Why is Sim Lim Scammer in Jail even though technically his victims agree? https://coconuts.co/singapore/news/33-months-jail-sim-lim-square-conman-jover-chew-whos-getting-treatment-depression/ Sim Lim scammer is in jail for "scamming". That one is obvious. We sort of know that he is scamming. But how he scammed seems pretty legit He obfuscate unreasonable terms deep within a thick contract. Basically people buy iPhone. Then he ask people to sign a contract that they agree to pay $1500 worth of insurance. People buy it and lost thousands of dollars. Yes. This guy is a scammer. There is no doubt. But the victim technically sign an agreement. So what crime laws does the Singaporean government use against this Sim Lim scammer? How would this be different in many other countries? I've heard in insurance industry, some people sell insurance at price 100 times the normal price. The strategy is similar, namely contract obfuscation. Is there a law that makes certain contracts unnecessarily complex for purpose of obfuscation a crime?
Process And Cultural Considerations He is in prison because he pleaded guilty to the crimes he was charged with by the prosector. So, there was no trial at which evidence contesting the charges was analyzed and compared to the relevant legal standard. As the linked story reports: In court, the 33-year-old conman pleaded guilty to 12 charges of cheating that transpired from January to October 2014. The story also reports that he was suffering from severe depression at the time that he entered his plea. So, he may have been overcome with hopelessness and self-hate over ending up in his position and entered his guilty plea, in part, for that reason. Put another way, he may have pleaded guilty because he genuinely felt guilty. Also, in much of East Asia, it isn't uncommon for criminal defendants to plead guilty to charges when they feel that they indeed morally wronged the victims and were wrong in the eyes of society, even if they might have technical grounds to fight the charges legally. A decision to plead guilty in a case where there is some plausible ground upon which the defendant could dispute his guilty, isn't without justification and isn't necessarily irrational in these criminal justice systems. Determinations of guilt and innocence and sentencing decisions are both made by judges, and judges convict defendants at much higher rates than juries do, in places where there is a right to a jury trial. (Singapore, even if it has "lay judges" that are part of a panel with a regular judge, doesn't have the equivalent of a U.S. jury, and "lay judges" tend to be highly deferential to the views of the career judge leading the panel.) Pre-Western legal theory in China (and East Asia more generally, Singapore is dominated by Chinese elites even though it is ethnically diverse), there was a distinction between Confucian philosophy which placed an emphasis over decision making by enlightened "good" men, over the "rule of law" which had a connotation of being rule by devious lawyers who manipulated technicalities to pervert justice. So, societal attitudes of both every day people and elites, both in and out of the legal system, frown on and have an aversion to and skepticism of defenses to legal charges that appear to be mere technicalities that is much more vehement than it is in the West, where "rule of man" is considered undesirable and despotic, while "rule of law" is considered a key component of a just society even if it sometimes has undesirable consequences in individual cases. In addition, in much of East Asia (based upon my personal discussions with judges from many East Asian countries while I was in law school where many East Asian judges came to study during mid-career sabbaticals), judges, de facto, regardless of the applicable legal standard, often strongly presume that everything that the prosecution tells them is true and that the defendant and any witnesses supporting a defendant are probably lying. It is similar to the pro-law enforcement bias of many U.S. judges in credibility disputes, but on steroids. So, pleading guilty rather than going to trial in much of East Asia, is often simply a matter of avoiding an exercise in futility that could cause the judge to view the defendant more harshly causing the judge to impose a stiffer sentence than might otherwise be imposed for the crime. Furthermore, in Singapore in particular, and also in much of the rest of East Asia, the capacity of the general public to organize extra-legal efforts to punish someone who is widely believed to have violated social norms is considerable. In this particular case, the public had raised a substantial war chest through an internet based fund raising request, to persecute this man, and conducted an investigation whose results were used to reveal details about his personal life that he wished he could have kept private, even before charges were filed. Singapore is a city-state, so there is really no place to hide. If the public thinks that you are a crook who got away with it, the potential that the public will act on your bad reputation is great. Accepting a judicially determined punishment for your alleged crime may be the most practical way to end further extra-legal punishment for your alleged crimes. The Alleged Crime Fraud can be established if someone is actually mislead, even if the unknowingly authorize a document that somewhere contains the information. If the person promoting the scam discourages people from reading the contract language, this is particular likely, but simply having an excessively long contract that does not disclose a key term conspicuously when that key term is not otherwise brought to the consumer's attention in the transaction could also constitute fraud. Also, "scamming" or "cheating", which is what he pleaded guilty to doing, is not necessarily a charge for fraud. For example, it may be that in Singapore that charging an unconscionable price for a good or service (i.e. a price grossly disproportionate to its fair market value) is a crime in and of itself, even if there is full and knowing consent to the price. In most places, overcharging is only a crime during a natural disaster or other emergency, which is considered exploiting people in a vulnerable situation or profiteering from a disaster or crisis. But, it is also true that in most places, an unconscionable contract can be invalidated by the person victimized by it, even if the contract was validly entered into by the parties. In many places, it is a civil offense to cause a consumer to enter into an unconscionable agreement and this is punishable by restitution and a fine or penalty. Singapore is notorious for criminalizing conduct that would, in other places, only be a civil offense in other places or a basis for bringing a lawsuit or a defense to a lawsuit, so it would not be surprising to me if "cheating" was a crime separate from fraud that was easier to prove in that legal system.
&quot;Any perceived compliance or non-compliance of other developers’ apps does not have any bearing on the compliance of your own apps.&quot; Could this mean that Google Play's policies are applied differently for different developers or apps? No, it means that you can't break the rules even if others are breaking the rules or you think they are breaking the rules. I think it is worth noting that those apps are for the Indian market. I don't know which one you are in, but google will have different rules for different countries to comply with various regulatory requirements.
Under the assumption stated, the lecherous millionaire is soliciting an act of prostitution, albeit with an unusually high price. His proposal would be just as illegal (or legal) as an offer of $100 for a sexual encounter. In most jurisdictions it would be a crime. George Bernard Shaw famously asked a woman if she would have sex with him (sleep with him, I think was the wording) for a million pounds, and she hesitated and eventually said "well yes, in that case". He then asked if she would for five pounds. Her reported answer was "Mr Shaw! What do you think I am?!" to which he rejoined "We have settled that, Madam. Now we are haggling about the price." This is much the same case -- legally the amount or nature of the price does not matter. Whether this would also constitute sexual harassment would depend on the specific laws of the local jurisdiction.
Given that this is a UK based company, the most applicable Act would be the Unsolicited Goods and Services Act 1971 A person who, not having reasonable cause to believe there is a right to payment, in the course of any trade or business makes a demand for payment, or asserts a present or prospective right to payment, for what he knows are unsolicited goods sent (after the commencement of this Act) to another person with a view to his acquiring them [for the purposes of his trade or business], shall be guilty of an offence and on summary conviction shall be liable to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale. This law specifically refers to [unsolicited] charges for entries in directories. You also mentioned that they're misrepresenting that a company is already a customer and sending out invoices on that basis. That would be a breach of the Fraud Act 2006 A person is in breach of this section if he dishonestly makes a false representation As to their enforceability, that answer is no. If this came before an actual judge, the judge would throw it out in a heartbeat. No agreement was made to provide a service in return for a payment and these companies rely on sending threatening letters via (seeming) third-parties precisely because they wish to avoid that level of scrutiny.
Nope, the seller can't refuse &quot;to sell&quot;. They have sold it. They sold it right at the moment the contract was created (which, depending on where they were, would not necessarily even need to be in writing). The deposit is irrelevant. What is relevant is that now your friend must pay the full balance, and the seller must hand over the car. If the seller does not do that, that is a breach of contract which can be fixed by going to the court and obtaining an order to hand the car over.
I'm not going to comment on the specifics of this law; rather, I think this question shows a misconception of the way the legal system works in general. Here's the question: do you actually have "legally privileged" material on your phone? If not, what's keeping you from claiming that is that it's not true, and lying to a police officer is a bad idea. And just putting a letter from your lawyer on the phone doesn't mean you've established a legal privilege--attorney-client privilege is not a magic spell, it's a reasonable system of protection that only covers certain communications. The bottom line is: the statute in general, and that clause in particular, were included in the law to protect real, important, and substantial legal right. The courts interpret the law in light of that purpose. If the police officer finds a solution that protects your rights while still carrying out the purpose of the statute, the court will be unlikely to fault him or her. In this case, if you tell the officer that there is a letter from your attorney in a particular folder, the obvious solution is for the officer not to open that folder. Problem solved. In practice, in the United States at least, these cases are dealt with routinely; computers are seized, and attorneys and judges work together to ensure that privilege is protected while still allowing reasonable access to seized materials. I would imagine the same is true in the U.K. The bottom line is: the law is not a game, and technical "gotchas" are rarely effective. Common law systems allow judges enough leeway to avoid this sort of pointless technicality.
It would appear so. California Civ. Code §1572 says that actual fraud is various acts with intent to deceive another party thereto, or to induce him to enter into the contract The suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true; I will suppose that the individual knows that he did not attend the university (is not delusional), and you can prove that the statement is false. It would take a bit of testifying to establish that the claimed institution was a material fact which induced customers to enter into a contract. The hardest part will be establishing damages.
There is usually a law that could be stretched to cover such a case. In Washington, RCW 9A.28.030 says A person is guilty of criminal solicitation when, with intent to promote or facilitate the commission of a crime, he or she offers to give or gives money or other thing of value to another to engage in specific conduct which would constitute such crime or which would establish complicity of such other person in its commission or attempted commission had such crime been attempted or committed. The "intent" of the law is to punish people for saying "I'll give you $5000 to kill Smith". But just looking at the text, if you give someone money to encourage them to engage in a specific kind of criminal conduct (e.g. beating people up), then you've violated the law. So, handing a guy $5,000 and saying "I think you should be rewarded for your act" could easily be construed as promoting the future commission of the same or similar crime.