You sure or not?
They are not queuing for the latest iPhone 7?
Kena brained washed by Apple!
You sure or not?
They are not queuing for the latest iPhone 7?
Kena brained washed by Apple!
Can tell the building is high court? Are you that gong?
if sinkies don't queue, i worry.
The queue at BreadTalk nex outlet was very long. I gave up that salted egg croissant. Am I still a sinkie?
Tomorrow is the finale ?
If free I want to see live serina.
I actually support the CHC gang from a legal standpoint because none of those charged benefited from the convoluted arrangement.
Kong Hee could have easily just paid himself more without having to round trip the funds.
"Benefiting" from a crime has never been a prerequisite for finding guilt. In mitigation perhaps. You are operating under false logical assumption.
For the sake of argument, they received many indirect benefits. Eg the (lavish? Luxurious? Hardly ascetic) lifestyles they led while carrying out these illegal acts as part of their jobs, drawing their salaries and bonuses. But for these acts, they would not have their jobs.
"Benefiting" from a crime has never been a prerequisite for finding guilt. In mitigation perhaps. You are operating under false logical assumption.
For the sake of argument, they received many indirect benefits. Eg the (lavish? Luxurious? Hardly ascetic) lifestyles they led while carrying out these illegal acts as part of their jobs, drawing their salaries and bonuses. But for these acts, they would not have their jobs.
You sure or not?
They are not queuing for the latest iPhone 7?
Kena brained washed by Apple!
KonhI actually support the CHC gang from a legal standpoint because none of those charged benefited from the convoluted arrangement.
Kong Hee could have easily just paid himself more without having to round trip the funds.
One of the prerequisites when determining guilt is the issue of "intent".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_(criminal_law)
For example when someone is charged with murder the state has to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person knew that death was the likely outcome of his/her actions.
If I punch someone in stomach and he trips and falls over and cracks his skull on the pavement and dies 4 days later the prosecution would be hard pressed to prove that I intended to commit murder. The charge of manslaughter would stick but murder would be thrown out.
I'm no lawyer but I believe the same principle should be operating in this case. Setting up an entity for creative accounting in itself is not a crime unless it can be proven that the accused knew what it would be used to commit fraud.
I actually support the CHC gang from a legal standpoint because none of those charged benefited from the convoluted arrangement.
Kong Hee could have easily just paid himself more without having to round trip the funds.