Talk:Honest services fraud

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Crime (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Good article Honest services fraud has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
April 5, 2010 Good article nominee Listed
Did You Know

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Honest services fraud/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.


Second Review

I will offer a second opinion here since: 1)The original review was not properly conducted (left on GAN, review open, little serious attempt made). 2) The original reviewer called for a second opinion. 3) Nominator confirmed that the review was unhelpful.

It should take a day or two, but I'll post things here as I notice them.

1. Lead section too short. It does not summarise the article.

Fixed I've expanded the lead. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

2. The list of recent notable prosecutions does not fully conform to MOS, embedded lists. Each case should be explained briefly in proper prose and a short introduction to the section made. Each should also be cited.

Fixed I've converted the section to prose and referenced it. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

3. Necessity, or lack thereof, of state law violations

This section is clear enough, but, as in all sub-sections, it might be better to directly state the legal principle clearly first.

E.g. "The Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit held in US Vs Brumley (1997) that, to be convicted of Honest Services Fraud, an official must have breached the state statutes which define the services he owes to his employer."

Symbol question.svg Question: Sorry, I'm not sure how you want this to be changed. The current version reads, "In 1997, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit decided in United States v. Brumley that in order for a state official to have committed honest services fraud, they must have violated the state statute defining the services which they owed to their employer (the state)." You don't think that's clear enough? A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It should also be clarified what happens as a result of the two different interpretations. Is the law different in different circuits? Will this be at issue in Mr Weurauch's appeal to the Supreme Court appeal?

I don't think this needs clarification; the fundamental issue is that the courts have differing interpretations and decide which precedent to follow on a case-by-case basis. In other words, the law isn't different in different circuits, it's interpreted differently by different courts in different cases. The Supreme Court cases are expected to consider the entire honest services law and set a binding precedent on these issues. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

4. Intent to defraud and personal benefit

Again state the rule before giving the case history.

"The Court held that there must be some intent to defraud or seek personal gain for the offence to constitue HSF". The case illustrates the princple well though.

The first few and last line of that paragraph also need to be cited.

Fixed Both issues should be resolved now. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

--Ktlynch (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking over this review, Ktlynch! I'll address your concerns over the next few days. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:23, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Replied to all of the above after working on the article. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:14, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I think the article's in pretty good shape now. I would appreciate responses/clarifications to the above, of course, so we can proceed. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 19:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Honest services fraud. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 13:06, 29 January 2016 (UTC)