What makes an organization a criminal organization? What exactly makes an organization worthy of the title “criminal organization”? For instance, say, at some particular bank, it is discovered that several high-ranking officials were involved in an embezzlement scheme. Over the course of three years, these individuals pocketed money intended for company use. Does this make the bank a criminal organization? If not, then what would? Also this scenario is happening in America.
"Criminal organization" is an informal term with no legal significance. It is, however, often used to refer to something specifically addressed by [18 USC 96], the RICO statutes. The definitions section refers to "racketeering activity", "pattern of racketeering activity", and "enterprise". The first term which starts by enumerating murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, extortion, dealing in obscene matter, or dealing in a controlled substance or listed chemical, and moving on to pretty much every crime there is. "Pattern of racketeering activity" is committing two or more crimes. An "enterprise" includes any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity 18 USC 1962(c), for example, says It shall be unlawful for any person employed by or associated with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt. The italicized part refers obliquely to the Commerce Clause, and similar expressions are commonly used to give the federal government the authority to outlaw or restrict certain activities, if they have something to do with business. The bold parts draw in what are commonly considered to be "a criminal organization", that is, an "enterprise", which has a "pattern of racketeering behavior". Theoretically, the above scenario might fall within the ambit of RICO. There is a manual for RICO prosecution, which gives massive amounts of detail. I think the main issue in deciding whether to pursue a given organization is whether the organization seems to be by nature corrupt, as opposed to having some high-ranking corrupt people. There may be other reasons for not prosecuting under RICO.
The crime of theft generally requires two elements - taking control of property, and the intent to deprive the rightful owner of it. If Bob had no intent to leave without paying, he may lack the intent often required for theft. In the scenario described, it's possible Bob has not committed theft, but his actions may indeed constitute theft depending on the jurisdiction. As pointed out in the comments, some jurisdictions codify the concealment of merchandise as prima facie presumption of an intention to steal, or may even codify the act of concealment itself as a crime. There are some shoplifting laws statues that specifically call out &quot;willful concealment&quot;, which does not require leaving the premises of a store to have committed a crime - merely concealing the item may be a crime in itself, although perhaps not the crime of &quot;theft&quot;. Whether a court would find Bob guilty of theft will depend on a number of factors, depending if there is leeway in inferring intent, and how that intent is inferred. If Bob's actions are found to be sufficiently inconsistent with the behavior of someone who truly intended to pay, the court may find him guilty. If a reasonable person would infer a lack of intent to pay from Bob's actions, he may be found guilty.
According to the United States Treasury Department: Money laundering is the process of making illegally-gained proceeds (i.e. "dirty money") appear legal (i.e. "clean"). Typically, it involves three steps: placement, layering and integration. First, the illegitimate funds are furtively introduced into the legitimate financial system. Then, the money is moved around to create confusion, sometimes by wiring or transferring through numerous accounts. Finally, it is integrated into the financial system through additional transactions until the "dirty money" appears "clean." I have no idea if the $10m are proceeds of crime so we apply the duck test - "If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck; its probably a duck" A person has gifted another person $10m - there is nothing illegal about giving someone a gift, however, this is a pretty substantial gift. I am calling it a gift because there is no enforceable contract that requires repayment. There is an expectation that the receiver will invest this money for a period of time, hey, if I had $10m I'd probably invest it too. And then return it to the giver; with or without the earnings (you do not say). Again there is nothing wrong with reciprocating a gift; reciprocity is a cornerstone of most societies, however, this is a pretty detailed understanding of what reciprocity means. Quack, quack, quack - its money laundering. Many jurisdictions in the world have "unexplained wealth" laws which basically require a person to explain their unexplained wealth or have it confiscated. If it isn't money laundering it is certainly at risk of this.
It looks to me as if "money laundering" is a misunderstanding; though any organization has a duty to prevent this, charities have no special responsibilties. However, charity law does in general terms prevent a charity from giving money to a cause that does not further the charity's aims. The Charity Commission's guidance says "Charities can only spend their money on projects or activities that support the aims stated in their governing document" (and although it goes on to outline exceptions, you still need to obtain the Commission's agreement to return a gift from a source you find objectionable, for example). The rationale is that people gave money to the University to further the cause of education; the researchers have no right to divert that money to Shelter (or another charity like the Roman Catholic Church) without the giver's consent. My experienced but non-expert view is that these payments would be a breach of the law, though they would probably be treated as a de minimis exception; you can't blame the University's legal team for insisting they should not be made.
Nope. 18 U.S. Code § 1028 - Fraud and related activity in connection with identification documents, authentication features, and information (a) Whoever, in a circumstance described in subsection (c) of this section— (1) knowingly and without lawful authority produces an identification document, authentication feature, or a false identification document; [...] (c) The circumstance referred to in subsection (a) of this section is that— (1) the identification document, authentication feature, or false identification document is or appears to be issued by or under the authority of the United States or a sponsoring entity of an event designated as a special event of national significance or the document-making implement is designed or suited for making such an identification document, authentication feature, or false identification document; So you're 1) producing a false identification document that 2) appears to be issued by the United States. Whether you'd actually be prosecuted for this is something that I'm not qualified to answer.
If what that quote says is actually true, no that is obviously not a crime. Sending law enforcement to stop a crime is not a crime, no matter who benefits. In fact turning a blind eye and letting someone benefit would have been the crime. But this is not a legal matter. People are upset because the person saying this has a track record of saying things that are actually not true and that is why many people suspect a crime. Because if any part of this sentence turns out to be not true (and based on this persons history, that chance is very high), then yes, a crime may have been committed. If any predecessor had said &quot;I sent the FBI to stop child kidnapping and it stopped immediately&quot;, nobody would question that that is obviously not a crime. They would applaud him for it. Because with any predecessor, people would have believed their words to be true, at least in the very broad sense.
They still have the power They generally don’t because: Most activities of a criminal nature no matter how novel can be shoehorned as a new instance of an existing crime. Parliament is much more pro-active in its legislative agenda. The judicial system moves much more slowly.
No, each state is a "sovereign" and whenever a statute describes a crime it is always some act committed by a "person" and these two categories are mutually exclusive. See, for example, US Supreme Court in U.S. v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258, 67 SCt 677 (1947): "In common usage, the term `person' does not include the sovereign and statutes employing it will ordinarily not be construed to do so." Repeated by US Supreme Court in Wilson v. Omaha Indian Tribe 442 US 653, 667 (1979): "In common usage, the term 'person' does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing the word are ordinarily construed to exclude it."