Name : Malaika Irfan

Roll No: bl1636

Subject: English

Date: 03-feb-2021

Q1) What were your three takeaways from case study 1”mountain boys”?

Ans: After Studying case study 1 the three takeaways i got are further below:

1) The first thing which i understand was how smuggling is done on the international level, and
how to maintain the procedure of it as it requires so much intelligence to handle smuggling.
2) The second thing that i understand was how to export illicit (PGM) platinum group metals,
there are five clearly distinguishable levels of activities used by the
group mountain boys to smuggle PGMs. The various levels of the
criminal operators in the illicit PGM industry can be described as
follows:
 Level 1 "the runners”
 Level 2 “the middleman”
 Level 3 "national buyers"
 Level 4 "the local syndicate leader"
 Level 5 "the international buyers"
3) And, the third thing that i understand from the case study 1 was the charges that
werecharged against the smugglers For instance, the charges against two defendants, Kevin
Naidoo and Terrence James,For instance, the charges against two defendants, Kevin Naidoo
and Terrence James were finalized as both pleaded guilty in terms of section
105 A (plea agreement).

Q2) Case/s 2:

a)Tell me about Genovese family, La Cosa Nostra families in the U.S. and the Luchese family.

Ans: After studying case study 2 i understand that the Genovese crime family is one of the the five
families that dominate organized crime crime activities in New York city and New Jersey as a part of
the American Mafia. The head of the Genovese family was named as Vincent Gigante. He was a
member of the Commission, a body that governed La Cosa Nostra families
throughout the United States. He and Vittorio "Vic" Amuso - the head of the
Lucchese family - were centrally involved in a scheme to control the multi-
million dollar window replacement business in New York City. They carried
out the scheme through the Genovese family's control of window
replacement companies, which made labour payoffs to the window
replacement union that the Lucchese family controlled.
b) Also tell why Gigante conspired to kill Savino & did he succeed in killing him?

Ans: After studying case study 2 i found that Gignate conspired to kill Peter Savino (an associate of
the genovese family because he correctly believed that Savino had begun
cooperating with law enforcement agents. The plan to kill Savino did not
succeed, however, because Savino entered the witness protection
programme and Gigante was therefore unable to locate him.

Q3) After reading the excerpt given below, share in your own words Gigante’s stance and
the government’s stance on the 2-way-closed-circuit-tv-testimony.

Ans.After reading the give excerpt i understand that the Gignate stance was that he raises three
challenges to his conviction. First, he contends that the district court violated his confrontation rights
under the Sixth Amendment by allowing a government witness to testify via two-way closed-circuit
television from a remote location. Second, he argues that the trial court improperly allowed testimony
under the co-conspirator exception to the hearsay definition. Finally, Gigante argues that the district
court erred in finding that he was competent to stand trial. For the reasons set forth below, we reject
each of Gigante’s arguments and affirm his conviction.
More fundamentally, the government argues that Gigante waived his confrontation rights through his
own misconduct, with protracted attempts to delay his own trial by feigning incompetence. We need
not resolve these questions relating to possible waiver, however, because Gigante's claim fails on the
merits: under the circumstances of this case, the procedures by which Savino testified did not violate
Gigante's confrontation rights.
Q4) .case study 3
(a)Define obstruction to justice. What does organised crime convention say about this
offence?
Ans. To obstruct justice, a person must knowingly and/or willfully interfere
with the pursuit of justice. This interference could be in the form of a threat
to a witness, juror, or other legal officials. Interference could also be in the
form of physical harm, undue influence or even hindering in the discovery or
apprehension of a suspect for a crime. A person who provides information
that they know to be false in the course of an investigation or legal process
may also be accused of obstruction of justice.

(b)Who, in case study 3, were suspected of obstructing justice. Provide evidence.

Ans. After studying case study 3, I found that the there were five police officers named as
Schertzer, Steven Correia, Joseph Miched, Nebojsa Maodus and Raymond
Pollard who were suspected of obstructing justice. The accused were
suspected of obstructing justice by various means, including falsification of
their memo books, inclusion of misleading or false information in police
records, preparation of false affidavits, perjury and failing to account for
evidence seized.

Q5) what’s a mutual legal assistance request? Which country withdrew it in case 3 and why?
Ans) Mutual legal assistance (MLA) in criminal matters is a process by which States seek for and
provide assistance to other States in servicing of judicial document and gathering evidence for use in
criminal cases. The embassy sends the request on to the competent judicial authorities of the
requested state and The mutual legal assistance request was then withdrawn by
Canada because In 2008, pursuant to the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal
Matters Treaty binding Spain and Canada, Canadian prosecutors asked to
conduct the interview of Fagundo in Spain.