| Latest Forum Topics / Others |
 Post Reply
|
|
Survey Should goldman sac be punished?
|
|||||
|
risktaker
Supreme |
25-Nov-2013 16:25
Yells: "Sometimes you think you know, but in fact you dont" |
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Burden of proof
ShareThis Save Many people will be familiar with the fact that in civil and criminal cases there are different standards of proof. They might also be aware that in criminal cases there is a presumption of innocence, so that the burden of proof falls on the prosecution. So the basic standard of proof / burden of proof matrix looks like this: Standard of proof Burden of proof Criminal cases Guilt beyond a reasonable doubt On the prosecution Civil cases On the balance of probabilities, the defendant was more likely liable than not liable On the claimant There are, however, some more subtle aspects to burden of proof issues, and this article discusses a few of them. The evidential burden of proof In general terms, the evidential burden of proof might be described as the burden of proving to the court that there is a case for the defendant to answer at trial. For example, where a civil claimant has only thin circumstantial evidence as to the defendant's liability, a court might grant the defendant's application to have the case dismissed prior to trial. In such circumstances, the claimant has failed to meet the evidential burden of proof. Sometimes, however, the evidential burden of proof can be shifted -- even in criminal cases. For instance, in some types of criminal cases the defendant may have the evidential burden of raising a defence. Where the defendant has the evidential burden of proof, the legal burden of proving the case "beyond a reasonable doubt" remains with the prosecution. For example, if a defendant charged with grievous bodily harm claims he was acting in self-defence, he has the burden of demonstrating to the court that there is evidence to support his defence. Once the court accepts that he should be allowed to raise the defence, the prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was not acting in self-defence. So although the prosecution does not have to anticipate all possible defences and prove beyond a reasonable doubt that each such defence did not exist, it does have to disprove defences that the defendant has raised and that meet the evidential burden of proof. Shifting the legal burden of proof in criminal cases For some types of defences to criminal charges, the legal (and not just evidential) burden of proving the defence shifts to the defendant. The traditional example of this is the defence of insanity. In effect, a defendant who wants to be acquitted on the grounds of insanity needs to prove that he is insane. There are other examples of defences where, by statute, the legal burden of proof shifts to the defendant, either because the defendant is required to prove elements of his defence or to disprove an element of the crime with which he has been charged. In a number of recent cases, the UK courts have held that where certain criminal statutes are interpreted as imposing a legal burden of proof on the defendant (in other words requiring him to prove a defence) rather than an evidential burden (the burden of introducing evidence in support of a defence), that interpretation would not be consistent with the presumption of innocence guaranteed by the European Convention on Human Rights. So in those cases, the courts have required that the statutes in question be read as imposing only the lesser, evidential burden of proof on the defendant. Presumptions and how they affect the burden of proof The legal system is full of presumptions, both as to questions of law and questions of fact. Essentially, they are means of allocating the burden of proof on particular issues. In the context of a civil claim, a presumption might work like this: A sues B for defamation (a civil action for damages). B defends on the ground that the allegedly defamatory statement, which reflects badly on A's reputation, is true. In this case, the law imposes a presumption that A has a good reputation. This means that in proving his defence, the burden is on B to rebut that presumption -- by showing that in fact B's reputation is not so good and that the alleged libel is in fact a true statement. Presumptions can also come into play in certain circumstances where the true facts might be difficult or even impossible to prove. For instance, where two married people die simultaneously -- and, say, a particular beneficiary's interest in their estates depends on which of them died first -- the law imposes a presumption that the older person died first. That may or may not have actually been the case, but if, for instance, they were killed in a car accident and there is no forensic evidence available to prove who died first, then the presumption will stand. The burden of proof in civil matters In civil matters, the general rule is that the burden of proof falls on the party advancing the matter in question. For example, a claimant who asserts that the defendant was negligent will have the burden of proving that, on the balance of probabilities, the defendant had a duty of care to the claimant, that the defendant breached the duty of care and that the breach caused harm to the claimant. If the defendant asserts that the claimant's own negligence had contributed to the harm, then the defendant will have the burden of proving the claimant's contributory negligence. Since there are frequently counterclaims in civil cases, and apportionment of liability rather than just an all-or-nothing outcome, each side will usually bear the burden of proof on some matters. As indicated above, presumptions can also affect the burden of proof in civil cases. Sometimes a presumption will give one party the benefit of the doubt -- thus giving the other party the burden of disproving, or rebutting the presumption. Strict liability and the burden of proof In some types of cases, the law imposes strict liability on the defending party if the claimant (or prosecution) is able to prove a particular set of facts. This often arises in quasi-criminal cases involving "administrative" offences, such as breaches of statutory duty under health and safety legislation. Strict liability removes the burden of proving liability -- if, for example, the health and safety authorities can prove that a ladder was not in the condition required under work at height regulations, then the employer who provided the ladder will have strict liability under the applicable regulations. Such matters are often germane to both criminal (or quasi-criminal) and civil proceedings, since a civil claimant might rely on a breach of statutory duty to advance a civil claim. Getting help with civil or criminal litigation As the discussion in this article indicates, issues relating to the burden of proof can be complex. A solicitor who regularly handles criminal or civil litigation will be familiar with these issues and will be able to advise you on how they might affect your case. The free solicitor--client referral service Contact Lawprovides a good way for you to find a quality-assured solicitor in your area with the experience you need. |
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
risktaker
Supreme |
25-Nov-2013 16:18
Yells: "Sometimes you think you know, but in fact you dont" |
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Ads by Google Criminal Lawyers Facing Criminal Charges? Affordable Fees. Free Consultation. 64389770 www.regentlaw.com.sg Preponderance of Evidence A standard of proof that must be met by a plaintiff if he or she is to win a civil action. In a civil case, the plaintiff has the burden of proving the facts and claims asserted in the complaint. If the respondent, or defendant, files a counterclaim, the respondent will have the burden of proving that claim. When a party has the Burden of Proof, the party must present, through testimony and exhibits, enough evidence to support the claim. The amount of evidence required varies from claim to claim. For most civil claims, there are two different evidentiary standards: preponderance of the evidence, and clear and convincing evidence. A third standard, proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, is used in criminal cases and very few civil cases. The quantum of evidence that constitutes a preponderance cannot be reduced to a simple formula. A preponderance of evidence has been described as just enough evidence to make it more likely than not that the fact the claimant seeks to prove is true. It is difficult to translate this definition and apply it to evidence in a case, but the definition serves as a helpful guide to judges and juries in determining whether a claimant has carried his or her burden of proof. The majority of civil claims are subjected to a preponderance of evidence standard. If a court or legislature seeks to make a civil claim more difficult to prove, it may raise the evidentiary standard to one of clear and convincing evidence. Under some circumstances use of the low preponderance of evidence standard may be a violation of constitutional rights. For example, if a state seeks to deprive natural parents of custody of their children, requiring only proof by a preponderance of evidence is a violation of the parents' due process rights (Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 102 S. Ct. 1388, 71 L. Ed. 2d 599 [1982]). Freedom in matters of family life is a fundamental liberty interest, and the government cannot take it away with only a modest evidentiary standard. However, a court may use a preponderance of evidence standard when a mother seeks to establish that a certain man is the father of her child (Rivera v. Minnich, 483 U.S. 574, 107 S. Ct. 3001, 97 L. Ed. 2d 473 [1987]). Most states use the preponderance of evidence standard in these cases because they have an interest in ensuring that fathers support their children. |
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
|
|||||
|
risktaker
Supreme |
25-Nov-2013 16:10
Yells: "Sometimes you think you know, but in fact you dont" |
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
You see we are so free here.... because we cant trade anymore.... market is dead...
I know how bank deal structure..... and banks has the right to force sell whatever it has.... but remember being unreasonable expect them to top up within just 2 hours is wrong.... furthermore they found buyers to take over the shares.....and yet they dont care..... all actions from goldman sac only point to one purpose to sell in the public domain in order to bring down the price.... totally against client interest.... This is not acceptable... Now the market is totally dead because goldman action of course we blame him..... we need to find the caused for the market dead.... so we know its caused by the trio but why the trio falls because of goldman trigger the sell... Market was performing well when the 3 trio is doing well.... even though i dont trade them but we traders benefit from the sentiment.... from what all the announcement i read they are really into building up their assets.... not just any pump and dump..... But because of goldman action the market is dead..... tell me how not to blame goldman..... i cant blame sgx because they are pressure by the media.... but goldman is the one that pull the trigger..... Goldman must pay.... i studied law before and there is a strong case against goldman..... |
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
junction
Senior |
25-Nov-2013 16:01
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Golman Sucks! .is the favoured one, even allowed to set up computer near SGX's. Why? And why spend so much money to buy state of art computer just for them to rip off retail investors? SGX and MAS owe locals an explanation.
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
risktaker
Supreme |
25-Nov-2013 13:52
Yells: "Sometimes you think you know, but in fact you dont" |
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Wonderful... market vol at 694million and value at 349.9million....
yeah all traders eat grass.... let the ang mo houses made all the money.... |
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
|
|||||
|
hongyuan
Member |
25-Nov-2013 13:04
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
don't forget also uobkh , they must also get punish | ||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
risktaker
Supreme |
25-Nov-2013 12:56
Yells: "Sometimes you think you know, but in fact you dont" |
||||
|
x 1
x 2 Alert Admin |
Trading in the market is our bread n butter...with this event....our big boys suffered huge amount of losses...not just these 3 stocks but in most penny stocks ..billions are wipe off in the market....
Many big boys are going bankrupt....who dare to trade when sgx can happy not happy designate the stocks u r trading.... then plunge 90% again...investors have no idea whats going on... 1)Goh start writing in press against the trio 2) david gerald start asking for investigation 3) goldman sac force sell director shares in their own interest 4) news about the trio are muted. No positive news are ever on business times or straitimes either neutral or negative. I am pretty sure.... there is a grp behind to bring down the trio.... i dont care but u have destroyed my christmas and new year.... Knn....we can forget about sg market.... if we let bully goldman off without any punishment... because this will happen again.... the next time could hit our cpf funds.... MAS/SGX ought to give investors an answer.... we cant let goldman sac behave like this... we are like sillyporean right now.... |
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
Rosesyrup
Veteran |
25-Nov-2013 11:06
Yells: "Get your own opinion, don't follow blindly." |
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
At most a downgrade of banking lisence only.... Fines are small case to GS....
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
|
|||||
|
stevenlim109
Senior |
25-Nov-2013 10:49
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
I totally agreed with you chinton86 !!!
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
new6ie
Senior |
25-Nov-2013 10:29
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
A fine of 10 billion dollars should be nice for our treasury. Better than ERPs or COEs, honestly.
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
hongyuan
Member |
25-Nov-2013 10:26
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
goldman sach did is worst than day light robbery, mas and sgx should also take action to sue the ang mo bank | ||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
chinton86
Veteran |
25-Nov-2013 10:22
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Feel that SGX should be responsible. Market should be " Free" not for regulator to 'interfere" at a sudden moment of it's own panic | ||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
|
|||||
|
risktaker
Supreme |
25-Nov-2013 10:02
Yells: "Sometimes you think you know, but in fact you dont" |
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
I only care about our dear SG market .... is our bread and butter ..... now goldman sac has killed our market.... look at the vol.... shouldnt MAS or SGX give us an answer?
Ang mos are celebrating their christmas happily and must be thinking stupid singaporeans.... knn |
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
yummygd
Supreme |
25-Nov-2013 09:55
|
||||
|
x 3
x 0 Alert Admin |
Sgx should be held accountable for not bursting the 3 trio bubble much earlier. Other den that... Its speculating . Those kena hit by e aftermath of market selldown is more innocent then those who got greedy n bought the 3 trio mess. Hard truth. Now Sg market so sick its ridiculous.
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
risktaker
Supreme |
25-Nov-2013 09:43
Yells: "Sometimes you think you know, but in fact you dont" |
||||
|
x 2
x 2 Alert Admin |
Please click thumb up or like button... if you feel that big bully should be punished and be allow to claim back our losses.... | ||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||