Coursework on Business Law:
- UNITED STATES V RADTAKES United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, 2005 415 E3d 826
- The defendants, a man and his son were charged with the offence of conspiracy to defraud the Us and Internal Revenue Society (IRS). The defendants paid employees on an ad hoc basis with check written from the Companies bank account instead of chanelling them through the Companies’ payroll as required by law. Consequently, they withheld no taxes or union benefit payment.
- Held guilty as charged.
- Circumstantial evidence should be permitted to prove committing of a crime when there is sufficient evidence presented to the jury with no intentions of defrauding the crime accused. Defendants charged with a conspiracy are not actually the real committers of the fraud. Once one is a suspect of defrauding, one has a chance to present his witnesses and prove ones innocence in front of a jury. The most significant defence to circumstantial evidence is the truth behold behind the evidence being produced. When the evidence has substantial truth and has a witness to support the evidence, the defendant might get a chance to prove on the crime committed. Once the evidence presented is insufficient proving that the defendant acted with intentions to commit the crime is difficult.
Another circumstance to be permitted is by having absolute privilege on the crime committed. For instance, evidence adduced by witnesses in court and the defense arguments and counter claims during court proceedings, statements made by judges whilst hearing and determining a matter be for them, and statements made in the course of parliamentary proceedings cannot back up any action for defamation, irrespective of whether or not they were made without considering how true, false or weird they are….