Juricomptabilité et évaluation d'entreprise

Fraude: le “Martin Act” de l’état de New York

La poursuite  contre les auditeurs Ernst & Young par l’état de New York se base sur la loi  “Martin Act” datant de 1921. Cette loi donne une totale juridiction au procureur de l’état de NY pour toutes les transactions financières.

Technically speaking, the Martin Act allows New York’s top law enforcer to go after wrongdoing connected to the sale or purchase of securities. Nothing too noteworthy there.

But what is noteworthy is the power the act confers upon its user. It enables him to subpoena any document from anyone doing business in New York and, if he so desires, keep an investigation entirely secret. People subpoenaed in Martin Act cases aren’t afforded a right to counsel or the right against self-incrimination. “Combined, the act’s powers exceed those given any regulator in any other state,” wrote Nicholas Thompson in this 2004 Legal Affairs article.

Courts in civil Martin Act cases have held that “fraud” under the Martin Act “includes all deceitful practices contrary to the plain rules of common honesty and all acts tending to deceive or mislead the public, whether or not the product of scienter or intent to defraud.”

Source: Cuomo to E&Y: Let Me Introduce You to My Good Friend, Martin .

Wall Street Journal, dec. 21,2010

Au Canada, pour une condamnation criminelle ( fraude) , il faut prouver l’acte (l’ actus reus) et l’intention ( le mens rea). Les 2 conditions sont requises.

Posted in: Fraude 101

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *