One word . . . . C O M P L I C I T Y . . . What a tangled web! Adding the trusts to Plaintiff suits is a smart move. I just think a larger net is called for. Saw this other night while trying to figure out if all these new upstart companies servicing the default servicing industry would be considered accomplices along with the other usual MSF aiders and abettors, if MSF was proven in a court of law and acknowledged by the court. Seems the playing field radically changes its characteristics in federal criminal prosecutions. Would be nice to see default diservicers and I. banksters get the criminal prosecution they deserve. May as well dream on..................
Accomplice ~ From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
At law, an accomplice is a person who actively participates in the commission of a crime, even though they take no part in the actual criminal offence. For example, in a bank robbery, the person who points the gun at the teller and asks for the money is guilty of armed robbery. However, anyone else directly involved in the commission of the crime, such as the lookout or the getaway car driver, is an accomplice, even though in the absence of an underlying offence keeping a lookout or driving a car would not be an offence.
An accomplice differs from an accessory in that an accomplice is present at the actual crime, and could be prosecuted even if the main criminal is not charged or convicted. An accessory is generally not present at the actual crime, and may be subject to lesser penalties than an accomplice or principal.
In older sources, an accomplice was often referred to as an abettor. This term is not in active use, having been replaced by accomplice.
At law, an accomplice has the same degree of guilt as the person he or she is assisting, is subject to prosecution for the same crime, and faces the same criminal penalties. As such, the three accomplices to the bank robbery above can also be found guilty of armed robbery even though only one stole the money.The fairness of the doctrine that the accomplice is as guilty as the primary offender has been discussed many times, particularly in cases of capital crimes.
Aiding and Abetting under U.S. Law
Courts often refer to aiding and abetting as an alternate theory of liability rather than a separate crime. Under 18 U.S.C. § 2, aiding and abetting liability is available in all federal criminal prosecutions; however, the availability and extent of civil aiding and abetting liability varies from statute to statute. Where available, aiding and abetting liability generally requires three elements: 1) an underlying violation by a principal; 2) knowledge of that violation and/or the intent to facilitate the violation; and 3) assistance to the principal in the violation. As indicated by the Supreme Court, “In order to aid and abet another to commit a crime it is necessary that a defendant 'in some sort associate himself with the venture, that he participate in it as in something that he wishes to bring about, that he seek by his action to make it succeed.” Nye & Nissen v. United States, 336 U.S. 613, 618 (1949) quoting Judge Learned Hand in U.S. v. Peoni 100 F.2d 401, 402 (2d. Cir. 1938).