People v.
Lauria: D ran a phone service in
which he would answer calls for whom he knew were prostitutes to
facilitate their business purposes. D acquitted b/c didn’t pass
3-part test. The had no special interest in the activity). The
intent of a supplier who knows his supplies will be put to criminal
use is established by (1) direct evidence that he intends to
participate, or (2) through an inference that he intends to
participate based on (a) his special interest in the activity, or (b)
the felonious nature of the crime itself.
- If the business you run is massively more profitable because of criminal activity you may be on the hook.
- Court says three things they need to prove to show his intent: If one of three things were true, he could have been on the hook: (1) Inflated prices (2) Sales of the good with no legitimate use (3) Unnecessarily large volume
- Look back to Accomplice Liability, if you have a STAKE you can be an accomplice!
No comments:
Post a Comment