Crosswhite Robert-Case Study W5 State vs Mills
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Central Lakes College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
2130
Subject
Law
Date
Jan 9, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
3
Uploaded by KidHare2488
Summary of the Case:
In the first case, the defendants are appealing their conviction on charges of obtaining money by false pretenses. William Mills, a builder, and his wife, Winifred Mills, operated a home-building business in Tucson. In December 1960, Nathan Pivowar was shown two houses by Mills and asked if he'd be willing to loan money on one of them. Later, Pivowar agreed to loan money on both houses. The Mills prepared two typed mortgages, but Pivowar had issues with the wording. As a result, Mrs. Mills retyped them according to Pivowar's instructions. Pivowar then handed over money and a second mortgage, believing these mortgages were on the houses he was shown. However, in 1962, Pivowar discovered that these mortgages covered vacant lots instead of the houses. Subsequently, he charged the Mills with theft by false pretenses.
In the second case, United States v. Park, the government charged Acme Markets, Inc., and its CEO, Park, with violating the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by allowing food to be exposed to contamination by rodents in their Baltimore warehouse. Acme admitted guilt, whereas Park pleaded not guilty and went to trial. The evidence presented showed that the FDA had informed Park of unsanitary conditions in Acme's warehouses, but the violations persisted. Park's defense was that he wasn't personally involved in these violations.
Relevance to Class Content:
Both of these cases delve into the legal concepts and principles related to white-collar crimes. The first case revolves around false pretenses, a white-
collar crime in which individuals employ deceptive means to acquire property. It underscores the
significance of accurately representing property and security during financial transactions. Meanwhile, the second case concerns corporate liability for infractions of food safety
regulations, illustrating the responsibility of corporate officers in ensuring compliance with such regulations.
Answers to Questions:
False Pretenses Representation:
In the first case, Mills made untrue representations of fact regarding the mortgages he prepared. Pivowar believed these mortgages were tied to the houses he intended to loan money for, but, as it turned out, they covered vacant lots instead.
Defendant's Argument:
The defendants' argument in the first case centers on Pivowar not having been deprived of any property. They claim this because he could still sue on the defendants' notes, and they had the intention to repay the loan. They contend that a permanent taking of property is required to establish the crime of theft by false pretenses, which, in their view, isn't applicable in this case.
Crime If Pivowar Presented Notes and Mills Paid:
In the first case, if Pivowar had presented the notes, and Mills had fulfilled their commitment by repaying the loan as initially intended, no crime would have been committed. The crux of theft by false pretenses hinges on fraudulent intent to permanently deprive someone of their property. If the defendants had honored the loan agreement, there would be no fraudulent intent involved.
Agreement with Outcome:
In the first case, I concur with the court's decision. It aligns with established legal principles that place emphasis on the fraudulent intent in cases of theft by false pretenses. Even if the defendants had every intention of repaying the loan,
the misrepresentation of the security for the loan constitutes a fraudulent act. This concurs with the broader legal understanding of theft by false pretenses.
Conclusion:
These cases provide real-world applications of legal principles in matters related to white-collar crimes. The first case underscores the critical nature of accurate representation during financial transactions, while the second case highlights the accountability of corporate officers in ensuring compliance with regulations, particularly in industries affecting public health and safety. Both cases ultimately uphold legal standards addressing deceptive practices and corporate responsibility.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help