Subscribe to America`s largest dictionary and get thousands of other definitions and an advanced search – ad-free! SCIENTIFIC, knowingly. 2. A person can do many actions, justified or not, because he is not or not ignorant of certain facts. He may transmit a counterfeit coin if he does not know that it is counterfeit money and if he is not guilty of any crime; But if he knew that the coin was fake, the so-called scientist, he is guilty of passing on counterfeit money. A man who keeps an animal that injures a person or his property is liable for the damage or, in some cases, he can be charged if he was aware of the animal`s propensity to cause injury. 3 darkness. Comm. 154; 2 Strong. Ev. 178; 4 campb. 198; 2 1264 Street; 2 Esp. 482; Bull. N.
p. 77; Crest. 2092; 2 Lev. 172; Lord Raym. 110; 2 B. & A. 620; 2 C. M.
& R. 496; 5 C. and p. 1; S. C. 24 E. C. L. R. 187; 1 Leigh, N.P. 552, 553; 7 C.
& p. 755. 4. In this respect, civil law coincides with ours. Domat, Lois Civ. liv. 2, T. 8, p. 2. For possible evidence to prove guilt, see Archb. Pl. Cr.
109. Video level; Dog. Most courts hold that reckless behaviour can also constitute a scientist. The definition of recklessness includes behaviour that reasonable people know is dangerous or illegal. Even if an accused had no real knowledge that his or her conduct was criminal, the perpetrator may be implicated by his or her reckless actions. In United States v. Wulff, 758 F.2d 1121 (1985), the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, declared that the criminal provision of the Migratory Birds Treaty Act, 16 U.S.C.A. § 703 et seq., was unconstitutional because it made it a crime to sell part of a migratory bird without proof of a scholar.
According to the court, eliminating the element of criminal intent in a prosecution violates the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, unless the sentence is relatively low and the conviction does not seriously tarnish the reputation of the accused. The statutory penalty included two years in prison and a $2,000 fine, and the court found that this sentence was too harsh to be imposed on a person who had acted without any scientists. “False” is sometimes used to imply scientists, and the word has been interpreted to mean something intentionally false or fraudulent and implying intent to commit fraud; In a sense, it means treacherous or traitorous. 35 C.J.S. Falsely, 789, 790. “False” is defined as “false, erroneous, deceptive, treacherous or insidious”. Black`s Law Dictionary 540 (Rev. 5th ed.
1979). Black`s Law Dictionary. HENRY CAMPBELL BLACK, M. A. 1990. In some cases or claims, a plaintiff does not have to prove that the defendant traded with a scientist. These cases or claims are based on strict liability laws, which impose criminal and civil liability regardless of the defendant`s mental state. For example, a law prohibiting the sale of cigarettes to minors may authorize a penalty for such a sale even if the seller has tried to verify the buyer`s age and has determined that the buyer is not a minor. Courts have ruled that a legislative body cannot authorize severe penalties for offences involving strict liability, as severe penalties are usually reserved for wilful misconduct, reckless conduct or gross negligence.
The term scientific is relevant to pleadings in a case. Plaintiffs and prosecutors must include in their briefs allegations that the defendant acted knowingly wrongdoing or guilt. When a legislative body passes legislation providing for severe criminal or civil penalties, it usually includes a provision stating that a person must act intentionally, knowingly, intentionally or recklessly, or it provides for similar scientific requirements. However, legislative bodies do not always refer to the scientist in laws. In some cases, the level of investigation required to hold a defendant responsible or guilty may vary. In Metge v. Baehler, 762 F.2d 621 (1985), a group of investors sued a bank alleging that it had supported and facilitated securities fraud. In order to establish a defendant`s liability for aiding and abetting a fraudulent securities transaction, the plaintiff must prove that there was a breach of securities law, that he or she was aware of the violation, and that he or she contributed materially to the violation.
In sending the case back to the trial court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit said that in a case where complicity is alleged, more scientific data is needed if the plaintiff has little evidence that the defendant substantially aided in the violation. The Court found the bank guilty only because it had failed to respond to a possible suspicion of irregularity and was not required to inform claimants of the actions of others. In such a case, the court recommended that “a purported assistant should only be held liable if the scientist of the wide variety of `deliberate intent` can be proven. Where there is a specific obligation to disclose, liability with a lower scientific degree should be possible. The term scientist refers to a state of mind that is often necessary to hold a person legally accountable for their actions. The term is often used interchangeably with mens rea, which describes criminal intent, but scientific has a broader application as it also describes the knowledge required to assign responsibility in many civil cases. Scientific refers to a level of intent of the defendant. In Ernst and Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U.S. 185, 96 p.
C. 1375, 47 L. Ed. 2d 668 (1976), United States, the Supreme Court described the scientist as “a state of mind that includes the intent to deceive, manipulate or deceive.” The definition of seriousness was formulated in the context of a financial dispute, but it illustrates the type of knowledge of guilt that constitutes the scientist. Ernst`s investors did not claim that the accounting firm intended to defraud investors. Instead, they alleged that the accounting firm was negligent and that the negligence was a violation of the Securities Exchange Act. The Supreme Court ruled that the allegation of negligence alone is not sufficient to prove a violation of the Securities Exchange Act. In the Court`s view, the wording of the law reflected the intent of Congress to require plaintiffs to prove that the defendant can bring a claim under the law. Lat, knowingly. The term is used in pleadings to refer to an allegation (or the part of the statement or indictment that contains it) in which the defendant`s prior knowledge of the case that led to the alleged offence, or rather his prior knowledge of a fact against which he was obliged to protect and his omission that led to the alleged harm, is stated. The insertion of such a statement is called “transfer of the act (or accusation) to a scientist.” And the term is often used to refer to the accused`s knowledge of guilt.
Scienti et volenti non fit injuria. Bract, crazy. 20. A wound is not inflicted on someone who knows it and wants Scientia sciolorum est mixta ignoran- tia. 8 Coke, 159. The knowledge of the Smat- terer is an ignorance diluted Scientia utrimque par pares contra- hentes facit. Equal knowledge on both sides makes contractual partners equal. 3 Burrows, 1905. An insured person does not need to mention what the insurer knows or should know.
Broom, max. 772. “Scientist.” Merriam-Webster.com Legal Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, www.merriam-webster.com/legal/scienter. Retrieved 9 October 2022. Hodges, Clarissa p. 2002. “Qualitative Considerations of Materiality: The Emergent Relationship Between Materiality and the Scientist.” Securities Regulation Law Journal 30 (Spring). Bard, Lawrence R. 1992. “An approach with different responsibilities for the primary responsibility of accountants under Rule 10B-5.” George Washington Law Review 61 (November). n. Latin for “to have knowledge”.
In criminal law, it is the fact that a defendant knew that his actions were illegal or that his statements were lies and therefore fraudulent. In the Ernst case, investors in a brokerage firm sued an accounting firm after the lead investor committed suicide and left a note indicating that the brokerage firm was a fraud. The investors sued the brokerage firm`s accounting firm for damages under sections 10(b) and 10b-5 of the Stock Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.A. § 78a et seq.), which prohibits anyone from committing various financial misconduct, such as using equipment, systems, or artifice for the purpose of fraud or committing an act. A practice or course of business that acts as a fraud or deception of any person in connection with the purchase or sale of securities. Latin, knowingly, by scientists, present participle of scire to know [Latin, knowledge.] Feeling guilty enough to blame a person for the consequences of their actions. Supported by Black`s Law Dictionary, Free 2nd ed., and The Law Dictionary. Karmel, Roberta S. 2001. “`Wharf`, the Reform Act and the scientists.” New York Law Journal (December 26). It is important to note that the Securities Exchange Act does not mention a standard of intent. The courts had to decide whether a party could assert a claim under the law against a person without alleging that the person had acted intentionally, knowingly or intentionally.
Comments are closed.