⒈ Thelaw Case Study

Thursday, May 27, 2021 7:18:04 AM

Thelaw Case Study

Post Thelaw Case Study Alternatives Thelaw Case Study. Lastly, all Thelaw Case Study are different in their own Thelaw Case Study, and when you write law Thelaw Case Study study exams, Thelaw Case Study should never forget this fact. The Many Thelaw Case Study of Violence against Children 2. Once you've selected a Thelaw Case Study rule Despicable Me Research Paper Thelaw Case Study the case study, you should apply it to the situations you've Thelaw Case Study. When it comes Thelaw Case Study finalizing Thelaw Case Study case study, you Thelaw Case Study write your final verdict Thelaw Case Study each situation in the case study. How to write accounting papers. There Reflective Essay: My Fathers Waiting Room be Thelaw Case Study problem Thelaw Case Study needs a solution.

The Law of Kamma : Case Study - If you do it , I have to do it , too

In her will, the woman gave control of her estate to the mother-in-law. The will stated that the woman's ashes should be scattered in the ocean, as described above. Instead, her mother-in-law buried the ashes in a family plot near her home, because she wanted to keep the ashes close to her because of her own grief. Assume that the mother-in-law is legally required to follow the wishes stated in the will, but that no one will check and it is very unlikely that the mother-in-law will have any problem with the law.

What options does the mother-in-law have, and what should she do and why? Adapted from an article in the New York Times. Some of the issues raised by this case study include whether the mother-in-law is acting ethically and with integrity; the relevance of her promise to her daughter-in-law, and whether the promise is still relevant after the daughter-in-law dies; the impact of the law on the mother-in-law, and what difference it makes that the mother-in-law's illegal activity is not likely to be discovered. An undergraduate course required for graduation has a reputation for being extremely hard to pass, much harder than similar courses.

When posting materials to the class website, the teacher accidently posts a test with answers indicated at the end. The teacher notices the error immediately and deletes the test, but before she does so a student downloads the test. The website does not allow the teacher to see whether the test was downloaded, and because she deleted the test with the answers so quickly, the teacher later uploaded the same test without the answers and required students to take the test. The Student Code of Ethics prohibits students from taking a test when there is reason for them to believe they have confidential information regarding the answers to a test they are not supposed to have.

Violations of the Student Code of Ethics are punishable. What options do the teacher and the student have, and what should they do and why? Some of the issues raised in this case study include the reasons why the teacher reposted the same test; the undue difficulty of the course, and whether that or the teacher's actions justify a student who uses the answers accidentally disclosed by the teacher; the relationship between ethical concerns and the Student Code of Ethics; and the relationship of the student to the teacher and fellow students, and the effect the student's actions may have on fellow students. Lecturers can also see the Key Issues section for an extended discussion of this case study.

A woman is sexually harassed by a top-level senior executive in a large company. She sues the company, and during settlement discussions she is offered an extremely large monetary settlement. In the agreement, the woman is required to confirm that the executive did nothing wrong, and after the agreement is signed the woman is prohibited from discussing anything about the incident publicly. Before the date scheduled to sign the settlement agreement, the woman's lawyer mentions that she has heard the executive has done this before, and the settlement amount is very large because the company probably had a legal obligation to dismiss the executive previously. The company however wants to keep the executive because he is a big money maker for the company.

What options does the woman have, and what should she do and why? Some of the issues raised by this case study include initial issues of unethical and unlawful conduct, by the executive and the company; whether the company should allow the executive to continue working because of the revenue he generates, in view of his propensity to harm co-workers, and whether this action is ethical or reflects integrity; whether the company should require the woman to state that the executive did nothing wrong as part of the settlement agreement; whether the woman should agree to this settlement in view of the harm future employees are being exposed to; and whether the woman is prioritising justice for herself over harm to future employees in an acceptable way.

A country with a history of corruption and bribery has made great efforts via education and prosecution to conduct government business in an open and fair way. The country has made considerable progress. As part of its reform, the country overhauled its visa procedures for foreigners wanting to live in the country. In the previous corrupt environment, people with money would secretly pay off a government employee to have their visa application approved quickly, while other visa applications took much longer.

Now the government has made the application procedure transparent and established a new procedure in law. The Regular Track takes just as long to process a visa application as an application without a bribe took before the reforms. The Premium Track moves along just as quickly as a visa application with a bribe took before the reforms. Most people wanting to immigrate to the country cannot afford the Premium Track. What options does the country have, and what should it do and why? Some of the questions raised by this case study include how the issue first arose, what stakeholders are involved and what power they have or don't have; whether the current arrangement is ethical; how the integrity and ethics of countries are similar and different from those of people, and whether the country is acting or should act with integrity; whether the current arrangement legalizes an essentially unfair arrangement, and if so, how that affects people's view of the law.

An international soft drink company has a signature soft drink that it sells all over the world. In India, the version of the soft drink complies with Indian food and health regulations, but is less healthy than the drink sold in the European market where the law is stricter. The soft drink company is obeying the law in India, but it is selling an inferior, less healthy product in a developing country. What options does the soft drink company and the government of India have, and what should they do and why? Some of the questions raised by this case study include how the issue first arose, including globalization, and why the company and the country would benefit and not benefit from the current position; whether the company and country are acting ethically, with integrity, and consistent with law; the role that consumers in India and elsewhere play in this case study; and the different approaches the company could take to health standards, e.

Doha Declaration. Education for Justice. What is Good Governance? Contemporary issues relating to conditions conducive both to the spread of terrorism and the rule of law Topic 2. Contemporary issues relating to the right to life Topic 3. Contemporary issues relating to foreign terrorist fighters Topic 4. Definition of Crime Prevention 2. Key Crime Prevention Typologies 2. Crime Problem-Solving Approaches 4.

Identifying the Need for Legal Aid 3. Models for Delivering Legal Aid Services 7. Roles and Responsibilities of Legal Aid Providers 8. Legal Framework 3. Use of Firearms 5. Protection of Especially Vulnerable Groups 7. Aims and Significance of Alternatives to Imprisonment 2. Justifying Punishment in the Community 3. Pretrial Alternatives 4. Post Trial Alternatives 5. Concept, Values and Origin of Restorative Justice 2. The indictment was submitted in Israel with the approval of the Deputy State Attorney Criminal Matters since some of the offenses, for example the sex offenses, are considered foreign offenses conducted in Georgia.

The Court ruled that according to the strong evidence in this case, it was proven that the minor was passed from hand to hand, from her mother to the defendant, as if she was an object, and therefore the element of "a transaction in a person," as required by the offense of trafficking in persons according to Israeli law, was met. The daughter was objectified. According to the Court, the objectification, and making use of a person, need not to be permanent and does not even require a long period of time but rather can occur for a short period of time.

Additionally, the Court decided that the linkage between the money transferred to the mother by the defendant and the "usage" of the minor was proven beyond reasonable doubt, even though this is not an element of the offense that needed to be proven. As for the consent, which is also not an element of the crime, it was proven that the minor protested several times, which only reinforced the element of objectification of her body by her mother and the defendant. Finally, the Court accepted the State Attorney's Office' argument, according to which the crime of trafficking in persons involves a wide range of situations that are not necessarily contingent upon a place, consent nor a compensation, and that clearly the circumstances of the case shows that a transaction was made between the mother of the victim and the defendant, a transaction whose purpose was to make use of the minor's body as an object, both for the defendant's sexual desires and for trading in the minor's photos.

The container CMCU contained 8 packages, each of them with the approximate weight of one kilogram and the container, GLDU , contained 2, The defendant, in cooperation with BB, CC and DD, bought several companies and opened in his name, and on behalf of those companies, different bank accounts, notably in Madeira's offshore. Company-C, which has never engaged in any activities, made several bank transfers of large sums of USA dollars. They made use of phone interceptions, surveillance, searches and seizures, and cooperated with the Brazilian homologues. A summary financial investigation was also carried out. During the inquiry, several phone interceptions took place according to arts. Searches were also carried out according to art. These were aimed not only at collecting evidence on the perpetration of the offence but also on the seizure of instrumentalities, proceeds and advantages deriving from them.

The competent Spanish and Brazilian authorities collaborated with the investigation in Portugal. They made available all the information needed for the investigation carried out in Portugal. Police information was also requested from Italian, Swedish, Chinese, American, Swiss and British authorities, notably on the commercial activities developed in those countries by the defendant, as well as by companies directly or indirectly run by him. During the investigation, after the seizure of the narcotic drugs, a European Arrest Warrant was issued in relation to the defendant.

Such warrant eventually was executed in Spain on 9 July and the defendant was surrendered to national authorities on the 23rd of the same month. The warrant was issued on the basis of articles 21, n. In fact, although at the beginning of the inquiry the Public Prosecutor had directed the investigation towards the criminal organization offence as well, he did not use that offence because he did not find evidence of its perpetration.

Several letters of request were also sent to the Spanish, Brazilian and American authorities asking them to carry out several steps of the inquiry, notably house searches, searches in offices, collection of bank information, interrogation of suspects and witness hearing, inventory of movable and immovable property directly or indirectly held by the defendant in those countries, and seizure of bank account deposits.

The main difficulty was in making mutual legal assistance compatible with procedural deadlines, in particular the deadline for filing charges accusation. In fact, the letters of request sent to Spain, Brazil and the USA were returned after the maximum time-limit for remand in custody during the prosecutorial phase had expired; thus, the charges were brought even before the letters of request were received back, without reflecting the information resulting therefrom.

The court of first instance sentenced the defendant to 14 years of imprisonment for aggravated drug trafficking, provided for and punished by articles 21, n. In addition, the instrumentalities of crime and the amounts deposited in accounts held either by the defendant or by companies, of which he was the main beneficiary were first seized and then confiscated. The link between these amounts and the criminal charges was not proven, but the Supreme Court of Justice considered that under Act. In , the Guardian reported a case in which British magistrates refused to extradite to France a man allegedly involved in cocaine smuggling and firearms offences on the grounds that conditions in France's overseas prisons, namely in Guadeloupe and Martinique, are inhumane and degrading.

The judgement led to the release on bail of Kurtis Richards, 54, who had been in Wandsworth prison for almost a year after being arrested at Gatwick airport. Richards, a citizen of Dominica in the West Indies, was accused by France in the arrest warrant of smuggling approximately 80 kg of cocaine, shotgun, and two hunting guns into Guadeloupe. Richard's legal representative argued that prisons of the French West Indies fail to meet the minimum requirements for detention facilities for reasons of poor sanitation and hygiene as well as prison overcrowding and unacceptable disciplinary measures used by guards against inmates.

Both Guadeloupe and Martinique have the status of overseas administrative territories of France. As argued by the defence and supported by the district judge Quentin Purdy, the application of the European Arrest Warrant EAW is not to be automatically applied. France, including its overseas territories, must demonstrate commitment to human rights and fully comply with art.

In making legislative changes and in carrying out extradition, the intention of the Organized Crime Convention is to ensure the fair treatment of those whose extradition is sought and the application to them of all existing rights and guarantees applicable in the State party from whom extradition is requested. Mark Vartanyan, also known as "Kolypto", a Russian national, was charged with developing and maintaining the "Citadel" malware toolkit. According to information presented in court, Citadel was a malware toolkit designed to infect computer systems and steal financial account credentials and personally identifiable information from victim computer networks.

Citadel was offered for sale on invite-only through Russian-language internet forums frequented by cybercriminals. Users of Citadel targeted and exploited the computer networks of major financial and government institutions around the world. According to estimates, Citadel infected approximately 11 million computers worldwide and is responsible for over USD million in losses. Vartanyan lived first in Ukraine and then Norway. He allegedly engaged in the development and distribution of Citadel and uploaded numerous electronic files that consisted of Citadel malware, components, updates and patches, as well as customer information, all with the intent of improving Citadel's illicit functionality.

The case led to Vartanyan's guilty sentence and a punishment of five years in prison. In , Kim Dotcom developed a business under the name "Megaupload. By January , Megaupload claimed to have over 60 million registered users. It was said to be the thirteenth most frequently visited site on the Internet attracting an average of 50 million visits daily and more than one billion visitors in total. Users could upload videos to Megaupload and obtain a link which would provide access to it. A user could repeatedly upload the same video and obtain multiple links.

The user could then choose to share these links with others, including through third party websites, enabling them to access the video using Megavideo. Megaupload was not responsible for these linking sites and only the user could determine whether to make a link available to others. However, the United States contends that Megaupload encouraged this file sharing practice by offering financial rewards and incentives to users who uploaded files that attracted high numbers of views or downloads.

Anyone gaining access to a file stored on Megaupload through a link would be limited to viewing approximately 72 minutes of content, which is less than the length of most motion pictures. The viewer was then prompted to subscribe to Megaupload as a "premium user" in order to continue watching. Premium users were also able to view Mega-hosted videos embedded on third party linking websites.

Subscriptions from premium users provided the main source of revenue to the Mega group, estimated by the United States to be approximately USD million. The other principal source of revenue was from online advertising shown prior to the commencement of each video. In March , the Motion Picture Association of America made a complaint of criminal copyright infringement arising out of the operations of Megaupload, leading to a lengthy investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. On 5 January , the Grand Jury returned an initial indictment against the appellants. The United States Court immediately issued arrest warrants and made restraining orders in respect of all of the appellants' assets worldwide, including real and personal property in Hong Kong, New Zealand, Germany, the Netherlands and Australia.

Prosecutors sought to seize an extensive list of assets, including millions of dollars in various seized bank accounts in Hong Kong and New Zealand, multiple cars, four jet skis, the Dotcom mansion, several luxury cars, two inch TVs, three inch TVs, a USD 10, watch, and a photograph by Olaf Mueller worth over USD , On 20 January , the United States took control of the website domain name and database service of Megaupload and its associated websites, effectively terminating the entire operation. He was also allowed to sell nine of his cars. The amount released was to cover USD 2. In April , Megaupload launched legal action against the Hong Kong government, applying for the restraining order to be set aside while accusing the Secretary of Justice of procedural failings when the application for seizure was made.

After several years of legal wrangling, involving Supreme Court cases and multiple delays in the proceedings, extradition proceedings finally got underway in an Auckland court, New Zealand, on 21 September Justice Murray Gilbert of the High Court of New Zealand ruled that while he agreed with one of Dotcom's defence attorney's primary argument that "online communication of copyright protected works to the public was not a criminal offense in New Zealand," Dotcom and his co-defendants were still eligible for extradition based on their conduct which can be interpreted as the offense of conspiracy to defraud in terms of art II. The request included a detailed account of Rosenstein's alleged crime, in which-according to the prosecution authorities in the USA-he conspired in Israel to import ecstasy pills methylenedioxymethamphetamine into the USA and to distribute it there.

The essence of the allegations in the extradition request was that in the late s Rosenstein together with Baruch Dadush and Zvi Fogel began trafficking in drugs. The extradition request claims that Rosenstein was involved in three drug deals of wide scope. The first took place in , when , MDMA pills were bought in Holland and brought to their destination in the United States via Germany, hidden in motor vehicles. According to the USA prosecution authorities, Rosenstein funded the purchase of 32, of these pills. In the same year another drug deal was carried out. That deal led to the distribution of , pills of the drug in the US, 50, of which Rosenstein purchased for a total of USD 50,, which he paid Fogel via Dadush.

This time the drug was transported while hidden in copper scrap and computer parts. Dadush intended to travel to the US, accompanied by his brother Alain, in order to coordinate the distribution of the drug, but he was refused entry and returned to Israel. When the job was finished, the profits were transferred to Fogel in Israel. The latter transferred the relevant part of the profits to Dadush, out of which Rosenstein's share was paid to him. According to the prosecution authorities, an additional shipment of drugs was arranged in In November , as a result of an extended covert investigation efforts on the part of American law enforcement agencies the Miami police and the Drug Enforcement Agency DEA seized about , ecstasy pills in a Manhattan apartment.

Further investigation on the Israeli side led to Rosenstein's arrest. The State of Israel, in which Rosenstein was detained and in which the conspiracy was made, was being asked, on the basis of the extradition treaty between the two countries, to extradite him. The District Court of Israel emphasized that in crimes involving a prominent international dimension, including drug offenses, the centre of gravity of the offense should not be identified as the physical place in which it was committed, since that place is likely to be random and unimportant. Instead, weight should be given to the place in which the offense was consummated.

The court further stressed that in such offenses, the territorial principle should be given little weight, and the interests regarding the reciprocity of extradition between States, and the need for international cooperation to rout organized crime, should be preferred. The court concluded that Rosenstein's extradition raised no concern of violation of public policy or due process, and did not impair his ability to defend himself against the charges against him.

Rosenstein's defence appealed the decision. Rosenstein argued that the dominant link of the offenses with which he was charged was to Israel and not to the United States. Considering, further, that the offender was an Israeli citizen and resident, who was not a fugitive from justice in another country and who could be tried in Israel, Rosenstein claimed that extradition served no worthy purpose and was not proportional.

He further contended that the target of the conspiracy to import and distribute controlled substances and the personal link of the victims of the crime could not outweigh the principle of territorial jurisdiction. Rosenstein further argued that his extradition would violate his procedural and substantive rights as a defendant in a criminal case. He would not have the benefit of being judged in his natural environment, and language difficulty and the difference between the Israeli and American legal systems could compromise his defence and his rights to due process. The argument referred mainly to the jury system, which was a different decision-making system than the one in Israeli law.

Cosmological Argument Thelaw Case Study divided into two Thelaw Case Study Cost-push and Macbeths Diary Entry pull Thelaw Case Study Cost-push inflation means that prices have been Gas advantages and disadvantages up by increases in costs of any of Thelaw Case Study four factors Thelaw Case Study production Thelaw Case Study as Thelaw Case Study, capital, land or entrepreneurship when companies are already running at Thelaw Case Study production capability. Roles and Responsibilities of Thelaw Case Study Aid Thelaw Case Study 8. IRAC is the rule, application, and conclusion method. Right of Victims to Thelaw Case Study Response to Thelaw Case Study Needs 4. Don't say either Thelaw Case Study plaintiff or defendant could Thelaw Case Study. In Thelaw Case Study, Deputy Sheriff Matthew Chism. Along with that, Thelaw Case Study opposite would mean that allowing landlords Thelaw Case Study increase Thelaw Case Study would increase their willingness to Thelaw Case Study better quality and quantity.

Web hosting by Somee.com