What is a vested interest? We hear this phrase used a lot in political ranting, to describe various purportedly corrupt forces that are determined to do or maintain something due to an identifiable incentive. But it's just occurred to me that this is probably originally a legal term. What does it mean for an interested to be vested or unvested?
A vested interest is a type of property interest. Black's Law Dictionary provides this definition: Accrued; fixed; settled; absolute ; having the character or giving the rights of absolute ownership; not contingent; not subject to be defeated by a condition precedent. In other words, a holder's interest in property is vested when he does not need to satisfy any further conditions before claiming his property. This is in contrast to a contingent interest which does not become vested until some condition is satisfied. In the United States, the most familiar example may be in the retirement context. An employer may offer to match your contributions to your 401(k) plan, with the match vesting after one year. In that case, your employer should deposit matching funds into an account in your name as soon as you begin work, but for the first 12 months, you do not actually have the right to access or use those funds. Once a year has passed, though, you are not required to do anything else to take control of the matching funds, so you are said to have a vested interest in those funds -- you may withdraw them if you please, and the employer no longer has any claim to them. The colloquial sense of vested interest is therefore inconsistent with the legal definition. For instance, in reporting on San Francisco District Attorney Chesa Boudin's reelection campaign, Fox News described writer Shaun King as having &quot;a vested interest in the controversial DA,&quot; based on their mutual involvement in a nonprofit organization. But absent the repeal of the Thirteenth Amendment, it is not possible to have a vested interest in another person. Likewise, reports that a politician has a vested interest in some policy, that an international organization has a vested interest in global economic development or that a coach has a vested interest in his players' health make no sense when applying the legal definition. None of these things are property to begin with, let alone property that these people could actually be said to hold an interest in with no preconditions. It is likely that in the vast majority of cases, references to a &quot;vested interest&quot; should simply say &quot;interest.&quot;
It is actually because "this is important". Under US law, disclaimers must be "conspicuous" (UCC 2-316). So you can talk regularly when you're just stating the terms, but if you're disclaiming liability, YOU MUST BE CONSPICUOUS ("to exclude or modify the implied warranty of merchantability or any part of it the language must mention merchantability and in case of a writing must be conspicuous, and to exclude or modify any implied warranty of fitness the exclusion must be by a writing and conspicuous"). There are many ways to make text conspicuous, so bold or larger type would do, but all-caps is pretty bullet-proof from a technological perspective. Thanks to ohwilleke for salient citations: invalidation of a plain-type buried indemnification clause, all-caps clause held to be sufficient, law review article on the conspicuousness requirement.
&quot;Why&quot; someone did something is potentially off-topic, but in regards to your hierarchical image - it lacks provenance so cannot be tested, however according to the official judiciary website: The Master of the Rolls is second in judicial importance to the Lord Chief Justice.
In general it is illegal to gamble on life. However, you might not even need to go to a bookmaker: A contract that pays money upon the death of a specific person is known commercially as "life insurance." In order to avoid the moral hazard (or reality) of creating a contract killing market, it has long been illegal to trade life insurance with any person or entity who does not have an "insurable interest" in the insured. (See also: The Insurable Interest Requirement for Life Insurance, by Peter Swisher, who also has a good review of laws and regulations surrounding exceptions to the rule like viaticals and STOLI. Further reading on the subject here.) I don't know if it has been tested, but I think anyone could argue that they would face a significant financial loss if the U.S. President were killed or died in office: the stock markets plunged on JFK's assassination. Therefore, it could be both legal and possible for anyone to buy life insurance on the U.S. President. (Note that, in the U.S., the disputes about third-party life insurance have revolved for generations around the tax benefits associated with insurance premiums and benefits. See corporate-owned life insurance (COLI), a.k.a. "janitor's insurance.")
Let's say the trustee runs into a situation where the beneficiary demands some action, and the trustee thinks this action is a really, really bad idea. Then the trustee can either say "no". Or the trustee can say "yes" and be liable (so if the action is a really bad idea then the trustee won't do this). The trustee can NOT say "yes if you sign this paper that I'm not liable for the result of this action", because the job of the trustee is to protect the beneficiary and he wouldn't be doing that.
If I can summarise: Jane gave money to Joe on the understanding that he would give it to Bob, Joe kept the money. This is matter between Jane and Joe, Bob is not involved. Edit The OP has stated that Joe did give the money to Bob. In that case, Joe was acting as Jane's agent and he discharged his agency. This is a matter between Jane and Bob, Joe is involved only so far as he was a witness to what happened.
You've basically described two of the ends of the pole in theories of jurisprudence (there are dozens of ends). There is no theory of law that relies purely on &quot;spirit&quot; (also no theory that actually relies on the letters uses=d in writing law), instead, everybody interprets the text (the words enacted by the government) and some people supplement their interpretation with consideration of &quot;other factors&quot;, such as assumed legislative purpose. Certain scholars and judges are inclined to put most weight on the actual wording of the law, while others are inclined to let purposive considerations dictate the interpretation of a law. Interpreting law by W.N. Eskridge is an informative guide to supplementing a reading of the statute with anciliary considerations. Antonin Scalia is the best-known proponent of the textualist approach.
My understanding is that the syndicate would be committing an act of extortion. Under the RICO Act, IF the politician conspired with the syndicate OR IF the politician had something like an 'understanding' with the syndicate, then they (any, and all involved) could be charged with the crime (extortion), racketeering and conspiracy. Additional crimes/laws to consider: Campaign finance violations Money laundering Compelled speech (1st Amendment)