Tyco, SOL, and Ueta Tyco

Tyco, SOL, and UETA Tyco Trial (1) The defendants were charged with Enterprise Corruption in violation of Penal Law 460.20(1)(a), by creating and participating in a criminal enterprise, the sole purpose of which was to obtain money by theft and fraud from Tyco. In addition, the defendants were charged with larceny.

(2) To prove the enterprise corruption charge, the government had the burden of establishing that the defendants created and operated a criminal enterprise, falsified records, concealed and distorted information, and bribed others in order to further the goals of their criminal operation. The government had to prove the structure of the criminal enterprise, including that Kozlowski was the boss of the enterprise and had actual control over it. Furthermore, the government had to establish that Kozlowski used Tyco's treasury to pay his personal bills.

The government had to prove that Swartz exercised actual control over the transfer of funds and caused Tyco's filings with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission to be false and misleading. To prove the larceny charge, the government had to prove that the defendants misappropriated funds from Tyco. (3) The defendants' main defense was that they were not criminals, but were actually responsible for much success at Tyco. The defendants alleged that the government was engaging in a revisionist history, viewing their actions in a post-Enron world.

The defendants maintained that there was no proof of fraud or criminal intent and that their loans from the company were not prohibited by company policy. (4) The jurors were presented with evidence about a party for Kozlowski's wife and various perks allegedly received by Kozlowski from Tyco; however those items were not charged as larcenies and may not have been admissible. The jury was troubled with the fact that the bonuses were charged as separate larcenies. Statute of Limitations The statute of limitations governing contracts is found in Va.

Code § 59.1-508.5. The statue of limitations is four years after the right of action accrues or one year after the breach should have been discovered, but no later than give years after the right of action accrues. Va. Code § 59.1-508.5 does not distinguish between written and oral contracts. However, it does provide guidance as to when a party's right of action accrues.

Furthermore, it provides that parties can reduce the period of limitations to not less than one year after the right of action accrues, but may not extend it. Uniform Electronic Transactions Act Virginia's version of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA) is found at Va. Code § 59.1-479 et seq. The UETA applies to transactions between parties that have agreed to conduct transactions by electronic means and gives guidelines for a determination of whether or not the parties have so agreed.

Generally, an agreement to conduct a transaction electronically could not be contained in a standard form contract. An agreement to conduct a transaction electronically could not be inferred solely from a party's use of electronic means to pay an account or register a warranty. The UETA gives legal recognition to electronic records, electronic signatures, and electronic contracts. The UETA provides that a contract cannot be denied enforceability solely because it is in electronic form, or because an electronic form was used in its formation.

If the law requires a written record, an electronic record satisfies the law. Furthermore, an electronic signature satisfies legal requirements for a signature. An electronic record or electronic signature is attributable to a person if it was the act of the person. An act of a person could be shown in any manner, including a demonstration of the efficacy of the security procedures applied to determine to whom the signature or record was attributable.

If the law requires that a signature or record be notarized or otherwise verified, that requirement is satisfied if the electronic signature of a person authorized to verify the record or signature is attached to or logically associated with the signature or record. Under the UETA, if a record has to be retained, that requirement is satisfied by the retention of an electronic record that accurately reflects the information set forth in the record and remains accessible for future reference.

Under the UETA, a record or signature cannot be excluded solely because it is in electronic form. Furthermore, the UETA provides guidelines for a trier of fact to use when determining the weight to be given an electronic signature. The trier may also consider any other relative and probative evidence that could affect the validity of the electronic signature.