Is it legal to lie about race on college applications This question is talking about the US btw On reddit (reliable source I know), in a life tips thread, someone mentioned that if you're Asian/White, you can put yourself down as white/POC on college applications. Thus, you won't suffer any reductions in college admission chances. The poster says you're allowed to do this because the college legally can't question the validity of the race you put down. Not sure why this is, maybe it's because it's your self-identified race? A possible reason that this is illegal is that this could be considered fraud. You are lying about your race to take advantage of a university's diversity policy for material gain (acceptance into college). So, can you legally be charged with fraud for lying about your race, or does the redditor's defense make perfect legal sense?
It's probably legal. This is not a sworn statement subject to perjury prosecution. Even if you can make the case that the statement is knowingly false, there is ample evidence (from colleges) that this is not a material consideration in admission. (I don't care where it actually is, that is plainly the statement that colleges make regarding race and admission). A fraudulent statement has to be material. It might violate college rules and they could conceivably throw you out for breaking the rules, if there is such a rule. Admissions materials are full of false statements. They are required by law to ask, you are not required to answer. Actual cheating on entrance exams is actionable (as we recently discovered); it is possible that in the future it will be &quot;discovered&quot; that exaggerations on entrance materials is also legally actionable.
Is it possible to become a lawyer if you have a record? Yes. But, it is also possible to refuse to admit someone to the practice of law based upon a criminal record. The decision is made by a "character and fitness" committee of a state's bar admission system after someone has finished law school and passed the academic part of the bar exam. If one state doesn't accept someone based upon a criminal record, another state could make a different decision. Your partner might be well advised to confer with experts on the issue to determine the likelihood that their particular criminal record would be a problem before making this huge investment of time and money and effort. If they decide to go through with it, would they be treated differently in the law community? Probably not. Nothing advertises to the legal community that someone has or does not have a criminal record. You are either admitted to the bar, or you are not. Your character and fitness application is private. If somebody finds out, that could impact how the person who finds out acts, just as it could in any other pursuit. But, someone would not be justified in treating a lawyer with a criminal record differently, for example, in case management issues or discovery plans, than someone without a criminal records, except in cases where national security clearances are required (a tiny subset of legal practice).
It depends on the context, who are contacting, and what you agree to when submitting. For example, lying the the federal government of the United States is generally a crime. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Making_false_statements Similarly, if you submit information under penalty of perjury you may be violating a law prohibiting lies under oath. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury
The way "with intent to lose citizenship" works in US law is extremely demanding; it is very hard to establish it by doing anything short of appearing before a consular officer and formally renouncing citizenship. Other ways include serving in the military of a country at war with the US, being convicted of treason for committing one of the specified potentially expatriating acts (serving in an army at war with the US is sort of a trial-less special case of that, because engaging in a war against the US is treason), or serving in a "policy-level position" in a foreign government. The State Department says as much in the link. Obtaining citizenship is listed as a case where the administrative premise applies; so is swearing allegiance to a foreign state, serving in the military of a state at peace with the US, and serving in lower-level government posts of a foreign state. In those cases, the person retains US citizenship but at some point in the future may be asked by the State Department if they wanted to renounce it. Intent to renounce citizenship is established only by explicit declaration if you've only obtained citizenship in another country. With "policy-level posts" the premise doesn't apply, but then the State Department just decides on a case-by-case basis. You may well lose US citizenship (although the King of Thailand was born in the US, and I'm not sure if he's considered to have lost citizenship), but it's not automatic. Your senior ministers may lose citizenship, but it is likewise not automatic. But the normal citizens? The link explicitly says that the administrative premise covers that.
Both of your question are creatures of contract. Their disclosures when you set up the account (or potentially amended disclosures or terms they've mailed to you subsequently) control both of these questions. They don't have to share the results of their internal investigation against you (they do have to give you proof that the deposit/transfer was fraudulent), but that does not give you access to their internal investigative process or its findings. They cannot shut down your account based on protected reasons (race, class, gender, religion, etc.), but the can certainly close an account pursuant to their operating procedures, their rules, terms and conditions or disclosures - all of which you agreed to (implicitly or explicitly) when opening the account. There is likely nothing you can do about either of these issues, unless the contract you formed with them by opening the account gives you that right, which would appear in their terms of service, disclosures, etc., and these almost always protect their right to do most anything when it comes to protecting the overall best interest of the corporate entity.
The double jeopardy clause would prevent you from being retried by the government that tried you for murder (probably a U.S. state). But, you could be tried for fraud and obstruction of justice at the state level, and you could be tried for murder if an appropriate federal offense were located, at the federal level. Often conspiracy to deprive someone of their civil rights is used as a federal offense when there is a state level acquittal, and it isn't impossible to imagine that happening in this case as the victim had a right to the protection of the laws, and the state had a right to enforce the criminal laws, which was deprived in a manner that could be called "under color of state law.'
I'm a notary. If someone showed me a marked-up license, I'd refuse to perform the notarization, and make a note of the persons name and phone number, to make sure I would never make another appointment with the person. Is there a law that says I have to refuse? I don't think so. Is there is a law that says I can refuse if I have any doubts about the person's identity? Absolutely.
There are lots of times when it's illegal to lie. Among them: impersonating a federal agent (18 USC 912) lying to a federal agent (18 USC 1001); health care fraud (18 USC 1035 and 1347); mail fraud (18 USC 1341); wire fraud (18 USC 1343); perjury (18 USC 1623); False Claims Act (31 USC 3729-33); and libel and slander (common law). But you're right that these laws are all at least theoretically in conflict with the First Amendment rule that &quot;Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech.&quot; So why are some of them upheld against a First Amendment challenge while others are struck down? The Supreme Court explained its rationale a few years ago in U.S. v. Alvarez, 567 U.S. 709 (2012). That case dealt with a federal statute making it illegal to falsely claim that you had won any medal that Congress had authorized to be awarded to the armed forces. The federal government said that false speech had no value and therefore was not protected, pointing to cases upholding laws like the ones listed above where the Court had used similar descriptions. But the Court rejected that argument, noting that the cases where it has upheld laws limiting false speech dealt with &quot;defamation, fraud, or some other legally cognizable harm associated with a false statement&quot;: In those decisions the falsity of the speech at issue was not irrelevant to our analysis, but neither was it determinative. The Court has never endorsed the categorical rule the Government advances: that false statements receive no First Amendment protection. Our prior decisions have not confronted a measure, like the Stolen Valor Act, that targets falsity and nothing more. Even when considering some instances of defamation and fraud, moreover, the Court has been careful to instruct that falsity alone may not suffice to bring the speech outside the First Amendment. The statement must be a knowing or reckless falsehood. So that sort of gives you an organizing principle. It's not really a philosophical distinction, and meeting it doesn't mean that the lie is illegal, just that it may be outlawed. tl;dr: The First Amendment usually does not protect false statements when they are: made knowingly; and made with some corrupt purpose.