What is money laundering and why is it illegal?

Money laundering is a form of white collar crime where a person or a company disguises the earnings from illegal activities and make it appear to be from legitimate sources. The term itself, laundering, refers to making the dirty money look clean. By doing so, criminals can easily deposit the money into financial institutions and without alerting law enforcement.

Image source: globalvillagespace.com

Money laundering is done in three steps: placement, layering, and integration. Placement refers to the intention of gathering dirty money and introducing it to a financial system like a bank. Layering is the concealing of the money’s source through falsifying the origin through book keeping tactics and a fake front. Lastly, integration refers to the acquiring of the money through a fake front or through fake legitimate means.

There are many ways for criminals to launder dirty money. The most basic of which is using a legitimate cash-based front that’s usually owned by the criminal organization. In this modus, criminals inflate the daily cash receipts to make it appear that the establishment is earning more than what it is really earning, then deposit dirty money into the bank. These types of businesses are usually called fronts.

Image source: scmp.com

Another way criminals launder money is called smurfing. Here, the criminal doesn’t deposit everything into one bank account. Instead, they break the amount into several smaller deposits and place them in separate accounts to avoid detection.

Some criminal organizations even go as far as transferring their money into offshore bank accounts where money-laundering laws are less strict. Criminal organizations can create shell companies where they can stash their profits.

Joe Tacopina, the founder and Managing Partner of Tacopina & Seigel, specializes in criminal, civil, and securities litigation. Mr. Tacopina is an attorney who has positioned himself well as a committed legal professional and an accomplished leader. To learn more about the law, visit this blog.

When is a search or seizure unlawful?

Image source: thenation.com

Search and seizure are common law enforcement activities comprising an investigation. Lawful searches employ search warrants issued by a judge or a magistrate. However, there are cases when warrants are not required but are still considered lawful. If the search conducted was deemed unlawful, all evidence discovered within the said search will be inadmissible in court.

First off, we need to know when a search is lawful in the absence of a warrant. It begs reiteration that not all warrantless searches or seizure is unlawful. If law enforcement secures the consent to conduct a search, a warrant is not needed. Warrantless searches are also allowed during emergencies. For example, if a fleeing suspect has been seen entering an area or a home, police officers would not need a warrant to conduct a search. This is considered lawful because the criminal puts the lives of innocent people at risk.

Image source: sunjournal.com

Search and seizure can also be done without a warrant if it is incidental to an arrest. For example, if a person is arrested in his home, law enforcers have the right to conduct a search of the suspect’s immediate surroundings for weapons that can be used against them.

Lastly, if a piece of evidence is showing in plain view, like drug paraphernalia on the passenger’s seat of a car, law enforcers are legally authorized to conduct a search. Police officers are also allowed to conduct searches and frisks if they have reasonable suspicion that you are armed during a traffic stop.

Apart from the above situations, all other forms of warrantless search are to be taken as unlawful.

Joe Tacopina is the founder and the Managing Partner of the Manhattan-based Law Offices of Tacopina & Seigel. He specializes in civil, criminal, and securities litigation. To learn more about the law, visit this blog.

Understanding criminal law: What you should know about false arrests

Image source: m.ripoffreport.com

False arrests are not uncommon in the United States. There are times when the police do not have the authority to make an arrest, and yet still do so. This is illegal and can have longstanding repercussions. Here are a few facts on false arrests.

1. Arrest warrants are required to make a legal arrest. Without a warrant, most arrests are false arrests. Warrants are issued by the court. There are bench warrants, which bounty hunters use to bring in people who skip bail.

2. Aside from police officers, other people who are authorized by the police powers act can make a legal arrest. However, if an unauthorized person claims to be making a legal arrest under the guise of the police powers act, then that is very likely to be a false arrest.

3. For an arrest to be legal, there should also be reasonable and probable cause.

4. For misdemeanors, non-criminal offenses, and summary convictions, an arrest may be made. However, the arrest is only done to identify suspects. The next step should be giving suspects a summons for a court appearance. Holding them longer is not part of the legal arrest.

5. Ordinary citizens may arrest a suspect who they catch red-handed committing a crime if the perpetrator attempts to flee the scene. However, if time has passed by, only a police officer with a warrant may arrest the said suspect.

Image source: asianage.com

Joe Tacopina is the founder and the managing partner of the Manhattan-based Law Offices of Tacopina & Seigel. He specializes in civil, criminal, and securities litigation. Before entering private practice, Mr. Tacopina was a prosecutor in the Kings County District Attorney’s Office where he prevailed in 39 of 40 trials. For more insightful reads on the law, visit this blog.

How Do Civil Law And Common Law Differ?

Image source: ascendingstarseed.wordpress.com

Today, legal systems worldwide fall under two main categories, namely common law and civil law. About 150 nations have systems that generally follow the former, while about 80 countries use common law.

In common law, case law is most important. Published judicial opinions are the bases for the system. Civil law, on the other hand, is often based on codified statutes. It’s important to note that the differences are not definitive; many countries use a combination of features from both systems.

The common law system traces its history to the monarchy of England. Formal orders in the form of writs are presented during cases. But these weren’t always enough, so the English established courts of equity based on various sources of authority to offer more appropriate remedies and to better listen to complaints. The resulting decisions were then collected and published and would be the bases of ruling in future cases, providing the so-called precedent.

Image source: mcilveenfamilylaw.com

Civil law systems often have sets of laws varying per country and developed over time, but trace their origin to the code of laws created by the Roman Emperor Justinian, around 600 C.E. Here, judges often take the role of investigators who preside over proceedings, examining witnesses and establishing facts, ultimately making judgments based on legal codes. In other words, lawyers have a diminished role in this system, particularly regarding legal representative work like oral arguments, presentation, and active in-court lawyering.

In common law countries like the U.S., lawyers present to the judge and the jury and examine witnesses themselves. They have a significantly more active role in discussing points of law, as well as have the exclusive right to prepare legal documents. The role of the judge in common law is more like that of a mediator or referee.

Atty. Joe Tacopina is the founder and Managing Partner of Tacopina & Seigel. The firm specializes in criminal, civil, and securities litigation. For more on the firm’s services, go to this website.

Why Lawyers Make Great Business Leaders

A lot of top-level executives in the US have law degrees. In fact, some lawyers could have better business acumen compared to economics and business majors.

MBAs running corporations tend to emphasize the upsides of the business while those with legal training often focus on challenges. This precautionary thinking is necessary in understanding, avoiding, and managing risks. This reflected in a recent study of about 7,000 companies and publicly traded firms. The results showed that companies run by lawyers experienced 16 to 74 percent less litigation cases.

Image source: bendlawyer.net

The corporate world is all about active risk mitigation. A law graduate can offer his or her training in detecting possible problems. This skill saves the company thousands of dollars in legal counsel fees.

Granting legal advice to executives is the lawyer’s gateway to the business and in becoming an industry specialist. By developing skills in sales, marketing, or even product development, any law graduate can cover much ground and advisory in operations, finance, marketing, and ultimately, expansion.

Image source: mattzatko.com

Founder and Managing Partner of Tacopina & Seigel Joe Tacopina has received praise from peers and the media as a premier trial attorney. He graduated from the Quinnipiac University School of Law in 1991 and obtained his license in 1992. For more similar reads, visit this blog.