Judicial decisions, along with legislative and regulatory decrees, are one of the most important sources of legal authority in our common law system. Laws must also be read in conjunction with case law interpreting the correct application of legislation. Courts follow the doctrine of precedent or stare decisis (“leave the decision in abeyance”) to create and develop legal bodies to ensure that individuals are treated equally in similar factual circumstances. Federalism also plays an important role in determining the jurisdictional authority of a particular court. In fact, each county has its own binding jurisprudence. Therefore, a judgment rendered in the Ninth Circuit is not binding in the Second Circuit, but has persuasive power. However, U.S. Supreme Court decisions are binding on all federal and state courts on constitutional and federal law matters. Case law, which is also used interchangeably with the common law, is a precedent-based statute, that is, on judicial decisions in previous cases, and not on the basis of constitutions, articles or regulations. Case law uses the detailed facts of a case decided by courts or similar tribunals. These previous decisions are called “jurisprudence” or precedent. Stare decisis – a Latin phrase meaning “to leave the decision in abeyance” – is the principle by which judges are bound by such past decisions. 31.
U.S. District Judge James Jones dismissed Indivior`s request to dismiss a 28-count indictment alleging the company was involved in health care fraud, referral fraud, mail fraud and conspiracy to do the same. The charges in the indictment stem from Indivior`s marketing of Suboxone, an opioid used to treat addiction. The indictment alleges that Indivior employees facilitated the misuse of Suboxone through relationships with doctors involved in illegitimate prescribing and made fraudulent statements about the drug`s safety and diversion. Indivior asserted in a motion to dismiss the charges that the company`s alleged encouragement of illegal prescription did not constitute fraud. In dismissing Indivior`s application, the court concluded that the government had correctly alleged the conduct in the indictment and that whether it was fraud should be decided by a jury. The trial in this case, originally scheduled for May, continued until September 2020 due to the ongoing health emergency. Case law, like legislation, can change over time. Just because a decision was once a good law does not mean it still is today. The lawyer must not only be able to find and read the case law, but also to ascertain whether it has been subject to subsequent judicial review and whether it remains in good law.
On this page, you will find current updates on PWCB cases that are publicly available. 11. In August 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida issued an injunction under 18 U.S.C. § 1345 against three Vietnamese defendants, Thu Phan Dinh, Tran Khan, and Nguyen Duy Toan. According to the government`s complaint in this case, the defendants committed a fraudulent scheme by creating websites advertised as online stores that offer products for sale to U.S. consumers, including health and safety-related items such as hand sanitizer and disinfectant wipes. that have become rare during the COVID-19 pandemic. The complaint alleges that consumers pay for items that are supposed to be sold on the sites, but never receive those purchases.
The injunction prevents defendants from engaging in the alleged fraud and shuts down hundreds of websites used by defendants to operate their system. 23. In April 2020, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted the U.S. request to issue a fixed injunction against Facebook, Inc. In a complaint filed in July 2019, the government alleged that Facebook violated a 2012 FTC order and committed further violations of the FTC Act by misrepresenting to consumers how personal information could be protected and how Facebook used that data. The settlement requires Facebook to pay a $5 billion civil fine and amends the 2012 FTC order by requiring Facebook to implement sweeping new privacy measures, including the creation of an independent assessor and an independent privacy committee to oversee compliance with the order; conduct privacy reviews for all Facebook-owned products and services, including Instagram and WhatsApp; and Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg`s commitment to provide annual compliance certifications. The court also rejected two requests by a data protection group and an individual to intervene in the case.
Facebook paid the $5 billion fine on April 29, 2020. If a case is contested before a higher court, the decision of the lower court may be as follows: On 23. In March 2018, the District Court issued an order permanently prohibiting three Utah-based telemarketing companies and their owners from engaging in fraudulent and abusive telemarketing practices. The order also imposes a civil penalty of approximately $45.4 million, all but $487,735 of which is conditionally suspended due to the defendants` financial situation. This case was filed in 2011 and alleged that the defendants, Feature Films for Families, Inc., Corporations for Character, L.C., Family Films of Utah, Inc. and Forrest S. Baker III, committed widespread violations of the FTC Act and the Telemarketing Sales Rule (TSR) in various telemarketing campaigns selling DVDs and movie tickets. as well as in charity campaigns. 25. In May 2016, after eight days of trial, a jury found that the defendants had committed more than 117 million knowingly violations of TSR, including 99 million calls to phone numbers in the Do Not Call Register and more than four million additional calls in which they made misleading statements to incite DVD sales.
This decision was the first in a lawsuit to enforce the telemarketing sales rule and the Do Not Call Registry rule. On August 14, 2018, Xu Jia Bao (aka Fred Xu) pleaded guilty to fraud related to a system of selling mislabeled dietary supplements containing hidden synthetic stimulants. Xu, a Chinese citizen, was the director of a Chinese company that regularly supplied ingredients to U.S. supplement manufacturers. According to an indictment issued last October, Xu agreed with a confidential government source to mislabel synthetic stimulants arriving in the U.S. or help hide the true nature of a new dietary supplement offered to retailers. Xu pleaded guilty and admitted that he had agreed to falsely label a synthetic stimulant, DMHA, for the expedition. Xu was arrested in September at a dietary supplement trade show in Las Vegas; Two other accused had previously pleaded guilty in a related case. On 4 November 2016, Sheikh Waseem Ul Haq was sentenced to imprisonment and three years of probation for his role in a long-standing plot to ship medicines from Pakistan and the UK to customers in the United States. The court also issued a consent order for the forfeiture of $388,265.12, Ul Haq`s share of proceeds from the sale of drugs to U.S. customers.
From 2005 to 2012, websites operated by Ul Haq and his co-defendant Tahir Saeed sold $2 million worth of illegal prescription drugs, including anabolic steroids and other controlled substances, to customers around the world, including sales of nearly $780,000 to buyers in the United States.
Comments are closed.