| Latest Forum Topics / Shen Yao Last:0.002 -- |
 Post Reply
|
|
ThinkEnv name change to Liongold Corp
|
|||||
|
risktaker
Supreme |
25-Nov-2013 16:23
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 16:19
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 | |||||
|
|
|||||
|
danytan
Senior |
25-Nov-2013 16:11
Yells: "Up up and away!" |
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
phrase gap up is used often, what exactly does it mean?
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
terencee
Master |
25-Nov-2013 16:04
Yells: "I don't entertain trolls." |
||||
|
x 1
x 0 Alert Admin |
No point explaining la bro. Some people just dont read the facts. They only comment cos they wanted to go against the sentiments. There's too many around. Plus we win arguement also no use. Not as if we win arguement and the trio can gap up immediately. Just let the market decide. :) Cheers
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
risktaker
Supreme |
25-Nov-2013 16:01
Yells: "Sometimes you think you know, but in fact you dont" |
||||
|
x 0
x 1 Alert Admin |
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 dead because goldman action of course we blame him..... we need to find the caused for the market dead.... Market was performing well when the 3 trio is doing well.... even though i dont trade but we traders benefit from the sentiment.... from what i see they are really into building up their assets.... not just any pump and dump..... But because.of goldman the market is dead..... tell me how not to blame goldman..... i cant blame sgx because they are pressure by the medias..... 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 | |||||
|
|
|||||
|
TPG_yren
Member |
25-Nov-2013 15:55
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
You assume that borrower must have blah blah blah.... Then you tell people don't speculate... You must be working as a detective, please call Ms Ng and inform her not to waste her time to sue GS. You have figured it all out, it's all her fault. Boring...
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
wanglausern
Senior |
25-Nov-2013 15:51
|
||||
|
x 1
x 0 Alert Admin |
Please don't speculate. I know what it's like to deal with investment banks.
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
risktaker
Supreme |
25-Nov-2013 15:48
Yells: "Sometimes you think you know, but in fact you dont" |
||||
|
x 1
x 0 Alert Admin |
I do not think they exceed their margin.... read the story carefully... goldman sac did a 360 degree turn.... and demand unreasonable terms..... are u with goldman sac..... good luck wang.... because from what i see there is a strong case against goldman....
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
|
|||||
|
wanglausern
Senior |
25-Nov-2013 15:45
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Borrower must have exceeded her credit line before the 2nd October to trigger Goldman Sach's force sale.
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
TPG_yren
Member |
25-Nov-2013 15:34
|
||||
|
x 1
x 0 Alert Admin |
You guys still wanna carry on this boring topic of who's right and wrong ah? One side rub salt, one side defending... end up everyone unhappy... It's like saying since you knew JB high crime rate then why did you go there at the first place? However, it's people's right to make police report. Just sit back, relax and wait for result. Cheers~
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
shoutnovoice
Member |
25-Nov-2013 15:34
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Wang,
Read properly. The force selling started on 2 oct, which is before the crash. There was no reason for GS to do that.
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
WanSiTong
Master |
25-Nov-2013 15:12
|
||||
|
x 0
x 1 Alert Admin |
 nice to bully...... lolWhy target the same group of people?
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
|
|||||
|
wanglausern
Senior |
25-Nov-2013 15:01
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Why put the blame on Goldman in the first place? If somebody borrows money from Goldman Sach or bank to buy shares or properties, when the collateral value drop, the financial institution have the right to force-sell the collateral. Often we see auction sale for the distressed properties all over the world. Shares is the most vulnerable because the price can fluctuate violently. Those who bought shares on margin should know. I dont believe these seasoned investors who borrowed money from Goldman Sach dont know. To me, I am only surprised why Goldman did not sell the shares slowly and orderly. Instead they dumped the shares and I can only guess they knew something more than we do. FRANKIE HO, The Edge. |
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
ssw518
Member |
25-Nov-2013 14:58
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Agree with you, seem like they are holding to the investigating news till the circuit breaker are ready to prevent substantial/sudden and upside/downside
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
Maller
Member |
25-Nov-2013 14:34
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
I think from the news, it is quite sure that the directors should not have issues. Added more since the price is still low to me. | ||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
ssw518
Member |
25-Nov-2013 13:27
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
ask youeself what you do to the boss to get promotion or good impression???? simple right, speck/write/talk what he want...lol
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
maixisuahlai
Member |
25-Nov-2013 12:52
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Bro, i didn't say anything about sgx/mas taking GS' side la. The words here " pull the plug" on investors can mean many things. Like for example, suddenly the trio counters might tio halt or suspended again prior to any upcoming big announcements or news in regards to their investigations conducted. Investors might feel uneasy, worried or panicky during this period coz their funds being immobilized again and don't know whether outcome good or bad. Another example could also be whether SGX/MAS dare to take this matter up with GS on another level. If they don't take any actions or give us a good explanation, in future it's given the impression that ang moh banks can just come in here and push us around and investors will definitely not be comfortable with putting their money over here. Another example could be after investigation SGX/MAS really found out something more not to just GS' play in this incident. Maybe somewhere insiders also got wrongdoings themselves. Something i pondering is why Ng/Quah Su Ling took so long before deciding to break their silence and explain why this happened. I think end of the day what we investors really want is assurance from MAS/SGX so that we could officially afford to bring this saga to a closure and move on.
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
shoutnovoice
Member |
25-Nov-2013 12:42
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Well said! Our govt cannot be forever taking the sides of angmoh! The longer this drags on, the worse it becomes
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
risktaker
Supreme |
25-Nov-2013 12:27
Yells: "Sometimes you think you know, but in fact you dont" |
||||
|
x 0
x 1 Alert Admin |
This is really bullshit if sgx/mas still take side on bloody goldman.....
|
||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
|
maixisuahlai
Member |
25-Nov-2013 12:11
|
||||
|
x 0
x 0 Alert Admin |
Hi morning guys, i think interested investors in any of these 3 counters, especially big investors, will still want to wait and hear something coming out of SGX's and MAS' mouths, something concrete or black and white regarding this saga from their own findings before they dive in to push up the prices. I think investors' confidence has really been hit badly and i don't think they'll want to go through the " once bitten, twice shy" experience in case if SGX pulls the plug on them again after jumping in. Today i read business times on an article explaining why singapore market so bad while other markets like Dow Jones from the west and HSI from the east are rallying like crazy towards year end but neither of these good news from these markets seem to rub off our local market. They said that it was mainly due to our market's bad earnings reports and fear of QE tapering but hey come on we all know the real reason was really due to this incident. Ever since the collapse of pennies, it has already sent fear and shockwaves to our market. Don't know why media trying to divert attention to the real reason. Bui tahan. That being said, it was good to know the side of story from the directors so we finally get an idea what caused the plunge in prices. Hope SGX and MAS don't keep their silence any longer if they want SG market to revive again!!! It is very damaging. | ||||
| Useful To Me Not Useful To Me | |||||
