Fraud or Embezzlement Attorney Sacramento

Sacramento Fraud Lawyer

Fraud or Embezzlement in Sacramento

Sacramento White-collar crimes typically involve business and professional individuals who have made bad decisions. Because the proof of white-collar crimes is often complicated financial records, it can be tough figuring out who is criminally liable, and authorities might accuse an innocent individual.

These investigations often come to light prior to the authorities even being apprised by the victim. We can usually intercede and stop the case from being referred to the government for criminal prosecution. Several of these cases are filed in federal court and the stakes are incredibly high.

Seasoned Fraud Lawyer Sacramento

At our Sacramento criminal defense law firm, each of our white-collar crime lawyers are tenacious negotiators and tough litigators who can take care of complex, voluminous evidence. We’ve got numerous years of criminal law working experience.

Sacramento White Collar Crimes

Our white collar crime lawyers strongly fight for our clients charged with or being investigated for any white collar crime. Many possible white collar crimes include the following:

•  Bank Fraud

•  Credit Card Fraud

•  Healthcare Fraud

•  Mail and Wire Fraud

•  Insurance Fraud

•  Embezzlement

•  Real Estate Fraud

•  Investment Advisory Fraud

•  Pension Fraud

•  Workers’ Compensation Fraud

•  ERISA Fraud

•  Stock Market Irregularities

•  RICO Violations

If you or a loved one is charged with or are being investigated for a Sacramento Embezzlement crime, please contact us today.

Basic Elements Of A Fraud Action Sacramento

Deceit and fraud are defined individually in statutes. The liability for actual fraud is limited to acts committed by or with the connivance of a party to a contract with the intention to deceive another party to the contract and induce that party to enter into the contract.

Deceit: One who willfully deceives another with intent to induce the other to alter his or her position to his or her injury or risk is accountable for any damage suffered because of the deceit.

There exists 4 categories of deceit:

1. The suggestion, as a fact, of that which isn’t true, by one who does not believe it to be true, commonly referred to as intentional misrepresentation;

2. The assertion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who has no reasonable ground for believing it to be true, known as negligent misrepresentation;

3. The suppression of a fact, by one who is bound to disclose it or who gives information of other facts which are likely to mislead for want of communication of that fact, commonly referred to as concealment; and

4. A promise, made without any intention of performing it, commonly referred to as false promise.

Actual Fraud: Actual fraud includes any of the following acts, committed by or with the connivance of a party to a contract with intention to deceive another party to the contract, or to induce the other party to enter into the contract:

1. The suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true;

2. The positive assertion, in any manner not warranted by the information of the person making it, of that which is not true, though the person making the assertion believes it to be true;

3. The suppression of that which is true, by one having knowledge or belief of the fact;

4. A promise made without any intention of performing it; and

5. Any other act fitted to deceive.

Constructive Fraud: Constructive fraud includes any breach of duty which, without actual fraudulent intent, gets an advantage to the individual in fault, or any person claiming under the person in fault, by misleading another to the prejudice of the person misled, or to the prejudice of anyone claiming under the person misled. Furthermore, constructive fraud consists of any act or omission that the law specially declares to be fraudulent, without respect to actual fraud.

Election of Remedies: A plaintiff who has entered into a contract in reliance on the fraud of a defendant may elect either the contract remedy, consisting of restitution based on rescission of the contract, or the tort remedy, by affirming the contract and seeking damages.

A plaintiff can file a complaint expressing causes of action in both contract and tort, but may be required to choose one remedy or the other at some time before judgment.

Standard Procedural Outline for Fraud Sacramento:

No two cases are the same and procedures differ with all the nature and intricacy of the legal and evidentiary challenges concerned. The following is a very general outline of the stages of a civil action.

Filing a Complaint

Every case begins with the filing and service of a Summons and Complaint. The Complaint can contain one or more “causes of action” for example “Breach of Contract” or perhaps “Fraud”.

Service of the Complaint

When the Summons and Complaint have been filed to the court, they must be correctly served to the defendant(s). In the event the defendant(s) accept the service, he/she can sign an Acknowledgment of Service. If not the documents will have to be formally served.

Response to Complaint

The Defendant(s) have thirty days starting from the date of service of the Summons and Complaint to serve on the Plaintiff(s) either an Answer to the Complaint or perhaps a pleading challenging the sufficiency of the Complaint. Responses challenging the sufficiency of the Complaint has a motion called a “Demurrer” and a “Motion to Strike”

Hearing of Challenges to Sufficiency of Complaint (If Applicable)

In the event that the defendant(s) decide to file a demurrer or motion to strike, these motions have to be heard and ruled upon before the matter may proceed. This can take up to 2 months. In case this kind of motion is sustained and the court allows leave to amend the Complaint, a new complaint has to be drafted and served and the process starts again. In some cases another demurrer or motion will be filed causing additional delays.

Discovery

Once the Complaint and Answer are already filed both sides commence “discovery” procedures by which the evidence necessary to prosecute both sides of the case. Depending on the character and complexity of the situation, one or more of the these discovery devices may be used by the parties:

• Interrogatories: Prepared questions which must be answered under oath.

• Request for Production of Documents: Demands for production of documents by the parties involved.

• Requests for Admission: Requesting the parties to say which allegations they affirm and which they deny.

Deposition: The parties might be required to appear in the opposing lawyer’s office to respond to questions under oath in front of a court reporter. Depositions may also be taken from third parties.

Subpoena Documents from Third Party: Documents may be subpoenaed from 3rd parties such as banks and employers.

Discovery Motions (If Applicable)

If a party isn’t able or will not follow discovery requests, it may be necessary for the party propounding the finding to produce a motion in the court to force answers. Should the court grants the motion, additional responses are going to be made.

In the event that those answers continue to be inadequate, another motion can be made and the court could sanction (fine) the resisting party. In extreme cases the judge can even stop the action in support of the moving party.

Trial Setting

All through the case the court will set a number of Case Management Conferences to be attended by attorneys for all parties. These hearings are created to decide if the case is prepared for trial. Once the court feels that a case is ready for trial, it’s going to fix the date for trial and make orders about completion of discovery and final preparation for trial.

Settlement Negotiations

Settlement negotiations may proceed throughout the trial. Usually the court will demand the parties to try a mediation of the issues or will set a “Mandatory Settlement Conference” (MSC) ahead of the trial date. Settlement negotiations in general become more intense as the trial date approaches.

Trial

The vast majority of cases work out prior to trial. If however the parties can’t settle the case, the only way to fix the issues will be by way of trial.