Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Microcap & Penny Stocks : PanAmerican BanCorp (PABN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ColleenB who wrote (42368)	1/2/2000 3:09:00 PM
From: PatP	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 43774

Looks like PCModem has trouble with the term criminal infraction. I am amused by his insistence that you are somehow misusing the phrase. Be assured that the SEC knows what a "criminal infraction" is. It is neither a misnomer nor a redundancy. At the risk of boring the others on this thread, the difference between a "criminal infraction" and a "civil infraction" is the degree of punishment. If an arrest and imprisonment is authorized, or there is a large fine, then it is a "criminal infraction" and criminal rights apply, such as a constitutional right to a jury trial and appointed defense counsel. "Civil" or "non-criminal infractions" are punishable by small fines. While civil infractions may be criminal in nature one cannot be arrested and jailed for them. Decriminalization of minor violations by changing them to civil infractions is an effort to encourage compliance instead of threatening punishment. Common "civil infractions" include seatbelt violations, parking tickets, driving past a stopped school bus, interrupting a funeral procession, owning a barking dog, refusing to cut tall grass, lost book charges and library overdue fines, possession of small amounts of marijuana, and certain homeless "crimes", such as sitting on sidewalks and begging. These violations do not create a criminal record and are not a bar to employment. A number of securities violations provide for civil and criminal penalties. Often a defendant in a civil or administrative action will accept the civil judgment and pay the fine without challenging it because he knows his chances at defeating a criminal penalty on double jeopardy grounds are good. [For readers who've never had to worry about the constitutional concept of "double jeopardy", it's multiple punishments for the same offense. U.S. v. Halper 490 US 435, 440 (1989).] Civil remedies are often preferred by victims who hope to recoup their losses. What purpose would imprisonment serve if the objective of the wronged person is to be made whole? The disposition of the John Schmitz case is a good example of this scenario. And for those who asked, John Schmitz has not paid his $100,000 fine nor his $20,000 restitution. Interest is accruing.