Posted by Kelly Shaw.

Morris Zukerman, age 72, plead guilty in June 2016 to obstructing the IRS as well as tax evasion. He was sentenced to 70 months in prison for his criminal offenses in March 2017. Morris sold a co-owned petroleum products company, which was owned by a subsidiary of his investment firm M.E. Zukerman & Co., and then proceeded to mask the income he received from the sale. By doing so, Morris was able to evade taxes on his $130 million in income in 2008.

One may wonder how Morris was able to hide such a large profit from his accountants and receive clean audits over the years. The cover story that was given stated that in 2007, Morris transferred ownership of the subsidiary to a trust account. He even went as far as creating false documents to support his story such as a promissory note. By not reporting the $130 million sale, M.E. Zukerman & Co was able to avoid paying $33 million in corporate income taxes.

To add to Morris’s list of crimes, he also claimed a $1 million charitable contribution deduction in 2009  and 2011, which he was not entitled. Morris was registered to purchase a property on Black Island that the Maine Coast Heritage trust (MCHT) was preparing to purchase and use for business purposes. After contemplating about whether he would make a charitable contribution or not, he ultimately purchased the land for himself through his new LLC for $1 million. On his personal tax return, he convinced his accountant that the purchase should be stated as a charitable contribution to MCHT which was incorrect.

A quote from the US Attorney John H. Kim, “While amassing a personal fortune through, among other things, the $130 million sale of his company, Morris Zuckerman cheated on his taxes for years, illegally scheming to evade almost every one of his tax liabilities. Through his criminal schemes, Zukerman deprived the public of over $45 million in taxes he rightfully owed.” It is evident that Morris Zukerman’s actions were motivated by pure greed with little regard for the consequences of his actions.

Kelly is an MBA student with a concentration in accounting at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

Reference:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-sdny/pr/manhattan-energy-investor-sentenced-70-months-prison-evading-over-45-million-income-and

Posted by Abigail Murphy.

A way to raise money, fund a project, or venture from a large number of people for a small startup in the earliest stage money sounds simple. Not so much. Every so often, there are crowdfunding campaigns gaining popularity via Facebook newsfeed, twitter feed, and emails. These campaigns come with issues of the right amount of regulation and increasing issue of inequality of funding portals.

After years of back and forth, in October 2015 the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) implemented Title III of the Jumpstart Our Business Startups (JOBS) Act. JOBS allowed startup companies to safely use the internet to offer securities to investors. Prior to 2012, the internet could not be used to match investors and startup ventures due to the “general solicitation rule.” In a short 6 years, the SEC has developed their stance that the internet as a matchmaker for investors and startups is solicitation to a lacking concern for the inequality of funding portals.

A funding portal is the basic platform for the fundraising to take place and act as an intermediary. Both the funding portal pursuant and the broker-dealer must be registered through the SEC, however rising inequality have expressed that regulation is not enough. Concerns are expressed due to argument of crowds vs. expert’s wisdom, including liability. Wisdom for a crowd verses one single investor is never going to be definitive, while a single expert’s wisdom could be too specific. In addition, some are urging the SEC to reevaluate the liability of both parties in a crowdfund due to the easy loophole of fraud. If experts are considered the investors of crowdfunding, do their duties violate under the 1940 Advisers Act? Is crowdfunding an indirect security? This act set grounds for investors to follow and a guideline for compensations, economic activity, and other indirect securities. If the experts end up being categorized as investors, then they too are responsible for any fraudulent financial activity.

Personally, I believe that the overturning of the 2012 JOBS solicitation rule and the 2015 implementation of Title III of JOBS is all still very new. There are no past comparisons of any type of money exchange and investment to base crowdfunding off of. As this topic gains popularity and a crowd does flock to crowdfunding, there will be a need for heavier regulations on the liabilities and registration to create an ethical and financially stable funding portal. I was surprised to read about such an open ended definition when it comes down to the investor vs expert responsibilities in relation to the Advisers Act in 1940. Crowdfunding is an innovative way and already has several fundraising success stories. Over the next few years it will be interesting to see the investor return reports. As long as the finances stay in line, and both the crowdfund pursuant and the investors stay happy I see no issue in allowing the internet to play a role in matchmaking.

Abigail is an economics major at the Stillman School of Business, Class of 2018.

Source:

http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4958&context=nclr

Posted by Ahmed Alzahrani.

In this article, the rapper DMX is accused of evading tax. The rapper pleaded not guilty to any of the charges against him.  He was later released in prison after spending one day in jail; this was after he paid $500,000 bond. The persecutor asserts that Earl Simmons also known as DMX evaded an estimated $1.7 million in tax in the peak of his profession between 2002 and 2005.

He purportedly avoided paying taxes, including establishing accounts on other names and paying most of his expenditure in cash. This was a violation of the law whether you are a celebrity rapper or not; paying taxes is necessary to all Americans. The prosecutor also indicated that DMX failed to file his returns in the period between 2010 and 2015; the prosecutor added that the accuser filed a fake affidavit in the US Bankruptcy Court (LIBBEY, 2017).

The bail postulated that DMX to be restrained in New York City. However, his lawyer reported that he would ask for permission for the accuser to travel for a show performance in summer. After the hearing, Mr. Simmons (aka DMX) told the journalist that his faith played a significant role in coping with a legal issue. It gave him the courage to face the situation.

Ahmed is a graduate accounting student at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

Reference:

LIBBEY, P. (2017, July 16). DMX Pleads Not Guilty to Tax Fraud. Retrieved from The New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/16/arts/music/dmx-pleads-not-guilty-to-tax-fraud.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FTax%20Evasion&action=click&contentCollection=timestopics&region=stream&module=stream_unit&version=latest&contentPlacement=1&pgtype=collect.

Posted by Caroline Weeks.

On November 5, 2015 a dam in the Brazilian city of Mariana collapsed, resulting in multiple causalities and irreparable damage to the surrounding cities and ecosystems. In total, nineteen people lost their lives. The collapse also “released a torrent of sludge that washed away villages, displaced hundreds of people, and traveled more than four hundred miles through southeast Brazil’s Rio Doce basin before reaching the Atlantic Ocean.” It is said that this is “believed to be the biggest disaster of its kind anywhere.” The yearlong criminal investigation into the collapse recently ended and has resulted in homicide charges being filed against twenty one people in connection with the disaster. Some of the people charged are “current and former top executives of mining giants Vale SA and BHP Billiton Ltd., and Samarco Mineração SA.” In addition, employees of a consulting firm that performed checkups on the dam were charged with “presenting false stability reports.” This disaster is an example of companies being concerned solely with short run profit maximization and an inherent lack of corporate social responsibility.

The federal prosecutor in Brazil has stated that “the motivation of the homicides was the excessive greed of the companies.” It has been detailed that the victims were killed by the “violent passage of the tailings mud” and that they “had their bodies mutilated and…dispersed across an area of 110 kilometers.” These innocent employees died a cruel and painful death at the hands of corporate greed. Samarco focused on short run profit maximization and did not take into account the effects of their actions. The prosecutor says that there is evidence that Samarco, and its shareholders, were “aware of chronic structural problems” as early as April 2009. If this is true, the company knew about critical problems with the structure for more than 6 years and chose to continually ignore the warnings. The board not only failed to make the facility structurally sound, but responded to these structural issues by “pressuring the company to extract more iron ore.” If the company had simply taken head to these warnings they would’ve prevented the loss of innocent lives, the damage of surrounding communities, and incredibly expensive lawsuits along with a permanently tarnished reputation. These findings show the goal of the company was to maximize profits as quickly as possible. They did not take into account the repercussions of a dam collapse and innocent people paid the price for their greed.

This fatal event also details Samarco’s lack of corporate social responsibility. The company chose to focus on profits and purposely chose to ignore the issues with their facility. The company did not act ethically and they certainly did not take into account the surrounding communities. As a result of the dam collapse, families have lost their homes, and even entire communities have been washed away. Not only have these villages been destroyed, but so has the surrounding ecosystem. The river “is still tainted a rusty red form the sediment” that washed through the river basin after the dam collapsed. If the company had acted ethically, they could’ve saved lives and communities. This disaster is a prime example of executives acting carelessly in the hopes of inflating their bank accounts.

Caroline is a mathematical finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Posted by Ryan McNeilly.

Something we have come to know as Americans is that three things are certain in life. We will live, we will die, and we will pay taxes. Currently in the news, President’s Trump new tax plan has become the hot topic of discussion. People are disappointed to see another tax cut come about that seems to benefit the top 1% of society. Even some of the richest man in the world, like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates, are speaking up against the new plan because they feel that they do not need more money. They think they need to be giving more of it away so that people who live from paycheck to pay check can have a little bit more leeway and a better opportunity to increase their standard of living.

This article posted by Politico looks at this tax law and delves deeper to see what is occurring behind the scenes. They set the stage by opening the article with “A political battle over the fate of hundreds of regulations and other guidance for the new tax law may soon land on President Donald Trump’s desk, forcing him to choose between two of his favorite Cabinet members.” This alone is enough to capture the attention of any reader. As you continue to read you come to find out that the two Cabinet members they are talking about are Steven Mnuchin the Treasury Secretary and Mick Mulvaney the White House budget director.  The President must decide who will get to define the laws and regulations within the tax act.  This is crucial because the vision of the treasury differs from the view of the budget director.

This dispute has a greater impact than people see because now two crucial sectors of the White House will now be pitted against one another. With this occurring internally, it could hinder the President’s goal for growth. His goal is to get this plan into action, but he will not be able to unless an agreement occurs. The article states “OIRA and Treasury have been going back and forth for years over which entity should have final say over the department’s regulations.” This pressure has increased because of the decision date is slowly approaching. Politico speculates that the OMB has already made a deal with the White House. If this is true, then the OMB will get control of regulations and guidances for this tax act. None of this is confirmed so now we must wait and see how this internal debacle sorts itself out.

Ryan is a finance and information management systems major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2020.

Source:

Link: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/23/tax-law-white-house-power-struggle-364885

Posted by August Pimentel.

President Donald Trump recently had a libel case against him dismissed in the Supreme Court of New York on the basis that his tweets were spreading opinion rather than fact, and therefore could not be held accountable for libel.

The conflict began in February 2016, when Cheryl Jacobus, a Republican strategist who had previously been recruited by the Trump campaign, went on CNN attempting to expose a political action committee which allegedly was partly funding the campaign. Trump responded to the broadcast via his personal Twitter account, saying “Really dumb @CheriJacobus. Begged my people for a job. Turned her down twice and she went hostile. Major loser, zero credibility!” Jacobus sued the then presidential candidate and his then campaign manager Corey Lewandowski for defamation, pursuing damages of $4M. Jacobus stated that after the tweet, she received no more offers to speak and no employment opportunities.

Barbara Ross of the New York Daily News covered this case with an article in October 2016 on the suit, and another released in January 2017 when the case was dismissed.

“Jacobus had appeared 141 times on CNN to discuss the presidential race before the dust up,” said Ross. “But only once on another station after his tweets.”

The hearings in front of Justice Barbara Jaffe of New York revealed that the Trump campaign had indeed recruited Jacobus for a job and discussed terms of the employment, but rejected her after receiving a request for $20,000 per month in salary. Jacobus’ attorney, Jay Butterman, claimed Jacobus’ entire career was destroyed by those tweets, and the Trump campaign lied about her “begging for a job” and “[acting] hostile.” Trump’s attorney, Lawrence Rosen, claimed Butterman and his client to be engaging in “hyperbole” stating: “To a large extent, Twitter is the wild wild West. People say the darnedest things. Everyone understands that when tweets are made, you take it with a grain of salt.”

Justice Jaffe ruled in favor of President-elect Trump and Lewandowski just ten days before inauguration day. In her decision, Justice Jaffe stated that “professional misconduct, incompetence or a lack of integrity may not be reasonably inferred from being turned down from a job.” The judge also commented on the nature of tweets themselves, similar to Rosen’s argument in the case.

“His tweets about his critics, necessarily restricted to 140 characters or less, are rife with vague and simplistic insults such as ‘loser’ or ‘total loser’ or ‘totally biased loser,’ ‘dummy’ or ‘dope’ or ‘dumb,’ ‘zero/no credibility,’ ‘crazy’ or ‘wacko’ and ‘disaster,’ all deflecting serious consideration.”

Butterman and Jacobus plan to appeal the ruling, claiming it a “sad day for free speech.” Reflecting on this case, there may have been some small falsity in President Trump’s tweet in that his campaign did not turn Jacobus away twice. This was not enough, however, to make Trump guilty of libel. That tweet over a year ago, made by the then prominent presidential candidate, can be interpreted as vague. However, if it is true that Jacobus has lost speaking opportunities for which she would have gotten paid because of a crude tweet, it shows that those companies and media outlets did not take Trump’s tweets “with a grain of salt.” The president has recently boasted about the ability of his tweets to obstruct others, citing that no NFL team has signed Colin Kaepernick because they are afraid to get “a nasty tweet from Donald Trump.” Unfortunately for Jacobus’ case, this appears to be an ethical issue rather than a legal one.

August is an economics major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2018.

Sources:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/manhattan-judge-tosses-libel-lawsuit-donald-trump-article-1.2942831

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/cheryl-jacobus-trump-destroyed-career-4m-suit-article-1.2818683

Posted by Faris Alzahrani.

On June 20th Christiano Ronaldo was accused by the government prosecutor for evading tax four times amounting to $16.5 million. Ronaldo was investigated and was expected to appear before Pozuelo de Alarcon court No. 1 on July 31. His summoning accorded with the same prosecutor who indicted Mourinho for evading tax two times. The prosecutor reported that there was enough evidence that Christiano Ronald used a shell firm to hide the cash she had acquired from the team image rights. However, Ronaldo pleaded not guilty.

It believed that Ronald had to move out of the country and join another football club because of the accusations against him. It was alleged that Mourinho committed tax deception in a period between 2011 and 2012; this is according to Madrid’s prosecutor. All of the evidence was based on the facts delivered by Spain Tax Office that indicated that Mourinho also hides money from profit rights and avoided to pay tax (Fox, 2017).

Everything was left in judges hands. It is crucial to note that these individuals are not the first to be accused of tax fraud. Last year a Barcelona striker, Lionel Messi was indicted for tax fraud on three counts that amounted to $4.6 million, this mainly from the income made from image rights. He was given a 21-month jail sentence, but he was not expected to serve in prison, since it was his first offense and his sentence was below two years.

Faris is a graduate student at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

Reference:

News, F. (2017, June 20). Cristiano Ronaldo, Jose Mourinho caught up in Spain tax scandal. Retrieved from Fox News: http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2017/06/20/cristiano-ronaldo-jose- mourinho-caught-up-in-spain-tax-scandal

Posted by Enerd Pani.

During the beginning of October, there was a vast change where control of the internet source code was transported from the United States, to what most likely will be the United Nations. The result is that countries not only in Europe, but all over the world can vie for control of the internet. Arguably unscrupulous countries such as Russia, China and Iran can cause issues with human rights violations and can censor areas of the internet in other countries, not only within their own home country. The second issue is that the President did not ask Congress for approval to give a piece of U.S property to overseas forces. The following action has been criticized as going against US interests, and mitigating any form of American supremacy.

Still, some people see this as a necessary step. The National Telecommunications and Information Administration believes the chance of government intrusion to be “extremely remote” (BBC). The issue arises when multiple shareholders with many different ideas on how the internet should be maintained all vie for control of singular entity. These “stakeholders include countries, businesses and groups offering technological expertise” (BBC). One might wonder how such a important function can be put within the control of so many groups with different interests. There has even been calls by Russia and China for the Domain Naming Server to be put under the control “by the United Nations’ International Telecommunication Union” (BBC). The request put forward shows the desires countries with very shady human rights have towards getting control of such a important tool for free speech.

Many groups had argued that a delay on the acquisition should have been placed. The critics of the movement “argue that once the transition takes place it is irreversible, and that it would be prudent to temporarily maintain existing U.S. government authority” (fas 18). It would seem very controversial to transfer over such a valuable asset when there may not be any chance to change a decision. Also questions arise on how the “.mil” and “.gov” domains should be handled. These domains are sole property of the U.S Government, and cannot be used in any other way.

To conclude, the “giveaway” of ICANN is one shrouded in uncertainty. No one can be sure if the new stakeholders of the internet will continue to monitor it ethically. There has been major concern about some countries abusing the power of internet control, but many companies like the NTIA assure that they are looking to “protect U.S consumers, companies, and intellectual properties” (fas 12). It can be argued that ICANN was transferred unethically, though now the deed is done. The future will tell if this move will either effect, or mitigate personal freedoms on the internet.

Enerd is a finance major at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

Sources:

https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R44022.pdf

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-37114313

Posted by Sarah Velez.

International business relations is a major component of the United States economy. Foreign countries send their ships to the United States to pick up shipments and deliver products. While this global trade relationship is highly beneficial, the challenges that arise as a result of compliance issues and differences in ethical standards have recently been brought to light. The article “Greek Shipping Companies Fined $1.5 Million for Pollution” written by Gene Johnson of the Associated Press, reports a case of a Greek vessel that “deliberately pumped oil-polluted water into the ocean, then repeatedly lied and falsified records in an effort to deceive inspectors with the U.S. Coast Guard.” These illegal actions led to a million and a half dollar fine to be paid by the companies that jointly own Gallia Graeca, the Greek vessel.

In October of 2015, Gallia Graeca arrived in Seattle to pick up a substantial shipment of soybeans. This ship, owned by both Gallia Graeca LTD and Angelakos SA, was routinely inspected by U.S. Coast Guard Petty Officer Daniel Hamilton once it arrived at the port. As reported by Petty Officer Hamilton, the oil was not properly cleaned and it was actually in areas where it should not have been as a result of the poor maintenance of the oil-water separator. A deeper investigation made by the prosecutors showed that the ship had discarded “5,000 gallons of oil-fouled bilge water” (Johnson). In addition to knowingly dumping this substantial amount of oil, the engineers on the ship also presented the U.S. Coast Guard with false records and feigned the functioning of the oil-water separator. According to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, company executives were aware of the entire operation which shows the unethical behavior throughout the company chain.

While the Coast Guard has reported cases of sea pollution, they consider that holding corporations, as well as individuals, criminally liable is “notoriously difficult to detect and prove” (Johnson). Not only were the two companies charged with forging log books and polluting, but other involved individuals were also held accountable and the engineers on board were sentenced to jail time. U.S. District Judge John Coughenour stated that this case “will resonate with other parties in this industry and cause them to pause when they think about creating a corporate culture that encourages deception.”

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

Posted by Kayla Caveny.

The United States and Europe both have emissions standards for their vehicles. The standards are in place to limit the amount of pollutants the vehicle may make. However, there is a way to bypass those standards, illegal of course. This certain device is called a “defeat device,” which is any apparatus that unduly reduces the effectiveness of emissions control systems under conditions a vehicle may reasonably be expected to experience.

On September 18, 2015 U.S and European officials accused Volkswagen and Audi of installing these defeat devices within numerous diesel cars made between 2009 and 2015. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency the cars that were tampered with “included software that circumvents EPA emissions standards for certain air pollutants.” The vehicles that were effected only release the EPA’s emissions standards when the car is actually being tested. The vehicle actually produces nitrogen oxides at up to 40 times the “legal” standard. Because of these vehicles being tampered with over 11 million Volkswagen and Audie’s have now been subject to recall. Volkswagen did admit to not complying with governmental standards. However, the makers of Volkswagen and Audi told the owners of these cars that “this is an emissions issue, your vehicle is safe to drive.”

Volkswagen and Audi’s actions have now caused several lawsuits, especially within the state of Tennessee. Most of these lawsuits are against Volkswagen and many of the dealers within the United States. According to John Willis, a lawsuit in Chattanooga, Tennessee’s Federal Court included seven plaintiffs who sued Volkswagen’s parent company and a Tennessee based dealer for fraudulent concealment and violating Tennessee consumer protection law. They thought they were purchasing “green” vehicles that met or exceeded federal emissions standards.

The plaintiffs believe that once Volkswagen completes a government mandated recall to remove the illegal defeat devices, the cars will not perform as they were designed. In the end Volkswagen has a settlement of 10 billion for vehicle buybacks, lease terminations, and owner compensation, as well as a 2.7 billion dollars towards environmental programs to reduce polluting nitrogen oxides in the atmosphere. Volkswagen must also spend another 2 billion to promote zero-emission vehicles, which is even more than what they had originally planned to spend on the technology.

Kayla is a marketing student at the Stillman School of Business, Seton Hall University, Class of 2019.

References:

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34324772

http://www.edmunds.com/car-buying/faq-volkswagen-diesel-emissions-settlement.html

Posted by Ahmed Alhadaith.

Embezzlement is an illegal activity which several business owners have found themselves in over the years. One of the most recent cases in the United States involved one Jonathan Todd. He was an entertainment manager and through his dealings; he allegedly embezzled funds from some of his clients. Some of the clients sued him in a civil court and on January 18^th 2017; he accepted that he had embezzled funds amounting to more than 6.5 million.  He had done this by taking “Clients money for himself and Falsifying Account records to conceal the embezzlement.”

In the case, the judge sentenced him to six years in prison ruling that his actions were plainly “insidious’, ‘audacious’ and they brought about ‘grave economic and psychological harm to his victims’” (Robb, 2017). From the case, Schwartz had stolen money from multiple clients. In one instance, he had said that. His admission to the claims levied against him brought him to the seven year sentence. However, he agreed that he had made the mistake and took full liability for his actions.

In his actions, he had broken the law and hence met the full force of the law. In another article on the same site, the judge said that money managers hand responsibilities, both moral and fiduciary, to preserve the assets of their clients without using the money for their own gain. On top of this, He had evaded taxes by filing false tax returns for the year 2012 ,and the Judge noted that he would face ‘serious consequences’ as a result. His case was taken especially to serve as a lesson to other financial professionals and deter them from engaging in fraudulent activities as he had (Robb, 2017). Through these articles, the Deadline Blog sheds light into Business Forensics accounting and the application of commercial law in indictment of embezzlers and fraudsters.

Ahmed is a graduate student at the Feliciano School of Business, Montclair State University.

References:

Robb, Davi. Alanis Morissette’s Business Manager Sentenced To Six Years In Prison After Stealing $7 Million. 04 May 2017. .

Robb, David. Manager Admits He Embezzled $4.8M From Alanis Morissette. 18 January 2017. .