credlocity’s Post

Driving home and wondering about indemnity costs? Have a listen to our new episode on our “For the Love of Costs” podcast on Spotify where Helen Appleby and Joanne Chase discuss all things indemnity costs (link below)👇🏽

Please see my recent blog on the consequences of alleging fraud and the possibility of an Indemnity Basis Costs award, as a result https://lnkd.in/e3byiHrD

Understand the recent anti-money laundering regulations for residential real estate transfers and get in touch with our Guidehouse Financial Crime, Fraud & Investigative Services (FFI) experts to learn how your organization can stay compliant: https://lnkd.in/dXmTUfJU

Can a fraud claim ever really be settled? Riley v National Westminster Bank Plc says yes. Alexa Day was joined during London International Disputes Week (LIDW) by Paul Sinclair KC and Ben Valentin KC, both of Fountain Court Chambers, to explore whether parties can ever really settle fraud claims (see the full talk: https://lnkd.in/eMAw-vPU). The Court of Appeal has now indicated that they can, in unanimously dismissing the appeal in Riley v National Westminster Bank and upholding the High Court's "meticulous and comprehensive judgment". In so doing, the Court of Appeal reiterated the strong policy interest in upholding the finality of settlement agreements stating that it is no part of the court’s function to frustrate the intentions of contracting parties once those have been objectively ascertained. Providing, therefore, that a party has the benefit of widely drafted release language (e.g. settling all claims known and unknown, present or future) which is carefully grounded in the factual context of the claims being settled, the court will be reluctant to interfere with that bargain simply owing to allegations of fraud.   Indeed, the three-judge panel expressly refuted the suggestion that upholding the settlement agreement in this case would set a "dangerous precedent". In contrast, in circumstances where the Rileys believed that they had been deceived by a “thinly disguised ploy”, but nevertheless freely entered into a settlement agreement which extended to unknown claims, the only “dangerous precedent” would be set in allowing the Rileys to re-open that bargain.   The judgment (https://lnkd.in/enKEsBDx) will be of some considerable comfort for prospective defendants and, in line with the recent trend of cases, suggests that the courts are moving away from the principle that fraud unravels all and towards the certainty and finality of settlements.

Financial fraud is a category of white-collar crimes that involve deceit or misrepresentation for financial gain. It’s important to know exactly what you are charged with and why so that you can build a proper defense with the help of a skilled defense lawyer. Learn about financial fraud and criminal defense in California. https://lnkd.in/gJkNA-U9

In this article which I had the privilege of co-authoring with Kriyanka Reddi, we explore a recent judgment where the High Court dismissed a R1.6M claim against a bank for losses from a fraudulent email scheme. The court held that FICA obligations do not create a private law duty and found no evidence of negligence or wrongful conduct by the bank. The loss was attributed to the claimants’ failure to take the necessary precautions. This case reinforces the need for vigilance in financial transactions. #LegalUpdate #BankingLitigation #CyberFraud #NRFSA

Can a fraud claim be settled? Read on below for the answer! 👇

I wanted to share with you the update issued by Council for Licensed Conveyancers - regulating property and probate lawyers surrounding payments systems that can support and help to tackle fraud an issue which I know is front and centre for many law firms in view of the increasing number of instances, recent cases and attacks. ISO200022 is on the horizon for all of us, what action will you take? PEXA UK looking to support conveyancers against this exposure in the future. #conveyancers #securefuture https://lnkd.in/dgd7cgsR

Great to see a regulator being proactive around payment systems. firms should gain benefit in the future in their insurance premiums by the development in this space, the risk of fraud is substantially reduced. For once as practitioners we may have the potential to move the risk to somewhere else!

𝐋𝐀𝐖𝐅𝐀𝐑𝐄, 𝐃𝐈𝐒𝐆𝐎𝐑𝐆𝐄𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐀𝐍𝐃 𝐄𝐗𝐂𝐄𝐒𝐒𝐈𝐕𝐄 𝐅𝐈𝐍𝐄𝐒 Excerpts: "One of the most powerful tools in this arsenal of lawfare is disgorgement. Disgorgement is ordinarily defined as an equitable remedy to recover ill-gotten profits arising from civil or criminal frauds and then distributing those recovered profits to victims of the fraud—a form of restitution. Prosecutors traditionally used this remedy to go after funds held by backers of terrorism, Ponzi schemes, organized crime, and other authentic criminal enterprises. When the Bernie Madoff investment fraud was discovered, the government forced the beneficiaries of the scheme to disgorge their illegal profits and reimburse the defrauded investors." "However, as the rule of law is debauched, disgorgement is being dramatically reinterpreted and expanded to punish political enemies. Indeed, disgorgement is no longer utilized only to make bona fide fraud victims whole. Instead, the federal government and states increasingly use disgorgement to punish civil and criminal defendants, confiscate their money, and dump that money into the government’s coffers without sending a penny to any victims. And that’s because, in many modern disgorgement cases, there is no victim." "Disgorgement was never intended for this broad 'public' purpose, only for making whole specific victims of illegal activity." "The Court has also dropped other clues that punitive disgorgement rulings violate American constitutional norms. In 𝘛𝘪𝘮𝘣𝘴 𝘷. 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘢𝘯𝘢 (2019), a ruling authored by none other than Democrat cult hero Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Court held that the Excessive Fines Clause applies to the states with the same force as the federal government." In 𝑈𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑆𝑡𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑠 𝑣. 𝐵𝑎𝑗𝑎𝑘𝑎𝑗𝑖𝑎𝑛, where a criminal defendant was charged with attempting to leave the U.S. with $357,144 of unreported cash (total amounts over $10,000 must be reported), the Court held that forfeiture (in essence, disgorgement) of the entire amount would violate the Excessive Fines Clause 'because full forfeiture of [defendant’s] currency would be grossly disproportional to the gravity of his offense.'" "James’ case against President Trump is a particularly egregious example of disgorgement abuse." by Gavin Wax and Edward Paltzik Full article: https://lnkd.in/e8fs7EED