Скачать с ютуб United States v. Bank of New England, N.A. Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained в хорошем качестве

United States v. Bank of New England, N.A. Case Brief Summary | Law Case Explained

Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 35,900 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 984 casebooks ► https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... United States v. Bank of New England, N.A. | 821 F.2d 844 (1987) Generally, a corporation may be criminally liable for its employee’s illegal acts when the employee is acting within the scope of his authority, and his conduct benefits the corporation. But what if multiple employees know of facts that collectively would amount to a criminal violation? Could the corporation be deemed to have the collective knowledge of its employees? The First Circuit considered this question in the case United States versus Bank of New England. James McDonough was a customer at the Prudential branch of the Bank of New England. From March of nineteen eighty three to July of nineteen eighty four, McDonough went to the bank on thirty one occasions and requested several blank checks. McDonough then would cash two to four checks payable to himself for sums between five thousand and nine thousand dollars. On each occasion, the total amount of the checks was over ten thousand dollars. At the time, Department of Treasury regulations promulgated under the Currency Transaction Reporting Act required banks to file currency transaction reports, or C T Rs, within fifteen days of customer currency transactions exceeding ten thousand dollars. Further, it was a felony under the act for banks to willfully fail to file C T Rs as part of a pattern of illegal activity involving transactions of more than one hundred thousand dollars in a twelve month period. Following the withdrawals, the bank didn’t file C T Rs, believing that McDonough’s conduct didn’t trigger the act’s reporting requirements. Subsequently, the bank was indicted in federal district court for violating the act. Specifically, the indictment alleged that McDonough, the bank, and two of its former head tellers unlawfully conspired to conceal the transactions. At trial, a bank employee testified that one of the head tellers had instructed her that transactions such as McDonough’s were reportable. In addition, evidence was presented that the bank circulated an internal memorandum instructing employees that multiple, same day transactions totaling over ten thousand dollars were reportable. Following trial, the court instructed the jury on the element of willfulness. The jury returned a verdict, finding the bank guilty on thirty one counts of violating the act, and the court entered judgment on the verdict. The bank appealed to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/united-... The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: https://www.quimbee.com/cases/united-... Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/subscription_... Quimbee Case Brief App https://www.quimbee.com/case-briefs-o... Facebook   / quimbeedotcom   Twitter   / quimbeedotcom   #casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries