Question

Based on your reading of business crimes and your own personal knowledge/observations, please write 1 paragraph explaining your answers to each of the three questions below.

1. After Paul Manafort was sentenced to 47 months in prison for fraud (far less than the suggested range of 19.5 to 24 years), Paul Leighton, a professor of criminology at Eastern Michigan University, stated: "Judges and many in the legal system tend to see white-collar criminals - especially Caucasian white-collar criminals - as being good people who made a mistake, while the poor and minorities are more likely to have their crime seen as a reflection of their bad character." Professor Leighton also stated that white-collar criminals often get shorter sentences even though they have long patterns of criminal conduct. Assuming Professor Leighton is correct, what changes, if any, do you think should be made to the judicial system to prevent such disparities in sentencing criminal conduct?

2. Tax avoidance and tax evasion are similar but the latter can result in criminal penalties if fraudulent intent can be proven. Some view what is called "tax fraud" (fraudulently understating taxable income or overstating deductible losses) as a victimless crime. In some cases, it is simply overzealous accounting practices that aim to maximize shareholder profit. In other cases, it could be a patriotic challenge to excessive and unfair government taxation. Do you agree that tax fraud is a victimless crime and therefore punishment by prison is excessive? Why or why not?

3. An individual who suffers damage as a result of a company's fraudulent activity, could sue for fraud and recover monetary compensation if they prove their claims by a preponderance of evidence. On the other hand, criminal charges can only be brought by the government and they must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, a much higher standard. Publicly available data shows that government prosecutions of white collar crime has been declining, possibly because it is hard for the government to prove fraudulent intent beyond a reasonable doubt. Which approach (private civil actions or criminal prosecutions by governments) do you think is more effective in deterring criminal activity in businesses, and why?

Answer 1

[1]

So as to consider and diminish the issues dependent on recognitions and charges of prejudicial practices by the legal executive as far as condemning, a portion of the accompanying measures could be actualized so as to forestall the incongruities between white collar criminals and poor people and minorities:

I. Have a uniform government legitimate norm for condemning for a specific wrongdoing/offense which will decrease the optional forces of bureaucratic court and state court judges which in any case permits scope for abuse in condemning. Thus, if a standard is fixed, an adjudicator needs to sentence utilizing that and can't disciminate between respondents.

ii. Make all decisions of government and state courts reportable and make expansion and affirmation of judges residencies and rises/advancements/moves dependent on the quality and amount of decisions they compose which will put greater responsibility on their condemning to keep away from audits and inversions by method of requests or protests. Essentially, the less the quantity of offers where an investigative court has abandoned or switched their decisions, the higher the rating of the appointed authority for thought for the abovementioned. This will guarantee better quality decisions and uniform utilization of laws.

iii. Have a free legal arrangements authority so that judges are self-sufficient and liberated from leader obstruction in practicing legal powers and condemning so a state, area or district authority can't manage effect on a case to be chosen dependent on neighborhood notoriety.

iv. Get rid of the appointment of judges so that judges are not responsible to their neighborhood electorate wards and don't need to be forced into assuaging their electorate with their legal work and consequently can bear to stay impartial, reasonable and fair.

v. Have a government legal grievances authority that will get and decide reasonable and authentic composed protests made out against administrative court judges made against their lead, participation, including defilement or lewd behavior charges, and so forth in court. Moreover, have a free grumblings expert for states against states and all lower court judges at a state level.

vi. Expulsion of supplication deals in case of lead prosecutors or state examiners have a demonstrated history of inclination and bias. This ought to be occupied with ordinary reviews and examination by autonomous specialists.

vii. Getting rid of all white juries when respondents are dark and getting rid of all dark juries when litigants are white is an approach to reduce separation in condemning. In Batson v. Kentucky, 1986, and Georgia v. McCollum, 1992, the U.S. High Court even needed to end premptory challenges by indictment and protection lawyers to eliminate potential legal hearers dependent on competition to guarantee blended race juries.

[2]

Tax avoidance and tax avoidance while thought of to be comparable are distinctive according to the law. Tax avoidance is the real utilization of different techniques to bring down taxable pay like ventures or commitments to annuity plans, good cause, and so on While tax avoidance is the purposeful vindictive demonstration of cheating and fraud like under announcing taxable salary, recording bogus pay proclamations, and so forth, to abstain from making good on taxes and cheat the legislature out of its contribution which is likewise legitimately tricking the individuals of a purview in light of the fact that these taxes would be used by the administrations towards public turns of events, ventures. and so on which would profit society. In this way, tax avoidance isn't be a wrongdoing yet tax avoidance is a wrongdoing.

What is important to comprehend that these are harmless violations or white collar wrongdoings where no individual has been legitimately hurt not at all like in violations like homicide, assault, attack, and so forth, so they ought to in a perfect world be seen distinctively and isolated. Throughout the entire existence of criminal law, on the grounds that there is a solid law or discipline doesn't really go about as a solid obstruction and these wrongdoings become monotonous. Thus, it might be contended to an enormous degree that such white collar or corporate violations ought to be dealt with contrastingly according to the law and potentially such cases should zero in on recuperation of dodged taxes alongside reformatory harms like enthusiasm on the extraordinary taxes and excellent fines for duping the legislature including recuperation of all duty against private properties/resources, if essential. The prison framework is all things considered over troubled with space requirements, deficient prison specialists, and public cash; sending these tax dodgers to prison and clubbing them with brutal criminals like killers, attackers, drug dealers, blackmailers, and so forth, won't fill a lot of need.

[3]

White collar wrongdoings and brutal violations must be viewed as totally extraordinary and at a differentiation to one another. As far as white collar violations, the casualties are obscure or immaterial. These are violations perpetrated against an administration, state or society in general and their effect is sweeping and wide when contrasted with peaceful wrongdoings which are typically against an individual casualty like homicide, assault, attack, and so on White collar wrongdoings relate to peaceful violations, for example, fraud, falsification, cheating, pay off, misappropriation or debasement, tax avoidance, and so on The recurrence of such white collar wrongdoings and the monstrosity of their effect has been expanding consistently and are normally not completely perceived by laymen and thought to be basic or not straightforwardly influencing them while the fact of the matter is actually the inverse. Likewise, one must consider recidivism which implies that the condemning and disciplines must be a solid obstruction to forestall repeat of the wrongdoing and fill in as a restorative apparatus against the guilty parties. In this manner, government indictments are fundamental since the violations are submitted against a state and its kin in general and not against a private individual so private common activity will be useless in putting a prevention and the administration arraignment hardware will be imperative to gather and present proof, witnesses, and so on regarding seize and search powers, legitimate expenses, and so forth, which are expected to make sure about a conviction and condemning which will go about as a solid discouragement to relieve recidivism later on by the wrongdoer.

**********PLEASE UPVOTE AS SMALL TOKEN OF APPRECIATION*********