Rafique Sheikh CWID: 893776708 MGMT 518: Legal and Ethical Environment of Business Chapter 5 Case Briefs: Commonwealth

v. Angelo Todesca Corporation, pg. 121 Gauthier drove a dump truck full of asphalt for Angelo Todesca Corp. to a highway construction site near a busy intersection. A police officer directing traffic was run over and killed as Gauthier backed up to deliver asphalt. The back-up horn on the truck was not working. Gauthier and Todesca knew horn wasnt working in violation of company safety procedures. Gauthier was charged with driving offenses, he was fined and his driving was limited. Massachusetts charged Todesca w/vehicular homicide. The Jury convicted company and fined $2,500. Appeals court reversed the conviction, the Commonwealth appealed. The Commonwealth had to prove: i) ii) iii) The individual whose conduct used to criminally charge corp. was placed in a position by the corp. That Gauthier had power, duty, responsibility & authority to act on behalf of corporation for business he was doing. And that he committed a criminal act while acting for corporation.

Todesca claimed corporation cant be involved in motor vehicle homicide since corporation cannot operate a vehicle. The court held for the Commonwealth on the basis that a corporation is not a living person; it can only act through its agents. To hold otherwise would mean corporations would never be liable for any crime. Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co pg. 133 Cook County, Illinois holds public auctions for tax liens on delinquent taxpayers properties. Bridge and Phoenix compete to buy liens. County requires buyers to submit bids in their own names. Phoenix sued Bridge for fraudulently getting tax liens by filing false documents through others claiming that they lost possible tax lien purchases. They also claimed that Bridge and other bidders violated RICO through racketeering involving mail fraud by sending false documents for tax lien purchases. The District court dismissed RICO claims and held that plaintiffs were not protected by mail fraud statute since scam was not directed at them. If there was a scam, it was directed at Cook County & property owners (not plaintiffs) and they could have a cause of action. The Appeals court reversed in favor of plaintiffs. The Defendants appealed. The US Supreme court held in favor of the plaintiff because plaintiff asserting RICO claim based on mail fraud need not show that it relied on defendants alleged misrepresentations. The basis of the mail fraud is a mailing that furthers a scheme to defraud even if the mailing does not contain false information. Here, mail was used to submit false attestations of compliance with the Bidder Rule to the County.