73
CHAPTER 9
CRIMINAL LAW AND CYBER CRIME
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
AT THE ENDS OF THE CASES
CASE 9.1—QUESTIONS (PAGE 181)
1A. Given that Sisuphan returned the cash and the checks, was it fair of the dealership’s general
manager to terminate Sisuphan’s employment? Why or why not? It is hard to imagine that Sisuphan’s
employer would ever be criticized on ethical grounds for firing Sisuphan in these circumstances.
Sisuphan had many responsibilities at the dealership, among them handling financial transactions with
customers and receiving payments from them. By taking the cash and checks from McClelland’s sale,
2A. Why was Sisuphan convicted of embezzlement instead of larceny? What is the difference
between these two crimes? One of the key differences between embezzlement and larceny has to do
CASE 9.2—QUESTIONS (PAGE 189)
WHAT IF THE FACTS WERE DIFFERENT?
74 UNIT TWO: TORTS AND CRIMES
Suppose that the warrant for Herring’s arrest had still been outstanding, but had been based on false
information. Should the standards applied in this case apply in those circumstances? Explain. Yes. To
support the recall of a warrant, the invalidation of an arrest, or the suppression of evidence from a
resulting search, the United States Supreme Court has held that there must be “deliberate falsehood or
THE LEGAL ENVIRONMENT DIMENSION
What does the decision in this case mean for businesses that are subjected to searches by law
enforcement personnel? Businesses may be subject to warrantless administrative searches. Evidence
CASE 9.3—QUESTION (PAGE 191)
THE GLOBAL DIMENSION
The right to remain silent has long been a legal hallmark in Great Britain as well as in the United States.
In 1994, however, the British Parliament passed an act that provides that a criminal defendant’s silence
may be interpreted as evidence of his or her guilt. British police officers are now required, when making
an arrest, to inform the suspect, “You do not have to say anything. But if you do not mention now
something which you later use in your defense, the court may decide that your failure to mention it now
strengthens the case against you. A record will be made of everything you say, and it may be given in
evidence if you are brought to trial.” Should U.S. law also change to allow a defendant’s silence during
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS IN THE REVIEWING FEATURE
AT THE END OF THE CHAPTER
1A. State of mind
CHAPTER 9: CRIMINAL LAW AND CYBER CRIME 75
Yes, because he was the corporate officer responsible for the project and had the power to prevent the
criminal violation. Corporate directors and officers are personally liable for the crimes they commit, and
can also be held liable for the crimes of employees under their supervision. Because Hanousek was the
corporate officer responsible for every detail of the “6–mile” quarry, he had the power to prevent the
criminal violation. Therefore, Hanousek can be held criminally negligent for the backhoe operator
puncturing the pipeline.
2A. Theory of liability
Under the responsible corporate officer doctrine, a corporate officer can be held liable for a crime
because he was in a responsible relationship to the corporation and could have prevented the violation.
The corporate officer does not have to intend the crime or even know about it, to incur liability under
this doctrine.
3A. Liability of employee
No, because he did not have the required mental state (mens rea) and was corporate officer in a
responsible position to prevent the criminal violation. Criminal liability requires a guilty act at the same
4A. Ignorance of the law
No, because Hanousek was the corporate officer responsible for the project and should have known the
requirements of the law. Because Hanousek was in a responsible position at the corporation and in
charge of the 6-mile quarry, a court would find that he “should have known” the requirements of the
law. Therefore, lack of knowledge of the requirements of the CWA would not operate as a defense in his
case.
ANSWER TO DEBATE THIS QUESTION IN THE REVIEWING FEATURE AT THE END OF THE
CHAPTER
One legal observer claimed that all Americans may be breaking the law regularly without
knowing it because of overcriminalization, particularly by the federal government. Should Congress
rescind many of the more than four thousand federal crimes now on the books? Discuss fully. Difficult
76 UNIT TWO: TORTS AND CRIMES
ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS AND CASE PROBLEMS
AT THE END OF THE CHAPTER
9-1A. Types of cyber crimes
(Chapter 9—Pages 194–195)
(a) This is vishing, a form of identity theft. The traditional crimes of theft (robbery, burglary,
larceny, and other) consist of wrongfully taking and carrying away another’s personal property with the
9-2A. Property crimes
(Chapter 9—Page 179)
9-3A. QUESTION WITH SAMPLE ANSWER: Cyber scam
This is fraud committed in e-mail sent via the Internet. The elements of the tort of fraud are (1) the
misrepresentation of material facts or conditions made with knowledge that they are false or with
reckless disregard for the truth, (2) the intent to induce another to rely on the misrepresentation, (3)
9-4A. Exclusionary rule
(Chapter 9—Pages 188–189)
Only voluntary confessions are admissible under the Fifth Amendment’s self-incrimination clause (“[n]o
person . . . shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”). The courts have
determined that the right against self-incrimination can be protected only if the requisite Miranda
warnings and a voluntary waiver precede an interrogation. Unless these requirements are met, a
statement made by a suspect in custody is inadmissible at trial.
The issue in this case was “whether, in light of the totality of the circumstances, [the police
officers who were interrogating McFarland] used intimidation, coercion, deception or unwarranted
trickery to undermine” McFarland’s understanding of his Miranda rights and the consequences of
waiving the rights and making incriminating statements “so that his ultimate decision was not the
charged with the gun, both [officers] told him no.”
9-5A. White-collar crime
(Chapter 9—Pages 179–181)
Walsh’s acts fit the definition of embezzlement and may fall within the definitions of other theft crimes.
Walsh was convicted in an Ohio state court of “theft by deception,” a term that encompasses
78 UNIT TWO: TORTS AND CRIMES
firmed the conviction. The court “reiterate[d] that appellant was in a unique position to commit
undetected theft as the corporate comptroller. Appellant controlled and monitored the finances of the
company. Appellant’s hand picked assistant collaborated with him in the theft.” The court also stated,
9–6A. CASE PROBLEM WITH SAMPLE ANSWER: Credit cards
Sharapka pled guilty to crimes of identity theft, mail fraud, and other offenses. Use of the stolen credit–
card numbers constituted identity theft, which occurs when a wrongdoer steals a form of identification
and uses it to access the victim’s financial resources. Mail fraud involves (1) mailing or causing someone
9–7A. Intellectual property
(Chapter 9—Page 196)
Klimecek committed copyright infringement (or “piracy”) and was not entitled to have his sentence
reduced on the ground that he was a “minor participant” in the scheme. He was an essential participant
in the operation: if he had not bought the hardware and software components, set up the server,
connected it to the Internet, and paid half of the monthly Internet service fees, the unauthorized
9–8A. Fourth Amendment
(Chapter 9—Pages 187–188)
Under the Fourth Amendment, a police officer must obtain a search warrant to search private property.
In the case of a traffic stop, it seems unreasonable to require an officer to obtain a warrant to search
one of the vehicle’s occupants. But it seems reasonable to apply some standard to prevent police
misconduct. An officer might be held to a standard of probable cause, which consists of reasonable
grounds to believe that a person should be searched. In some situations, however, an officer may have a
9–9A. Sentencing guidelines
(Chapter 9—Pages 192–193)
The appellate court vacated the lower court’s decision and remanded the case. “Unfortunately, the
district court did not provide us anything close to a sufficient explanation of its rationale….” The trial
9–10A. A QUESTION OF ETHICS
(a) Omole’s conduct can be perceived as arrogant—a display of a feeling of superiority—and
lacking empathy for others, particularly those victims to whom he sent the e-mail. There is no indication
that he had any sense of what it takes to live in society without cheating, stealing from, and victimizing
others. To behave ethically requires at least a willingness to refrain from illegal conduct and a degree of
empathy for others. Omole’s conduct showed that his character lacked these qualities. In other words,
80 UNIT TWO: TORTS AND CRIMES
he seems to have had no ethical principles. It might be countered that he was twenty years old and that
his behavior reflected only the self-centeredness of youth.
It might be pointed out that if Omole had put the ingenuity and energy he expended on his illegal
scheme to legal, practical use, he might have engineered a successful business. Instead, his lack of ethics
robbed himself and others of money and property, as well as the opportunity to trust and be trusted and
to do business in good faith.
ANSWER TO VIDEO QUESTION NO. 9–11
Twelve Angry Men
(a) The jurors are deliberating on whether to convict the defendant. One juror says that at the
beginning of the trial he felt that the defendant was guilty and that “nobody proved otherwise.”
Does a criminal defendant have to offer evidence of his or her innocence? What must the
prosecution show to establish that a defendant is guilty? How does the burden of proof differ in
criminal and civil cases? In a criminal case, a defendant does not have to offer any evidence at
trial. The prosecution has the burden of proving the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
If the jury views the evidence in the case as reasonably permitting either a guilty or a not guilty
this standard, the plaintiff must convince the court that based on the evidence presented by both
parties, it is more likely than not that the plaintiff’s allegation is true.
(b) It is clear that all of the jurors except one (Henry Fonda) believe that the defendant is
guilty. How many jurors does it usually take to render a verdict in a criminal case? Usually,
criminal cases require a unanimous verdict by the jury.
(c) When the holdout juror says that under the U.S. Constitution, “the defendant does not
CHAPTER 9: CRIMINAL LAW AND CYBER CRIME 81
even have to open his mouth,” to which provision is he referring? The juror is referring to the
Fifth Amendment, which guarantees the privilege against self-incrimination.
real juries, and it is not necessarily illegal unless other juror misconduct was involved.