Since Enron's collapse in 2002, the federal government has stepped up its campaign against white-collar crime. In doing so, contemporary federal criminal law has created a "Catch-22," in which businesspeople are forced to act either unethically or illegally. In Trapped: When Acting Ethically is Against the Law, Cato Institute senior fellow and Georgetown University business professor John Hasnas examines the ethical dilemmas raised by over-criminalization. "Because there is an increasing divergence between the demands of the law and the demands of ethics," Hasnas explains, "current federal criminal law incentivizes and in some cases mandates unethical behavior by businesspeople." In creating white-collar criminal law, the federal government has eviscerated the liberal safeguards of the traditional criminal law to permit conviction for merely negligent or innocent actions and to circumvent the presumption of innocence, the 5th Amendment privilege against self-incrimination, and the attorney-client privilege. Thus, federal criminal law creates serious problems for businesses that wish to respect their employees. According to Hasnas: "It gives corporations strong incentives to invade employees' privacy, deny them the presumption of innocence, and breach promises of confidentiality." Hasnas concludes that the solution to the problem of white collar crime does not rest with more vigorous federal enforcement efforts: "With regard to the offenses that can adequately be handled by civil liability, the proper solution may be abstaining from any efforts at criminal enforcement at all."
See also Country Community Timberlake Village v. HMW Special Utility District of Harris, 438 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. Ct. App. 2014) (holding that a neighboring ...
After Justin Timberlake exposed Janet Jackson's pierced nipple on national television for 9/16ths of a second, the FCC received over 540,000 complaints.
Volume III: The Chesapeake and New England, 1660-1750 William E. Nelson ... Decision of Law, Surry County Ct. 1673/74, in Eliza Timberlake Davis ed., ...
E. Edwards v. California, 314 U.S. 160 (1941), 66 Edwards v. Housing Authority of City of ... Timberlake, 148 Ind. 38,46 N.E.339 (1897), 69,70 Graves v.
Fitzgerald, 4.08[B][2], 5.05[D] Fitzgerald v. ... Mastrapa-Font, 7.03[A][3] Fontaine, In re, 5.05[D] Fontenette v. ... Frost, 5.05[A] Formato v.
The sole remedy is avoidance, however; damages cannot be claimed under s. ... 17, it places a great deal of power in the hands of insurance companies to ...
Normally, a mate«s receipt would later be given up for a bill of lading, ... they necessarily prejudice the rights of those who deal in the goods ...
27 257 U.S. 184, 42 S. Ct. 72, 66 L. Ed. 189 (1921). ... 38 Argensinger, “Right to Strike”: Labor Organization and the New Deal in Baltimore, 78 MD . HIST .
704 Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017, s. 80. 705 Leith v. Gould [1986] 1 NZLR 760. It is not clear how a New Zealand court would deal with a case such ...
... to meet the reasonable expectations of claimants about how the corporation should deal with them, by, inter alia, ... 7 Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, s.