Analysis of Equity and Fraud Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words

Analysis of Equity and Fraud - Research Paper Example All these measures have been introduced with the intention of preventing fraud and ensuring that there are no hidden transfers of equitable interests and that the contents of a deceased person’s will are clearly evidenced in writing. The purpose of the Wills Act of 1837 is, therefore, to encourage people to make out their last wishes formally, publicly and in writing to prevent any scope for misunderstanding. However, the public nature of wills is often a significant drawback in some instances. A will is a public document and can be accessed by anyone and there are instances when a testator may wish to make provision for a mistress or an illegitimate child for example, which are not to be revealed in the public eye. In such instances, a testator may resort to secret trusts or half-secret trusts, whereby he formally and outwardly designates a legatee as the beneficiary of his estate, yet enters into a private arrangement with him for dispersal of the assets of his estate to other parties. The legatee thus accepts the gift after having provided an assurance to the testator for dispersal of the gift in accordance with the testator’s wishes. Hence this gives rise to the existence of a secret trust, however, if the beneficiaries cannot prove the existence of such a trust, the legatee may take the property free of the trust, which raises the issue of fraud. However, as established in the Snowden case, it is not for the legatee to prove that he is holding the property on trust, rather the beneficiaries of the trust must prove this, on the basis of the probabilities that exist.  Ã‚  

Regulation of Interest Groups by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act Essay

Regulation of Interest Groups by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act - Essay Example The Bipartisan Campaigns Reform Act came along with two unique features that were not covered in the earlier federal act. One requirement of the BCRA was that the amount of soft-money contributions by interest groups be limited during the campaign period. This was effected by instituting federal limits to bar spending or raising of finances that are beyond the preset values. Secondly, this new law defined â€Å"electioneering communications† that required that no corporation would be allowed to fund the advertisements that had to be done 30 days before the primary elections or 60 days before a general election (Campaign Finance Institute, 2006). In addition, the candidates had to declare their names within the advertisement and confirm to have authorized the airing of such an advertisement. The impact of the new law was to minimize the influence that interest groups had maintained in the campaign by either funding the process or contributing to advertisements. Surprisingly, the provisions of these laws have faced a lot of antagonism from numerous federal candidates that have raised concerns regarding the restriction of utilization of financial resources during the campaign period. One issue that has seen many political parties and organization move to court is the pre-BCRA constitutional provision on the ‘527 organizations’ that were not covered adequately in the regulation of soft money spending. The law required that the 527 organizations such as Media Fund and Swift Board Veterans for Truth spend at least 50% of hard money in their campaign expenses while participating in federal campaigns. In 2007, the Federal Election Commission was forced to impose fines on these organizations after they had failed to abide to the financing laws governing the election process. In addition, in 2007, the US Supreme Court overturned the BCRA condition that limited the interest groups from contributing to the financing of media adverts on t he ground that this restriction was unconstitutional. As Boatright (2006) points out, BCRA has received abundant criticism and the public demand is that this law be changed to include more realistic regulation of interest group contributions to the campaign process. From above experience, it's worthy to note that the BCRA has numerous weaknesses that warrant its revision to achieve an effective regulation of interest groups. The United States President, Barack Obama, in 2010 announced the need for US to pass a bill that would restrict financial spending in the campaign period, and particularly the contribution of the specific interest groups. His argument was that the BCRA law is subject to alteration by the Supreme Court as long as this law does not state implicitly the specific amounts that federal candidates would