Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
'Moral' Obligation to Adult Child Found No Bar to Restitution
In this age of corporate greed, the courts are faced with many new issues surrounding restitution. The appeal of Bernard Jaffe Jr. gave the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals its first opportunity to define the term “dependent” under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996, which requires district courts to order restitution to compensate victims for their losses “without consideration of the economic circumstances of the defendant.”
In August, the Second Circuit ruled that a father's “moral” obligation to support his adult child should not be considered in computing the amount of restitution he owes for a crime. Upholding an order of restitution for a former New York executive convicted of making false statements to the Bank of New York to secure loans for his own stock-trading, the circuit found that adult children do not have the same status as spousal dependents. United States v. Jaffe, Docket No. 04-1278. Aug. 2, 2005.
Jaffe pleaded guilty in 2003 to making a false statement after an investigation revealed he had submitted false W-2 forms, portfolio statements and tax returns. In ordering full restitution, district courts are instructed to weigh: 1) the financial assets of the defendant, including whether any of those assets are jointly controlled; 2) a defendant's projected earnings and other income, and 3) the defendant's financial obligations, including obligations to dependents.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.