• CRIMINAL

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

UNITED STATES v. SANTOS

Money laundering-Whether the word "proceeds" in the federal money-laundering statute, §1956(a)(1)(A)(i) applies only to transactions involving criminal profits or in criminal receipts

It was held that "proceeds" applies only to transactions involving criminal profits and not to criminal receipts.

"Proceeds" under 18 U.S.C 1956 does not include a revenue gambling business which pays essential operating expenses. The task of defining potentially ambiguous statutory terms is delegated to federal judges in case Congress omits to define them (Commissioner v. Fink, 483 U.S. 89, 104). The reason for such omission could have been that Congress wanted the word "proceed" to be interpreted differently while referring to some of the specified unlawful activities listed in §1956(c)(7) and a different interpretation while referring to others.

By studying the legislative history of the section 1956, conclusion can be drawn that "proceeds" includes gross revenues from the sale of contraband and the function of organized crime involving such sales. But there is nothing that indicates as to how to identify the proceeds of an unlicensed stand-alone gambling venture.

By applying "gross receipts" definition of "proceeds" to respondents, the outcome is unexpected. It allows the government to treat payment of an illegal gambling business operating expenses as a separate offence. This is unfair in certain cases like this one as punishment for underlying offence of operating gambling business is less severe as compared to the penalties for money laundering.

• CONTRACT

APPELLATE COURT

Antique Jaguar sports car's case

Breach of Contract - Weather the Seller was entitled to declare the contract avoided according to Article 81 CISG

The seller is not entitled to declare the contract avoided under article 81 of CISG. This conclusion can be drawn from analogous interpretation of article 82(2)(c) of CISG. Reasons for the same are given below:

As per article 82(1) of CISG the buyer loses the right to declare the contract avoided or to require the seller to deliver substitute goods if it is impossible for him to make restitution of the goods substantially in the condition in which he received them. In the present case, this is not applicable as Article 82(2)(c) states that if the buyer has sold the goods or part of the goods in the normal course of business before he discovered or ought to have discovered the lack of conformity. This gives buyer a privileged position. For application purpose in the present situation there is no explicit provision. Therefore, an analogous application of article 82(2)(c) is required. This means a party acting in a bona fide manner has to be privileged.

Therefore, when it is impossible to make restitution of the goods by the buyer in an undamaged condition except when the buyer can rely on article 82(2)CISG. Then in that case seller's right to avoid a contract would not be barred.According to article 82(2) CISG, the distribution of risk can possibly be applied to cases where the goods are resold before the lack of conformity is discovered or ought have been discovered. This means that the buyer had not acted in the breach of contract to that point.

• CONSTITUTION

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

INDIANA v. EDWARDS

Competence of self-representation - Whether State may deny a defendant the right to represent himself at his trial

This question has not been discussed previously in any court. However, in Faretta v. California foundation of self-representation was laid. It was held in this case that the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments state that when a criminal defendant wishes to proceed without a counsel voluntarily and intelligently. He can do so as it is his constitutional right.

The court had to take several considerations together in order to reach a conclusion. Firstly, in Dusky and Drope, in this case it was assumed the representation by counsel and emphasized its importance. Secondly, the concept of mental illness, which is a varying concept i.e., it can vary over time, which can interfere with individuals functioning at different times and in different ways. Therefore, caution need to be taken against a single competency test. Thirdly, self-representation may defeat the basic concept of constitution's criminal law objectives of providing a free trial as the defendant lacks the capacity to conduct his defense without assistance of the counsel (McKaskle v. Wiggins).

Thus, it was held, that States are not barred by the constitution on insisting upon representation by counsel for those competent enough to stand trial but who suffer from severe mental illness to the point where they are not competent to conduct trial proceedings by themselves.

• SERVICE

SUPREME COURT OF CANADA

Donald Norman Evans v. Teamsters Local Union No. 31

Damages-Whether the employee is required to mitigate damages by returning to work for the same employer

The employer is required to pay damages when he terminates employment contract without notice. However, this condition is subject to the fact that the employee has made reasonable effort to mitigate the damages by seeking an alternate source of income. There is no principled reason to distinguish between wrongful dismissal and constructive dismissal when evaluating the need to mitigate. But in some cases the relationship between the employee and the employer will be less damaged in constructive dismissal but this may vary from case to case. Therefore, this relationship should be considered on a cases-by-case basis when the reasonableness of the employee's mitigation effort is being evaluated.

In case of lack of notice, the employee can be re-appointed temporarily to mitigate his or her damages. Imposing such requirement would not create an artificial distinction between employer who dismisses and again offers re-employment and one who gives a notice of termination and offers working notice.

The employer has to prove that the employee has failed to make a reasonable effort in finding work and the same could have been found. When the employer re employs an employee in order to mitigate damages then in that case it is up to the employer to see whether a reasonable person would avail such an opportunity or not. The important thing is that the employee is not obliged to mitigate by working in unhealthy atmosphere. It is necessary to use an objective standard while evaluating this question it is necessary that non-tangible elements of the situation including work atmosphere, stigma and loss of dignity must be included while evaluating.

In the present case it was found that respondent had failed to act reasonably as far as the job offer made to him by the union is concerned, and that this constituted as a failure to mitigate his damages.