Case Analysis

Case Analysis

Case Analysis

The matters in this case are classic inquiries of statutory understanding with esteem to. The statute reads:

The first topic is whether the period "knowingly . . . corruptly convinces" means" an intent to subvert, destabilise, or impede the fact-finding proficiency of an official proceeding," as the trial judge instructed the committee, or if it requires unlawful means or inducements to violate the regulation, as Andersen argues. . The second topic is if an casual SEC proceeding constitutes an "official proceeding." If the Court edges with Andersen on either of these matters, it should conclude if the trial court's ...