercial product, “Hasbro’s use of her name in association with the Harris Faulkner Hamster Doll creates the false impression that Faulkner would impugn her own professional ethics by agreeing to have a commercial product named after her.”

The U.S. Attorney’s Office in Washington D.C. is the first federal office to set up a unit to identify anyone wrongfully convicted of a crime.  The Conviction Integrity Unit will review cases where defendants offer new evidence that was not available at the original trial, such as DNA evidence, to prove their innocence.  Ronald Machen, Jr., the U.S. Attorney of the Washington office said in a statement, “As prosecutors, our goal is not to win convictions, but to do justice.”  Machen further said, “This new unit will work to uncover historical injustices and to make sure that we are doing everything in our power to prevent such tragedies in the future.”

The Conviction Integrity Unit follows similar ones established in state offices.  The modus for the creation of a separate unit to review these cases arises from five convictions that were vacated by the court, including that of Donald Gates, who was convicted in 1982 of rape and murder based on hair evidence.  DNA testing made available in 2009 proved that he was innocent.

The office is working with defense lawyers and the Mid-Atlantic Innocence Project, a non-profit organization which fights wrongful convictions.  Over the last four-years, more than 2,000 files involving hair or fiber evidence have been reviewed by the FBI.

Posted by France Jennica Osmann.

As the holidays are approaching, Cyber Monday is the main day of the year where families are out for great deals for Christmas shopping online. A recent article in the San Jose Mercury News stated:

Cyber Monday is not the only day to find good deals online during the holiday season. If you miss an online special, don’t sweat: Chances are that you’ll be able to get a reasonable deal later in the holiday season or even after Christmas. Be aware of sales tax and any other fees. Depending on whether the merchant has an in-state ‘presence,’ it may or may not add sales tax — Amazon does, along with all merchants that have brick-and-mortar stores in California. California residents are supposed to declare any tax-free online purchases on their state tax returns and pay the sales tax, though I’m not sure how many people actually comply with that law.

For those who decided that they would shop on Cyber Monday, they should also be cautious of scams throughout the holidays. And don’t forget to protect yourself when shopping offline. “Credit card scams and hacks are on the rise so, again, check your recent activity frequently during the holiday season report any suspicious activity.”  The author of the article stated, “I was reminded of this the other day when my bank called to tell me that my Visa card was used to buy gas and groceries in Georgia. I haven’t been to Georgia since I got that card, so it probably resulted from a merchant being hacked.”

Finally, as you try to minimize the risk of online shopping scams, don’t forget that all shopping has risks. Personally, I’m just as worried about pickpockets in malls and fender benders in parking lots as I am about online scams.

France is a business management major at Montclair State University, Class of 2017.

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.”