Source: www.digitalspy.co.uk
Man with locked-in syndrome calls for change to murder law - The Guardian
A a 58-year-old victim of locked-in syndrome has told the high court that a decision not to allow him to be helped to die would condemn him "to a 'life' of increasing misery".
Tony Nicklinson was a very active and outgoing man until a stroke in 2005 left him paralysed from the neck down and unable to speak. He communicates by blinking or limited head movement.
His wife, Jane, said as she arrived at the High Court in London that there can be "no happy endings" to the case, but there can be "a good" outcome – if the judges give legal protection to the doctor who agrees to end her husband's life.
If the court rejects Nicklinson's plea to die, he says, all he will have to look forward to is the hope that he will "acquire a life-threatening illness such as cancer".
"I need help in almost every aspect of my life," he explained in a letter read out by his lawyer. "I have no privacy or dignity left. I am fed up with my life and don't want to spend the next 20 years or so like this. I'm not depressed so do not need counselling. I have had over six years to think about my future and it does not look good. I … can expect no cure or improvement in my condition as my muscles and joints seize up through lack of use.
"Indeed, I can expect to dribble my way into old age. If I am lucky I will acquire a life-threatening illness such as cancer so that I can refuse treatment and say 'no' to those who would keep me alive against my will.
"By all means protect the vulnerable," he added. "By 'vulnerable' I mean those who cannot make decisions for themselves. Just don't include me. I am not vulnerable. I don't need help or protection from death or those who would help me. If the legal consequences were not so huge – ie life imprisonment – perhaps I could get someone to help me. As things stand, I can't get help."
During a four-day hearing Lord Justice Toulson, sitting with Mr Justice Royce and Mrs Justice Macur, will also hear arguments in a second landmark judicial review action brought by a man who suffered a stroke three years ago at the age of 43. The man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is referred to as Martin or AM. He is unable to move, can communicate only by moving his eyes, requires constant care and is dependent on others for every aspect of his life.
Nicklinson's case is not the start of a "slippery slope, only the striking of a balance in law that better suits the values of modern Britain," argued his lawyer, Paul Bowen QC.
But in the absence of statutory regulation, Nicklinson is fighting for a common law of defence of necessity to be granted to doctors who help people to die after an order has been sought by the courts. At present, voluntary active euthanasia constitutes murder, and the sentence is life imprisonment.
The legal changes Nicklinson is asking for, would sit alongside the existing laws. They would only be sanctioned if a judge had agreed beforehand and was satisfied that the person is suffering from a medical condition that causes "unbearable suffering".
The judge would also need to be convinced that the patient had given a "a voluntary, clear, settled and informed wish to end his own life". Also that there are no alternative means available by which their suffering may be relieved.
"The law is anomalous and discriminatory. It fails to protect the very people it is intended to protect," argued Bowen, "It has not stopped the widespread practice of euthanasia but has forced it underground, where it is unregulated."
Nicklinson sent an email to his solicitor, asking if it was possible for the lawyer to "tell/remind the judges a few things".
His QC, Paul Bowen, read it out to the hearing, after saying that "in the final analysis, this is about one man and his right to choose".
The email said: "All this current activity making documentaries and writing articles has reminded me of how much I want my life to end. I know you said this hearing is all about the legal arguments but is it possible for you to tell/remind the judges a few things?
"I have wanted my life to end since 2007 so it is not a passing whim. I know consent makes no difference but the doctor has it anyway. Legal arguments are fine but they should not forget that a life is affected by the decision they come to; a decision going against me condemns me to a 'life' of increasing misery. I have no doubt that the judges have heard it all before but I simply wanted to get it off my chest."
In written arguments before the court David Perry QC, for the Ministry of Justice, opposed the attempt to change the current law, citing a 1993 case in which voluntary active ehthanasia was described by Lord Goff of Chieveley as an "act [that crosses] the Rubicon which runs between on the one hand the care of the living patient and on the other hand euthanasia – actively causing his death to avoid or to end his suffering. Euthanasia is not lawful at common law."
Perry said Nicklinson's "tragic and very distressing circumstances evoke the deepest sympathy", but that, "notwithstanding the distressing facts of his situation, the defendant submits that the claim for declarations is untenable. The law is well established". He said there was "no defence of necessity to a charge of murder or assisted suicide if a doctor were to terminate, or assist in the termination of, the claimant's life".
The case continues.
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Divorce drama may be over but the Adnan-Sabah battle continues - Times of India
Find this comment offensive?
Choose your reason below and click on the Submit button. This will alert our moderators to take action
Name
Reason for reporting:
Source: timesofindia.indiatimes.com
Plamen Petkov honoured for West Wittering beach rescue - BBC News
A man who drowned saving a young child from being swept out to sea off West Sussex has been rewarded for his "self-sacrifice and courage".
Plamen Petkov, of Sutton, south London, died after saving a five-year-old girl off West Wittering beach on 26 May.
Mr Petkov, 32, who was a British citizen of Bulgarian origin, has been posthumously awarded the highest civilian Bulgarian distinction.
His family have also set up an RNLI fund in his name.
Mr Petkov dived into the water after he and a friend spotted a mother shouting for help because her daughter was adrift on an inflatable ring being taken out to sea.
'Heroic act'He managed to reach the girl but after he passed her to a woman from Guildford, who also entered the water, he was dragged under the water by strong currents.
Mr Petkov was pronounced dead at the scene by the emergency services despite attempts by the woman to resuscitate him.
He has been posthumously awarded the Honorary Decoration of St George by the Minister of Defence of the Republic of Bulgaria for his "self-sacrifice and courage".
A spokeswoman for the Bulgarian Embassy in London said the award had been given in recognition of Mr Petkov's "illustrated bravery, self-renunciation, civil courage" and for "upholding the prestige of the Republic of Bulgaria".
In a statement, his family said: "Although tragic, we are touched by the fact that Plamen's heroic act has been so widely and internationally praised.
"We would like to direct the support of those who have been moved by Plamen's bravery to the RNLI in their efforts to make Britain's beaches safer."
Gemma Nightingale, of the RNLI, said: "We are honoured that the family of Plamen Petkov have chosen to remember his life with a Forever by the Sea fund.
"It is a fitting tribute that this young man's ultimate generosity of spirit will be reflected in the generosity of those who now visit the site."
The young girl was reunited with her family who are from north west London.
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
Is divorce ruining relationships? - Sydney Morning Herald
Divorce is no longer as imposing as a Mt Everest trek. Photo: MacGillivary Freeman Films
Here’s the thing. I am against marriage as the only legitimate romantic relationship. I support gay marriage; matrimony should be possible within any romance, just not the only romantic possibility. I also don’t think marriage has to be monogamous.
But I am starting to have doubts about divorce.
And this is a problem because, er, I am starting to think perhaps divorce really is such a bad thing. I’m starting to think divorce really is ruining our relationships. And it’s starting to make me sound like a hypocritical conservative.
Am I?
Well – perhaps not.
Let me explain.
Divorce used to be difficult, socially. Things that are difficult are generally undesirable, even if their consequence is attractive.
Having the bragging rights to an Mount Everest summit story is attractive, but actually reaching the summit is not. Hence the respect we afford the journey, and the awe-bordering-on-suspicion we grant to those who survive. This peculiar sort of judgement comes from lack of experiential relatability, and a shared belief system – common sense, in this case.
But if the summit could be conquered with ease, and if most of our mates had been there and back, it would be different. Reactions to tales regaled would be met with ambivalence and adverse judgement – “that’s interesting, but you’re crazy” – less likely.
So it is with divorce today. Yes, there are still costs attached to it – legal bills, emotional toll, and so on and so forth, which makes it unattractive. But the social cost has changed. More people have been there and done that, so it’s not as peculiarly fascinating anymore. And the belief system common to most people nowadays doesn’t have the ‘burn in hell’ ring it once did.
Thus divorce is less undesirable. Certainly it’s not attractive – I imagine few divorcees wanted to get divorced as they walked down the aisle – but it is accessible. And this accessibility has impacted on the way we view relationships. And when I say we I mean me, though I presume I’m not alone.
Certainly, when I broach the subject with my 20-to-30-something friends who are single-ish, educated, and could hardly recall a positive parental romance between them, I find similar thoughts have seeded. These notions might not be proudly nurtured by those who would self-describe as liberal progressives who value choice and freedom and individualism above all else. But the idea is there all the same.
The idea that perhaps too much choice, freedom and individualism is challenging love lives in the way their opposites did generations ago, before no-fault divorce swept through much needed change. Divorce in the 60s and 70s was a much needed antidote to the social stiffness and personal constraints of the decades previous.
But that was then. Now, the accessibility of divorce – the ease with which we can conceptualise ending relationships, even very, very serious ones – has helped make the reality of marriage a difficult pill to swallow. The reality of long-term, life-time commitment is the new Mt Everest. Those who manage it might be publicly feted, generally envied and privately doubted by those who have not, but want to.
And about here is where my palm hits my face. What am I saying? That we should go back to a time when marriage was for life no matter what? Where giving up on the great dream was social suicide? Have I regressed?
I don’t think so. I simply think the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction and needs to be corrected. I think many of us are sleeping in uncomfortable, lonely and sometimes very unhappy beds. We’ve made these beds with sheets of perpetual dissatisfaction on which we lie and wonder, ‘are you really the one, or just the one for now?’
Follow me on Twitter: @katherinefeeney
Track me on Tumblr
Like the CityKat blog on Facebook
kfeeney@fairfaxmedia.com.au (I promise I do read mail, even if I don't respond right away...)
Source: www.smh.com.au
Millions still go without insurance if law passes - The Guardian
TOM MURPHY
AP Business Writer= One of the biggest misconceptions about President Obama's health care overhaul isn't who the law will cover, but rather who it won't.
If it survives Supreme court scrutiny, the landmark overhaul will expand coverage to about 30 million uninsured people, according to government figures. But an estimated 26 million Americans will remain without coverage — a population that's roughly the size of Texas and includes illegal immigrants and those who can't afford to pay out-of-pocket for health insurance.
"Many people think that this health care law is going to cover everyone, and it's not," says Nicole Lamoureux, executive director of the Alexandria, Va.-based National Association of Free & Charitable Clinics, which represents about 1,200 clinics nationally.
To be sure, it's estimated that the Affordable Care Act would greatly increase the number of insured Americans. The law has a provision that requires most Americans to be insured or face a tax penalty. It also calls for an expansion of Medicaid, a government-funded program that covers the health care costs of low-income and disabled Americans. Additionally, starting in 2014, there will be tax credits to help middle-class Americans buy coverage.
The Supreme Court is expected to hand down a decision this month on whether to uphold the law completely or strike down parts or all of it. If it survives, about 93 percent of all non-elderly, legal U.S. residents will be covered by 2016. That's up from 82 percent this year.
Still, millions of illegal immigrants won't qualify for coverage. This population will account for roughly 26 percent of those who will remain uninsured, according to Urban Institute, a nonpartisan think tank.
And many legal U.S. residents will go without insurance, too. About 36 percent of the population that remains uninsured will qualify for Medicaid but won't sign up for various reasons. Others likely will make too much money to qualify for assistance but be unable to afford coverage.
Here's a look at some of the groups that will likely remain uninsured if the law survives:
ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS
More than 11 million unauthorized immigrants live in the United States, according to the Pew Hispanic Center, a nonpartisan research center. That amounts to nearly 4 percent of the total population. But there are no provisions that address illegal immigrants in the health care law.
They won't be able to sign up for Medicaid. They won't be eligible for the tax credits to help buy coverage. And they won't be able to use online marketplaces that the government will set up in order for people to get coverage in a process that's similar to buying plane tickets on travel web sites. Those online exchanges, much like the tax credits, will require proof of citizenship.
"They will still need to find alternative ways to seek care because nothing in the law really expands coverage and affordable coverage options for undocumented immigrants," says Sonal Ambegaokar, a health policy attorney with the National Immigration Law Center in Los Angeles.
The topic is a politically divisive issue. On one side, there are people who say that the government should provide health care for all U.S. residents — legal or not. The other side contends that doing so could take valuable resources away from U.S. citizens.
"Because of the limited supply of health care, we're almost in a sociological triage," says Bob Dane, spokesman for the Federation for American Immigration Reform, a national group that calls for stricter immigration laws. "It begs the question, 'Who do we serve, who do we serve first and who is not entitled?'"
Researchers have found that immigrants tend to use the health care system less than legal residents. Illegal immigrants, in particular, tend to avoid using the health care system until they have to, favoring home remedies first or making cash payments to providers when they need care. That population also is younger, so it generally has fewer health care needs, says Timothy Waidmann, a researcher with Urban Institute.
The think tank, using federal government survey data, estimates that illegal immigrants accounted for an estimated $18 billion of the $1.4 trillion spent on health care in the United States in 2007. That adds up to less than 2 percent of total spending.
Some say excluding illegal immigrants from the overhaul will keep some legal residents uninsured, too. Ambegaokar, the Los Angeles attorney, points to parents who are illegal immigrants but have children who are legal citizens because they were born in the United States.
If the parents are not eligible, they may not know that their kids qualify. And in other instances, if one child is legal and the other is not, the parents may decide not to sign up either to avoid playing favorites.
"The goal is to enroll everybody who is eligible," Ambegaokar says. "But when you make systems complicated and require proof of ID, you're going to inevitably keep out people who should be in."
LOST IN TRANSLATION
Medicaid, which currently covers more than 60 million people, is expected to add about 17 million more people to its program by 2016 if the law is upheld, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, which researches budgetary issues for Congress.
But people are still expected to fall through the cracks. That's because the requirements and process for signing up for Medicaid can be confusing. And while the overhaul aims to make the process easier, it won't smooth out all the wrinkles.
The problem? Many people don't realize that they qualify for coverage. And that likely will still be the case, albeit to a lesser extent, after Medicaid expands.
Coverage depends on how someone's income stacks up to federal poverty guidelines, which can be obscure to the average person. Plus, because income can fluctuate, someone could qualify one year but not the next.
"Regardless of how much outreach you do ... you're never going to get perfect enrollment," Matthew Buettgens, another Urban Institute researcher, says.
Staying enrolled can be another hurdle. Medicaid recipients have to re-enroll, sometimes more than once a year. They can be dropped if they miss deadlines, submit incomplete forms or if paperwork doesn't catch up with them after they move — something poor families tend to do more frequently than the average American household
Leeanna Herman learned this when an unexpected $300 doctor bill arrived in the mail. The Bakersfield, Calif., resident was pregnant and unemployed and didn't know her government-funded health coverage had lapsed.
"I was freaking out," says Herman, 23, who went a month without coverage because she missed the deadline to re-enroll. "How do you expect me to pay that?'"
Experts say online applications and electronic verification of income levels and other things will make this process easier. But deadlines will still matter and some people don't have easy access to the Internet. And there will still be some people who simply won't enroll.
"There will always be that segment that says, 'Aw, the heck with it, I will just wait until I get sick and go to the ER,'" says Stephen Schilling, CEO of Clinica Sierra Vista, a nonprofit that has a network of 27 community health centers in California.
Schilling expects to still see a lot of uninsured patients at the nonprofit group's health centers even if the law is upheld. The center sits in an agricultural area in California's San Joaquin Valley, populated with migrant workers and saddled with an unemployment rate of around 15 percent.
It cares for about 60,000 uninsured people annually, thanks in part to grants and a sliding fee scale for patients based on their family size and income. Schilling says he still expects between 20,000 and 40,000 uninsured patients if the overhaul is implemented.
LIVING IN THE GAP
The overhaul calls for tax credits to help middle-class Americans buy coverage. But some people who make too much money to qualify for the tax credits may have a hard time finding an affordable option for private health insurance
The subsidies can pay a large chunk of the insurance bill. For instance, a 40-year-old person who makes $50,000 in 2014 and needs coverage for a family of four might receive a government tax credit of more than $8,000.
That would cover more than 70 percent of the premium, or the cost of coverage, according to a subsidy calculator on the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation's website. Of course, that estimate depends on the type of coverage the person choses, where they live and whether they can get coverage through work.
But the tax credits will go to people with incomes up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level, or $44,680 for an individual this year. People just above that level may have a hard time finding affordable health insurance.
If the health care law is upheld, Angela Agnew Laws worries that she might remain uninsured like she has been for the past eight years.
Laws, who lives in Leesburg, Va., runs a small business that cleans and maintains commercial buildings. She hopes her income will climb to about $60,000 by 2014, which would be too high for tax credit help.
A plan that offers more than just basic protection against big medical expenses could cost as much as $10,000 annually for Laws. She could find less extensive coverage for a lower premium, but that may only save about $1,000.
Laws, 58, figures that she'll remain uninsured if she can't find an affordable coverage option that fits a monthly budget already crammed with payments of $1,203 for rent $530 toward her car.
"It's a scary prospect for me," she says.
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
Sussex steal Kent Exiles' Thunder (From News Shopper) - News Shopper
Kent Exiles 12-50 Sussex Thunder
11:08am Tuesday 19th June 2012 in Sport
KENT Exiles were beaten by Sussex Thunder on Sunday in their final home game of the season.
Going into the game as underdogs, and with a depleted squad due to five games in as many weeks having taken its toll with injuries, the Exiles dug in early on and matched Thunder stride for stride.
After an early Thunder score the Exiles thought they had drawn level when Zac Ritchie threw to Sam Johnson and the wideout broke a tackle and outpaced the visiting defence, but a penalty wiped the score off the board.
Ritchie found Colin Chislett and then Johnson again to move them within touching distance of the endzone and Jon Miller caught the touchdown.
Sussex Thunder pulled ahead on their next drive, but the Exiles came straight back once again.
Ben Abbott continued his good form finding some running room and Ritchie found the reliable Chislett and Miller before Wesley Eversley jumped between three defenders to pull in the touchdown and bring the scores level again.
One more Thunder score as the half ran out gave the visitors the lead, but at half-time it was anyone's game.
However, the second half was a different story as Sussex Thunder’s defence started to get on top and force turnovers which resulted in some quick scoring without reply from the Exiles and before long the game was out of reach.
Follow us on Twitter @NewsShopperSprt
Source: www.newsshopper.co.uk
What Would Monica Geller Say About Courteney Cox's Divorce Strategy? - Forbes
Source: daylife.com
For ten years on the sitcom Friends, Courteney Cox starred in the role of Monica Geller, a beautiful and successful 20-something who prided herself on being fastidious, competitive and bossy.
Sadly, though, life does not always imitate art, and these days Ms. Cox appears to be proceeding with her divorce in ways that are distinctly un-Monica-like. Not only does she seem to be neglecting details, but she could be jeopardizing her sizeable, hard-earned fortune as a result. For example, last week I read about these two particularly surprising aspects of the Courteney Cox-David Arquette divorce case:
1. Ms. Cox recently filed legal docs responding to Mr. Arquette’s divorce petition, and –apparently following his lead –she did so without a lawyer.
2. The court docs apparently do not mention a prenup.
Can you imagine how Monica would react if a friend of hers was following the same path? I can’t help but think the conversation would begin with one of Monica’s characteristically blunt assessments. “Are you crazy?” she would blurt out.
Of course, if I had the opportunity to advise Ms. Cox, I would phrase things somewhat differently. “Ms. Cox, I think you should re-consider your strategy,” I would say . . . and then I’d ask, “Are you crazy?”!!
First, let’s review the importance of using a lawyer.
As I have discussed before, there are four broad categories of divorce alternatives: Do-It-Yourself (DIY), Mediation, Collaborative and Litigation. Of these, Litigation is the most common, but keep in mind, “litigated” does not necessarily mean the divorce ends up in court. “Litigation” is a legal term meaning ‘carrying out a lawsuit,’ and even though they’re litigated, the vast majority of all divorce cases (more than 95 percent) reach an out-of-court settlement agreement.
Why are lawsuits a part of divorce? Because no matter how “friendly” you’d like your divorce to be, it is extremely difficult and emotionally-trying to reach agreements on child custody, alimony payments and the division of assets and liabilities. Legal matters, livelihoods and personal futures hang in the balance, and it makes perfect sense to hire trusted divorce professionals to help you effectively navigate the sea of forms, legal filings and complicated rules of evidence.
Even if the divorce is fairly amicable, the laws are complex, and there are numerous financial and tax implications associated with dividing retirement plans, real estate, intellectual property, stock options, etc. Without the right professional advice it can be very easy to make irreversible mistakes. What’s more, children and dealing with custody and other parenting issues can further complicate the situation, as well.
Remember: Enlisting the expertise of a lawyer does not mean your divorce must be contentious. In fact, just the opposite is true. Most divorce attorneys (or at least the ones I would recommend) will always strive to come to a reasonable settlement with the other party and ensure that your divorce settlement agreement accurately incorporates the agreed upon points.
Now, let’s discuss the benefits of a prenup.
A prenup (short for “prenuptial agreement”) is a contract signed by both parties before their wedding. By using a prenup, both the husband-to-be and the wife-to-be decide in advance: 1) what property will be considered separate property, 2) what property will be considered marital property, 3) how any marital property should be divided, 4) particulars about estate planning and inheritances and even 5) how much alimony will be paid and for how long if there’s a break-up down the road. In short, the prenup details what the couple’s property rights and expectations would be upon divorce and if done correctly, it can be an excellent way to supersede your state’s marital laws. However, in order for a prenup to be effective, each party must be represented by its own separate attorney, and the agreement:
- must be in writing.
- must provide full disclosure (no hiding of assets and/or liabilities).
- must be executed voluntarily and without coercion.
- must be executed by both parties, preferably in front of witnesses.
- cannot be unconscionable, meaning that it cannot be completely lopsided giving one party so much more than the other.
- should be in a recordable format.
And, just to reiterate, the prenup must be executed before the wedding!
Since it appears Ms. Cox did not have a prenup in place, the money she earned during her twelve-and-a-half year marriage will now be considered marital property –and because California is a Community Property state it will be split 50-50. (And in case you’re wondering, she’s reportedly worth $75 million, while Mr. Arquette is worth $18 million.)
Maybe years ago, Ms. Cox considered the idea of a prenup awkward and unromantic. If that was the case, she could have pursued other options that would not have required her fiancé’s approval. For instance, she could have established a Domestic or Foreign Asset Protection Trust.
What about a postnuptial agreement?
Even if there were no pre-marital protections in place, Ms.Cox could have pursued a postnup. Similar to a prenup, a postnup is a contract between husband and wife, but it is entered into and signed after the wedding.
Could Ms. Cox have protected her assets with a postnup? It’s impossible for me to say. But, I do know this: When celebrities divorce, one of the biggest points of contention is typically intellectual property rights. These rights cover property such as patents, trademarks, copyrights and royalties and other contractual rights, and depending on the individual circumstances, they can be worth thousands, if not millions, of dollars.
What’s more, any intellectual property rights obtained during a marriage may be considered marital property –and that means they may be divided during divorce. Although the specific rules vary from state to state, the general rule of thumb governing intellectual and other property is this: Value that’s created during the marriage must be divided.
Again, it’s impossible to know with certainty how a postnup would have impacted the division of assets, in general, or how it could have impacted the division of intellectual property rights to, say, the sitcom Friends, in particular. But even so, if you’re a married woman involved in a similar business endeavor, my advice is simple: I believe having a postnup in place is usually better than having nothing at all.
All women –whether they’re single, engaged, happily married, contemplating divorce, or in the middle of divorce proceedings –can learn something by observing how celebrities handle their break-ups. In this particular case, I feel that Courteney Cox is being reckless and short-sighted. . . and I honestly think Monica Geller would feel the same way.
———————————————————————————————-
All articles/blog posts are for informational purposes only, and do not constitute legal advice. If you require legal advice, retain a lawyer licensed in your jurisdiction. The opinions expressed are solely those of the author, who is not an attorney.
For further information, please go to our website at: http://www.BedrockDivorce.com or email Jeff at: Landers@BedrockDivorce.com
Source: www.forbes.com
Law firm's missing millions gone for good, court told - au.news.yahoo.com
A court has been told a man who stole millions of dollars from a law firm has nothing to show for it now.
Craig Raneberg, 47, has pleaded guilty to stealing more than $2.5 million from Adelaide law firm Minter Ellison while he was a senior executive there.
The District Court was told Raneberg used a shared password and transferred the money electronically to his bank account.
Defence lawyer David Mullen said Raneberg was a lonely man who used the money to fund a life of first-class travel.
"The offending at Minter Ellison began when he first transferred money to pay for an overseas holiday to the United States. He instructs that he took the money with the intention of paying it back," the court was told.
"It snowballed from there. He says that's because he was living alone in Adelaide and had a need to get out and this was achieved by frequent travel.
"He spent a lot of time with upper-middle class friends in Sydney and Adelaide and wanted to be the same as them. The people he mixed with over this period influenced him to be upmarket with his taste and travel. It just snowballed completely out of control."
The court heard Raneberg worked at Minter Ellison from 2001 and was promoted to chief financial officer five years later.
"As strange as it may seem for a chief financial officer, he instructs me that he had no idea how much he spent, he never added it up, he never had a running total, he just knew that the money he had taken must be mounting up and up but he lived in denial about how much was taken," the defence counsel said.
"He had various bouts of depression. He was thinking he might walk into work any day and be asked questions about an anomaly in the accounts that he wouldn't be able to answer."
"He did live in fear that that's how it was going to end and he lived in that fear from the first time he took the money but did nothing about it during all that time."
Mr Mullen said Raneberg bought friendship.
"His lifestyle was out of control and he was buying friendship by operating in this way," the court heard.
"It is a tale of excessive spending, exclusive accommodation, first-class travel and maintaining a lifestyle he would never have been able to afford otherwise."
The court heard Raneberg was sacked in May last year, but the extent of his offending emerged later.
Passwords unchanged
Mr Mullen said Minter Ellison never audited the accounts or changed passwords during the period of the offending and it did not find the crimes until Raneberg had left.
He conceded any recovery of money by Minter Ellison was unlikely.
"There is no likelihood of restitution, none of the proceeds of the thefts, which is a large sum of money, have found their way into any substantial or indeed recoverable assets," he said.
"There is no grand house, there are no Ferraris, no Swiss bank accounts, there's nothing.
"It has amazingly all gone into travel and accommodation and spending. Over that period he was earning good money as well. He has nothing to show for anything."
The court heard Raneberg had been on $150,000 per year and Minter Ellison sought to recover his wages in a civil court case.
But the court was told that despite a default judgment in the civil case covering more than $6.5 million, it was unlikely the law firm would see any money back.
Prosecutor Michelle Roberts-Thomson said the systematic fraud was a breach of trust and the penalty needed to reflect the seriousness of the offending.
"Depending on him to discharge his duties, an employer often has no choice but to trust its employees," she said.
Raneberg will be sentenced next month.Source: au.news.yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment