tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post7665491752542518453..comments2023-10-24T08:00:53.865-05:00Comments on Federal Tax Crimes: Article Regarding Representing Swiss Banks (3/24/14)Jack Townsendhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14469823736335455874noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-42045506363494731462014-03-25T07:01:18.770-05:002014-03-25T07:01:18.770-05:00GolbalCapitalism, your comments are well taken. O...GolbalCapitalism, your comments are well taken. One nuance. Our legal system does not require conclusive evidence for criminal conviction. (I doubt that any legal system requires that level of proof; or, if it is required in name, it is in name only.) Our system requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Just what is reasonable doubt? No one has a perfect definition of it and, basically, it is left for the trier-of-fact -- usually a jury -- to decide what it means in the context of the case.<br /><br /><br />A person's criminal intent is usually particularly difficult to prove. In our system (and, I suspect in most systems), circumstantial evidence of intent is permissible and, depending on the evidence, can permit the trier-of-fact to infer guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. If that were not the case, no one could be convicted. So, bits and pieces from the bank's files could, in the context of a host of other facts relating to context and meaning, permit a finding of guilt. <br /><br /><br />All of that is to say that the seasoned U.S. criminal practitioners engaged by the banks certainly know that isolated bits of evidence are not likely to be criminal. But enough evidence to show a pattern can be criminal. That pattern is what these lawyers will be looking at when sifting through the banks files related to the U.S. depositors.Jack Townsendhttp://www.tjtaxlaw.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1519969502186924526.post-77866668135093659872014-03-25T06:44:01.217-05:002014-03-25T06:44:01.217-05:00Lessons learned from the "Umbrella Man"....Lessons learned from the "Umbrella Man".... DOJ are you listening ??<br />Jack, if you go back to my e-mails to you from last year you will find already many of the now public arguments regarding this subject of criminal intent.......<br />Amongst many other things I failed to explain to you that it is inappropriate and highly questionable to review conduct and try to establish criminal intent reflected in bank records or cryptic file notes all through the prism of US criminal law, despite the fact that such conduct occurred in a private banking culture, whose practices and operations were substantially different from those in the US.<br />The question remains what constitutes conclusive evidence of the knowledge and intentions of a swiss banker ? I continue to argue that the existence of possible badges of fraud in a bank file is by far not enough.<br />btw. William Sharp has a working permit in CH and lives 3 out of 4 weeks in ZH .GlobalCapitalismnoreply@blogger.com