Posts Tagged ‘court’

Woolies executive fixed $40m computer contracts, court told

May 17th, 2012

A SENIOR executive at the supermarket giant Woolworths sent a stream of inside information to particular companies to ensure they won nearly $40 million worth of computer contracts in return for $3.7 million in kickbacks, a court has heard.
He then allegedly used a complex web of companies in the British Virgin Islands to launder the proceeds and hide the money trail.
A former general manager of information services at Woolworths, David Wills, is on trial in the Downing Centre District Court on 24 charges, including fraud, money laundering and fabricating evidence to mislead a tribunal.
Advertisement: Story continues below
On trial alongside him are Peter and Carroll Henderson, a husband and wife who ran a company that was allegedly awarded contracts as part of the alleged fraud.
In his opening address to the jury yesterday, the Crown prosecutor Sunil de Silva said the three accused were part of a conspiracy in which Mr Wills used his position to ensure contracts for computer hardware and software were won by the Hendersons’ company, Smart Repair Terminals, or a foreign company which they acted as agents for, Azben Electronics.
”Mr Wills used his position at Woolworths to influence both the awarding of contracts and the quantity of equipment,” Mr de Silva said.
Mr Wills allegedly did this through a ‘’sham procedure” whereby he would give the inside information about the tender process, such as what answers to give when Woolworths requested information.
He also allegedly lied to the Woolworths board, telling them a pilot scheme involving computer software and hardware from the two companies was functioning perfectly when this was not necessarily the case.
He allegedly breached Woolworths’s own internal protocols in carrying out the tender process to ”allow the fraud to take place”.
The court heard Woolworths lost credibility in the marketplace as a result of the alleged fraud because other companies lost confidence in its tender process.
In return for his efforts, Mr Wills allegedly received $3.7 million.
The court heard that he hid this money through a web of companies, including Crossborder Holdings, an entity based in the tax-friendly British Virgin Islands.
It was alleged the Hendersons attempted to hide and launder their money in a similar way.
The jury heard the Crown case was a circumstantial one where the evidence would take the form of many thousands of pages of documents, including 4500 pages from Woolworths alone.
The trial, before Judge Andrew Haesler, continues.

Source:http://www.smh.com.au/national/woolies-executive-fixed-40m-computer-contracts-court-told-20120516-1yrd4.html

Supreme Court to hear reference on ZAB’s case on April 13

April 9th, 2012

The Supreme Court is to hear the reference on Zulfikar Ali Bhutto case on April 13 as the government has filed a reference in the apex court, seeking revisit of the case and give its opinion on the death sentence awarded to Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto.

The reference initiated by President Asif Ali Zardari under Article 186 of the Constitution was filed by federal law secretary Masood Chishti before registrar of the apex court last week.

“Chief Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry is pleased to fix the reference received from President, Islamic Republic of Pakistan under Article 186 of the Constitution for revisiting the case of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in the court on April 13″, says a statement issued by Supreme Court on Monday.
By invoking Article 186 of the Constitution, President Asif Ali Zardari has sought Supreme Court opinion on the death sentence by the Lahore High Court which was subsequently upheld by the apex court in March 1979.

Bhutto was hanged to death on April 4, 1979.

Article 186 of the constitution reads: “If, at any time, the President considers that it is desirable to obtain the opinion of the Supreme Court on any question of law which he considers of public importance, he may refer the question to the court for consideration”.

Source:http://www.brecorder.com/it-a-computers/206/1174314/

Supreme Court going live on Internet

September 14th, 2010

The Arkansas Supreme Court will begin this week streaming live video of oral arguments to its website, the court announced today.

Use of the technology will allow people from around the state and the world to watch attorneys argue their cases before the Supreme Court without having to leave their homes or offices and drive to the state Capitol complex, said Chief Justice Jim Hannah.

“We are committed to provide a greater access to justice and to facilitate a better understanding of the judiciary,” Hannah said.

The chief justice, in fact, used the new technology to announce the video stream today, appearing from the state Supreme Court online with the rest of the justices. Court of Appeals judges, attorneys and others, including Gov. Mike Beebe, watched Hanna’s announcement online in another room at the Criminal Justice Center.
The video streaming will begin Thursday when the court convenes at 9 a.m.

Along with showing the oral arguments live, the video will be archived and available for people to access any time, Hannah said.

Justice Robert Brown suggested that maybe the U.S. Supreme Court should take the state court’s lead and also go online.

Stephanie Harris, communications counsel for the state Supreme Court, said the system will receive its first big test at the end of the month when oral arguments occur on behalf of Damien Echols’ appeal of his death sentence.

She said technicians plan to free up bandwidth in anticipation of the demand, adding that she has received numerous telephone calls from around the nation and the world, including a recent call from Wales, from people wanting to see the oral arguments, which are scheduled for Sept. 30.

Echols, Jason Baldwin and Jessie Misskelley were convicted in the 1993 murders of 8-year-olds Christopher Byers, Michael Moore and Stevie Branch. Baldwin and Misskelley each received life sentences.

In August, Pearl Jam singer Eddie Veder, Natalie Maines of the Dixie Chicks and actor Johnny Depp headlined a benefit concert in Little Rock support of the three.
The three and their supporters claim police and prosecutors used the defendants’ fondness of heavy metal music to label them as Satanists and obtain a conviction with no physical evidence.

The case has gained international attention over the years — there have been two HBO documentaries — and renewed interest has been generated by attorneys for the convicted who have offered what they say is new DNA and forensic evidence in the case.

Harris said it cost about $51,000 to install the necessary equipment and another $41,000 for the computer software, hardware and professional services from Granicus Inc. of San Francisco, the same firm that installed the live streaming system used by the Arkansas House of Representatives.

Source:http://arkansasnews.com/2010/09/14/supreme-court-going-live-on-internet/

Federal Court halts PS3 modchip sales

August 29th, 2010

Australia’s Federal Court has slapped a temporary ban on a handful of local retailers selling or importing hardware — commonly known as “mod chips” — that allows unauthorised software to run on Sony’s PlayStation 3.

The ban applies until 31 August while court action initiated by Sony Computer Entertainment’s Australian and European arms against three local retailers goes ahead — although the ban will be lifted if the gaming giant’s lawsuit is not successful. We first saw this story reported by the BBC.

According to court documents filed late last week, the four Australian retailers banned from selling the device are OzModChips and an individual who appears to be involved with the business — Ryan Caruana, Global Solutions International (trading as Quantronics) and Ken Tolcher (trading as Mod Supplier).

Furthermore, the court has required that the four parties actually hand over to Sony any PlayStation modchip devices they have, until the 31 August date.

OzModChips has responded to the lawsuit in a message posted on its site. “This is not OzModChips versus Sony,” the company wrote. “This is not OzModChips, Quantronics, Modsupplier versus Sony. We would go as far as saying that it is not even everyone in Australia versus Sony.”

“This will affect everyone that plans to buy such a device worldwide. It already sets a dangerous precedent. Everyone that was using OtherOS, everyone that has had a faulty PS3 laser … and those interested in PS3 custom firmware and homebrew applications.

“We cannot do it alone, we need the support of everyone in the homebrew community, the media, engineers that understand the inner workings and anyone else that can provide support.”

OzModChips also linked to a forum posting which the company said was by Quantronics, responding to the temporary injunction slapped on the three retailers.

Quantronics wrote that the injunction was “baseless”, and it was very unlikely that it would be continued or become permanent. “OzModChips, Modsupplier and myself are all close friends, share lawyers and have sought senior counsel for this matter,” wrote Quantronics.

The retailer added that the trio started in the gaming industry as kids with an ideal of changing Australia’s views on copyright law, fair use and “freedom”. “To this day, we stand for the same beliefs, values and will at any cost fight for what we believe in, the rights we should have, and in a David versus Goliath battle, we will give it our best,” they said.

Comment is being sought from Sony Computer Entertainment.

Source:http://delimiter.com.au/2010/08/30/federal-court-halts-ps3-modchip-sales/

Supreme court punts on software patent

June 29th, 2010

he U.S. Supreme Court’s upholding of an appeal court ruling in Bilski v. Kappos serves the status quo on software patent issues and constitutes a “punt” by the judicial body, as reported by my colleague Thomas Claburn at InformationWeek.
Observers of the case had seen it as an opportunity for the Supreme Court to address unresolved issues about what should or should not be covered by a patent. Proponents of the status quo argue that they are defending intellectual property rights. Proponents of change say that over-broad patents stifle innovation. Among the difficult questions that the Justices declined to tackle with Bilski v. Kappos are, as reported by Claburn:

…the appropriateness of granting patents for 20 years when different industries have different market cycles and innovation time-lines; the appropriateness of allowing ideas to be patented at all; defining universally appropriate patent infringement penalties and legal remedies like injunctions; assuring patent examiners understand the patent applications they review and have adequate resources; and approaches for dealing with abusive patent litigation.
He goes on to quote Eben Moglen of the Software Freedom Law Center to the effect that the decision leaves the IT industry in “the same miasma of uncertainty that we were in” prior to the case. Moglen argues that the current state of affairs no longer serves the industry, citing the value that open-source technology has brought to industry over the past two decades.

Source:-http://www.insurancetech.com/blog/archives/2010/06/supreme_court_p.html

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes