USA v McCarty Case Brief
Considering the law of United States of America, it is imperative that the citizens are keen on how they conduct themselves in the operations, especially when it comes to defrauding the public, as a way of soliciting for personal gain, which is not legal. Such an act may lead one to a crime, better known as “honest fraud services. ” In such a crime, the defendant is charged guilty of having to acquire some resources and services for own gain, without the consideration of who is meant to benefit from such resources and services. The crime has a good definition in the federal mail and wire fraud statute which is by the United States, set in 1988, with the aims of seeing to it that all are treated with justice and fairness, especially when it comes to the handling of public property as well as public schemes, contracts, and dealings.
The crime deprives individuals their right to honest services since those guilty of the crime do it with selfish ambitions and thoughts on how to use the resources that they are not meant to in the wrong way. The crimes were unveiled by the federal bureau of investigation, which had to investigate into the matter and come up with a detailed report of whatever had happened. The commissioner was simply trying to enrich herself by the use of dishonesty, misusing power and political position, which is some aspect makes one appear to be invincible, as they are powerful. The husband engaged in a felony for not having to report the wife to the government, knowing very well that she was engaging in a crime which was against the constitution of the United States of America For the account that details the crime, the defendant, Mary McCarty, engaged in mail and wire fraud conspiracy, which was a way of depriving the people of Palm Beach County the rights which they had, and as per the case, intangible right to honest services.
The crime was covered in a series of business transactions between the county and some other third parties. BBC is a business entity. She solicited the gifts and gratuities, but this was a way of deception based on selfish ambitions. McCarty was involved in getting contracts for business firms, where the husband worked. She did this for years and the aspect of defrauding set in. The companies and firms that she helped are those where the husband worked. The aspect of having it done gradually was to try and hide the true intent of all that she was doing, yet she knew it all along and knew that it was against the law. Kevin was promising such, yet the company had already lost to Raymond James.
After some time, Raymond James resigned from working at the school, and the contract was given to Bear Stearns, where Kevin McCarty worked. All this could not be just a coincidence since the things were happening in ways which appeared to be a plan. Kevin had worked his ways in seeing to it that the company that he now worked in received the contract for bond underwriting. Raymond James then planned a meeting with Kelvin McCarty, discussing on how the company would work as an underwriter for BBC. The defendant, Mary McCarty has a violation of law, violating title 18 of the constitution, specifically sections 1341, 1346, 1343, and also 371. The husband, Kevin McCarty also violates the constitution, title 18, section 4. All these are charges that are punishable in a court of law, in a bid to see that justice is administered in the right ways, with individuals receiving what they deserve, by no corrupt means.
Issues The issues regard the additional entity in the United States Congress, 1988, stating that “For this chapter, the term scheme or artifice to defraud includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services. " This is a definition created in 18 U. This is as per the charges amounted, where she finds herself guilty of all the crimes that she has. This is in a great way easier, as there is evidence on all that she has been doing, and her dealings with the companies. The crime that she has is against the constitution, and it is in-depth as it pertains the public. Reasoning There was a thorough investigation, which at one point pointed at Kevin McCarty claiming to have some influence on a commissioner.
He is the accomplice who works with the wife, to gain some influence over issues of contracts in a way that is not honest. My judgment If I were the judge, I would have agreed with the judgment. The reasons for this is that despite the fact that she is a commissioner, this does not mean that she has the right to abuse the office. The abuse of power is not in order as this is to mean that she can do whatever she wants and manipulate whoever she can in a bid to get some profit. This is an unfair dealing, as there should be fairness in the distribution of public contracts and also employment. It is not for leaders to decide who takes a tender or a contract, for them to benefit from the same.
From $10 to earn access
Only on Studyloop