Accepting property acquired by larceny or robbery is now a distinct statutory offense, generally a felony, depending in some states on the value of the property that was stolen. Most of the statutes require that the offense have several elements: (a) the accused must actually have received the property; (b) it must have been stolen and remain stolen at the time of its receipt; (c) the receiver must have known that the property was stolen; and (d) he must have received it with criminal intent, that is, intent to prevent the owner from getting it back. The typical receiver today is what newspapers and books refer to as a fence. He is the one who encourages the criminal to steal or commit larceny in the first place because of his assurance to the thief that he can sell or dispose of the stolen property. Knowledge by the receiver that the property is stolen may be implied by the courts from the circumstances of the case. If property is, in fact, stolen, the receiver accepts it "with knowledge" if (a) he knows it was stolen, (b) he believes it was stolen or (c) his suspicions are aroused and he does not check further for fear that he will discover it was stolen. Suppose a used-car dealer is offered a car exactly like the one described in a recent newspaper story about the theft of a car from a nearby parking lot. He either knows or believes that the car offered to him was stolen. His acceptance of that car would, in all likelihood, subject him to the charge of receiving stolen property. The situation would be different if the theft of the car from the parking lot happened some time earlier and the dealer only vaguely remembered the details in the newspaper account. Even if the car now offered him for sale in his used-car lot seems in fine condition and he believes he can sell it quickly at a good profit, he would be wise to check carefully to make sure the person offering him the car has legal title to ownership of it. Statutes in many, if not all, states require the registration with the state of documents of title to automobiles, and the dealer should have little difficulty learning whether the car is actually owned by the person who wants to sell it. But all documents can be forged, and to protect himself from the possible charge of receiving stolen property, a dealer should report to the proper authorities any case that seems suspicious.
UNIT 15
' CONVERSATION
Hello! Have you heard anything about the results of our appeal?
Nothing. I've been waiting for them since ten o'clock.
When will they tell us the results?
Nobody can answer this question.
Look, what is on TV?
It is a session of the Congress of the USA.
Is it interesting?
I don't know. They have been discussing something for a long time and I haven't understood a word.
So, switch it off and don't waste time.
FOCUS ON GRAMMAR AND PRACTICE
| UNREAL CONDITIONAL SENTENCES |
1. , , .
|
|
|
| (IF) | |
| PAST INDEFINITE | WOULD('D) + INFINITIVE (to BE WERE ) |
If I had more time, I would study more.
, .
If I were you, I would call the police.
, .
2. , , - ( , ), .
| (IF) | |
| PAST PERFECT | WOULD('D) HAVE + INFINITIVE |
If I had known about it, I would have acted differently.
, -.
3. would could ( ) might ( , ).
m 1. ; .
| I | would go to the USA | if he had attended the lectures. |
| They | would have been arrested | if.... had more time for the preparation. |
| The judge | would buy a new car | if there were more money. |
| Mr. Lawrence | would have passed the exam | if the case had been proved. |
| He | would pass a sentence | if there were more evidence. |
| She | would pass the exam | if... could afford it. |
m 2. .
1. He would take the Financial Law if...
2. He would apply to the Law School if...
3. The police officer would have detained the man if...
4. I would have prepared for the class if...
5. If I were you, I...
6. If I had been in such a situation, I...
& READING
TEXT A
.
| white-collar crime | |
| to restrict | () |
| to further | |
| to conspire | |
| artificial | |
| competitor | |
| to charge | , , () |
| specifications | |
| executive | |
| to estimate | |
| impact | , |
| environment | |
| safety | |
| consumer | |
| juvenile | |
| embezzlement | , |
.
.
1. What is the definition of white-collar crimes?
2. What do criminologists understand by these crimes?
3. What crimes are included into this category?
4. What is the cost of white-collar crime?
5. What other meaning is the term white-collar crime used in?
"WHITE-COLLAR" CRIME
Crimes committed by business people, professionals, and politicians in the course of their occupation are known as "white-collar" crimes, after the typical attire of their perpetrators. Contrary to popular usage, criminologists tend to restrict the term to those illegal actions that are intended by the perpetrators principally to further the aims of their organizations rather than make money for themselves personally. Examples include conspiring with other corporations to fix prices of goods or services in order to make artificially high profits or to drive a particular competitor out of the market; bribing officials or falsifying reports of tests on pharmaceutical products to obtain manufacturing licenses; and constructing buildings or roads with cheap, defective materials while charging for components meeting full specifications. Often such activities are attributable to over-enthusiastic employees or executives acting on their own initiative, but sometimes they represent a form of "upperworld" organized crime.
|
|
|
Such crimes have a huge impact upon the safety of workers, consumers, and the environment, but they are seldom detected. Compared with crimes committed by juveniles or the poor, corporate crimes are very rarely prosecuted in the criminal courts, and executives seldom go to jail, though companies may pay large fines.
The term white-collar crime is used in another sense, by the public and academics, to describe fraud and embezzlement. Rather than being crime "by the firm, for the firm", this constitutes crime for profit by the individual against the organization, the public, or the government. (Tax fraud costs at least 5 percent of the gross national product in most developed countries.) Because of the concealed nature of many frauds and the fact that few are reported even when discovered, the cost is impossible to estimate precisely, but in the United States it is thought to be at least 10 times the combined cost of theft, burglary, and robbery.
TEXT B
.
