[Exhibitman]

This civil/criminal dichotomy that some posters here are citing as having some exculpatory value is nonsense. Acts that are civil wrongs are also criminal acts and vice versa. Whether or not an act is prosecuted as a crime says nothing about whether the act satisfies the elements of a crime. It has more to do with whether there is a complaint made to the authorities by a victim, to which authority the complaint is made, how easy it is to prove the case, whether the case has sufficient public considerations and interests to justify the expense of prosecution, whether the case is part of a civil action already [I have heard prosecutors say that they do not like to be used as a collections agency by a civil litigant], and a bunch of other considerations I am certainly missing. I will give you two concrete examples:

1. I had a case with a client accused of defrauding a securities investor. I defended the civil case the investor filed against him. The alleged victim/plaintiff then decided to take the matter to the D.A. in Ventura. The D.A. decided to allocate the resources to investigate the case and then decided to prosecute it once the investigation was done. My client pleaded guilty to a lesser offense in return for a light, no-prison sentence, and then lost the civil trial.

2. Another client of mine was swindled out of a lot of money in a stock investment that was sold to him in violation of the state's securities laws. I turned the matter into the Los Angeles District Attorney's office and to the state Attorney General's securities division for investigation but they declined to prosecute. My client eventually received compensation via a civil action.

In each case the act did not change; the difference was how it was perceived and handled by the prosecuting authority.