United States v. Mulhern case brief summary
938 F.2d 364 (1991)
CASE FACTS
Defendant challenged his conviction of conspiracy to commit securities and mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 371, and three counts of securities fraud, in violation of 15 U.S.C.S. §§ 78j(b), 78f(f).
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court reversed defendant's conviction of conspiracy to commit securities and mail fraud and three counts of securities fraud because the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that when defendant purchased the shares of company common stock, he did it with the intent to raise its price, rather than with the intent to invest, and no rational trier of fact could have found elements of crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt.
Suggested Study Aids For Securities Regulation Law
Securities Regulation in a Nutshell, 10th (Nutshell Series)
Securities Regulation: Examples & Explanations, 5th Edition
Securities Regulations: The Essentials
938 F.2d 364 (1991)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Defendant appealed from a decision
entered in the United States District Court for the Southern District
of New York, convicting him of conspiracy to commit securities and
mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 371 and three
counts of securities fraud in violation of 15 U.S.C.S. §§
78j(b), 78f(f).CASE FACTS
Defendant challenged his conviction of conspiracy to commit securities and mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 371, and three counts of securities fraud, in violation of 15 U.S.C.S. §§ 78j(b), 78f(f).
DISCUSSION
- The court reversed the judgment of conviction on the ground that government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that when defendant purchased the 75,000 shares of company common stock on October 17, 1985, he did it for the sole purpose of raising the price at which it traded on the stock exchange, rather than for his own investment purposes because no rational trier of fact could have found the elements of the crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The court stated that government was obligated to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that when defendant purchased the shares of company common stock, he did it with the intent to raise its price, rather than with the intent to invest.
- The court concluded that government failed to carry this burden.
- The court also stated that defendant's convictions were based on evidence that was at least as consistent with innocence as with guilt, and on inferences no more valid than others equally supported by reason and experience.
CONCLUSION
The court reversed defendant's conviction of conspiracy to commit securities and mail fraud and three counts of securities fraud because the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that when defendant purchased the shares of company common stock, he did it with the intent to raise its price, rather than with the intent to invest, and no rational trier of fact could have found elements of crimes charged beyond a reasonable doubt.
Suggested Study Aids For Securities Regulation Law
Securities Regulation in a Nutshell, 10th (Nutshell Series)
Securities Regulation: Examples & Explanations, 5th Edition
Securities Regulations: The Essentials
No comments:
Post a Comment