Austin White-collar crimes typically involve business and professional people who have made bad decisions. Simply because the proof of white-collar crimes is often complicated financial records, it can be hard determining who may be criminally liable, and authorities may accuse an innocent person.
These investigations often come to light prior to the authorities even being apprised by the victim.
We could 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.
Experienced Fraud Lawyer Austin
- Experienced Fraud Lawyer Austin
- Austin White Collar Crimes
- Essential Elements Of A Fraud Action Austin
- Actual Fraud
- Constructive Fraud
- Standard Procedural Outline for Fraud Austin
- Filing a Complaint
- Service of the Complaint
- Response to Complaint
- Hearing of Challenges to Sufficiency of Complaint
- Discovery Motions
- Trial Setting
- Settlement Negotiations
At our Austin criminal defense law firm, each of our white-collar crime attorneys is intense negotiators and fierce litigators who can deal with complicated, large evidence.
We’ve got numerous years of criminal law practical experience.
Austin White Collar Crimes
Our white-collar crime attorneys strongly fight for our clients charged with or being investigated for any white-collar crime.
Many possible white-collar crimes are the following:
- Bank Fraud
- Credit Card Fraud
- Healthcare Fraud
- Mail and Wire Fraud
- Insurance Fraud
- Real Estate Fraud
- Investment Advisory Fraud
- Pension Fraud
- Workers’ Compensation Fraud
- ERISA Fraud
- Stock Market Irregularities
- RICO Violations
In case you or a loved one is charged with or are being investigated for an Austin Embezzlement crime, please speak to us right away.
Essential Elements Of A Fraud Action Austin
Deceit and fraud are described separately in statutes.
The liability for actual fraud is restricted to acts committed by or with the connivance of a party to a contract together with the intent to deceive another party to the contract and induce that party to enter into the contract.
Deceit: One who willfully deceives another with the intention to induce the other to alter his or her position to his or her injury or risk is responsible for any damage suffered caused by the deceit.
There exist 4 categories of deceit:
- The suggestion, as a fact, of that which isn’t true, by one who doesn’t believe it to be true, usually referred to as intentional misrepresentation;
- 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;
- 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
- A promise, made without any intention of performing it, commonly referred to as a false promise.
Actual fraud consists of any of the following acts, committed by or with the connivance of a party to a contract with the intent to deceive another party to the contract, or to induce the other party to enter into the contract:
- The suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true;
- 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;
- The suppression of that which is true, by one having knowledge or belief of the fact;
- A promise made without any intention of performing it; and
- Any other act fitted to deceive.
Constructive fraud consists of any breach of duty which, without actual fraudulent intention, gets an advantage to the person in fault, or anyone claiming under the person in fault, by misleading another to the prejudice of the person misled, or to the prejudice of anybody 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 upon the fraud of a defendant can elect either the contract remedy, consisting of restitution based on a rescission of the contract or the tort remedy, by affirming the contract and seeking damages.
A plaintiff can file a complaint stating causes of action in both contract and tort but may be required to choose one remedy or the other at some point prior to judgment.
Standard Procedural Outline for Fraud Austin
Simply no two cases are alike and procedures differ with the nature and complexity of the legal and evidential issues concerned. The following is a very standard 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 will include more than one “causes of action” for example “Breach of Contract” or “Fraud”.
Service of the Complaint
After the Summons and Complaint have been filed to the court, they must be correctly served on the defendant(s).
In the event the defendant(s) accept the service, he/she may sign an Acknowledgment of Service.
Otherwise, the documents will have to be formally served.
Response to Complaint
The Defendant(s) have thirty days from the day of service of the Summons and Complaint to serve on the Plaintiff(s) either an Answer on the Complaint or perhaps a pleading challenging the sufficiency of the Complaint.
Responses challenging the sufficiency of the Complaint include a motion called a “Demurrer” and a “Motion to Strike”
Hearing of Challenges to Sufficiency of Complaint
In the event that the defendant(s) choose to file a demurrer or motion to strike, these motions have to be heard and ruled upon so the matter may proceed.
This could take up to 2 months. If this kind of motion is sustained and the court grants leave to amend the Complaint, a new complaint must be drafted and served and the process starts over.
In some cases, a second demurrer or motion will probably be filed leading to a lot more delays.
When the Complaint and Answer are already filed both parties begin “discovery” procedures by which the evidence essential to prosecute both sides of the case.
Based on the character and complexity of the case, a number of of the following discovery devices may be used by the parties:
- Interrogatories: Written questions that must be answered under oath.
- Request for Production of Documents: Demands for production of documents by the parties.
- Requests for Admission: Requiring the parties to state which allegations they affirm and which they deny.
- Deposition: The parties might be required to show up in the opposing attorney’s office to answer questions under oath in front of a court reporter. Depositions may also be taken from 3rd parties.
- Subpoena Documents from Third Party: Documents might be subpoenaed from 3rd parties such as banks and employers.
If a party fails or refuses to follow discovery requests, it may be essential for the party propounding the finding to produce a motion in court to force answers.
In the event the court permits the motion, additional responses will be made.
In the event that those answers are still inadequate, a different motion can be made and the court can sanction (fine) the resisting party.
In extraordinary instances, the judge may even terminate the action in support of the moving party.
All through the case, the court will set several Case Management Conferences to be attended by attorneys for all parties.
These kinds of proceedings are created to see whether the case is ready for trial.
If the court feels that a case is completely ready for trial, it will set the date for trial and make orders concerning the completion of discovery and final preparation for trial.
Settlement negotiations may proceed through the entire trial.
Usually, the court will require the parties to take a mediation of the issues or will set a “Mandatory Settlement Conference” (MSC) ahead of the trial date.
Settlement negotiations usually are more intense as the trial date approaches.
Most of the cases work out prior to trial. If however, the parties cannot settle down the case, the only method to resolve the issues will be by way of trial.