Tip Top Lawyer wishes you and your family Happy New Year

Canada Prohibits SIM Locks - Good News For Consumers

Starting December 1, 2017, Canadian mobile phone providers are only allowed to sell devices without SIM locks. Mobile phones, mobile modems, tablets and the like must be able to operate with all compatible SIM cards.

The CRTC, the Canadian telecom regulator o, has this on Thursday (CRTC 2017-200). With the SIM lock ban, the Canadian government wants to increase competition between mobile phone providers. Currently, there are only a few providers which caused high tariffs for consumers, especially when compared to other countries.

The CRTC 2017-200 also stipulates that mobile devices that have currently a SIM lock, must be unlocked by the mobile phone provider free of charge. The new rules will benefit consumers as well as small businesses that want to unlock. When it comes to large enterprises, mobile phone providers can still negotiate SIM locks.

Previously, some mobile phone providers have refused to unlock mobile devices that were purchased by customers for other phone networks. Since 2013, the Canadian mobile operators were obliged to remove SIM locks at the customer's request. However, they would charge a free of around 50 Canadian dollars (about 34 euros) for the unlock codes. It is estimated that the providers cashed in a total of almost 38 million Canadian dollars (around 25 million euros) in 2016. At the end of 2017, this revenue source will dry up.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has also rejected imposing a tax on broadband Internet access. The Standing Committee of Canadian Heritage of the Canadian Parliament had proposed a tax of five percent. The idea was to use the revenue to subsidize Canadian TV and video game productions.

Although the charge on cable TV connections has been abolished, the number of subscribers is decreasing. Trudeau is nevertheless against an Internet tax and justified his rejection with keeping the election promise of his Liberal Party to relieve the financial burden of low and middle income earners.

Streaming Without Borders - Europeans Can Take Their Movie and Music Streaming Subscription Abroad

The European Parliament has just passed a new regulation that allows subscribers of Netflix, Spotify, Deezer or another online service to stream abroad. They can enjoy their favorite movies, TV shows, music, or games wherever they go within the EU. Currently, subscribers trying to stream abroad get a “content not available” message.

Starting 2018, subscribers can enjoy their paid for services abroad, regardless if they stay abroad for work, study, or vacation. In case of free services, providers can decide if their content will be available abroad; they are exempt from the new regulation.

The regulation tries to bring clarity in the scope of digital rights which has become complicated due to the rise of the use of mobile devices (smartphones, tablets, etc.). Subscribers want to enjoy content everywhere, not just in their own country. According the data of the European Commission, about half of the internet users, watch movies, listen to music and play games online. This number is expected to increase, since roaming costs inside the EU will abolished starting July 15, 2017.

The new regulation is part of the EU’s Digital Single Market strategy (DSM). According to the European Commission, geo-blocking and other geographically-based restrictions also undermine online shopping and cross-border sales.

Dutch Court Allows Zero-Rating - What Is The Impact For Net Neutrality?

T-Mobile Netherlands just won a landmark court case. According to a Dutch court in the City of Rotterdam, the mobile company can continue to offer its music streaming for free. T-Mobile launched its Music Freedom in October 2016.

This is a groundbreaking verdict, since Dutch law bans companies such as T-Mobile to provide zero-rating services since it leads to unfair competition. The Dutch Consumer and Market Authority (ACM) tried to block T-Mobile from offering zero-rated music streaming, asking the court to impose fines of 50,000 euros (around $52,000) per day up to a maximum of 500,000 euros (or around $521,000) if T-Mobile would not stop its free service.

To refresh your memory, zero-rating is a well-known practice among mobile network operators (MNO), mobile virtual network operators (MVNO), and Internet service providers (ISP), where they don’t charge end customers for certain services (in this case: music streaming). The catch? Zero-rating offerings are part of a limited or metered data plan to get ahead of the competition. That’s why the ACM objected; offering free music streaming would give T-Mobile an unfair advantage.

ACM argues that zero-rating offerings might have a negative impact on fair competition between online services. It could services such as Spotify and YouTube (that use more data) at a disadvantage. Zero-rating could therefore impact the way consumers use the Internet, which would violate the net neutrality principle.

ACM board member Henk Don argued that “Dutch law is clear about zero-rating: it is not allowed. That is why ACM is taking action … There is no such thing as free data: it causes other services to become more expensive”.

The Dutch court that zero-rating is indeed forbidden under the Dutch Telecommunication Act, but that this Dutch prohibition does not apply, since the Netherlands under the European Network Neutralization Regulation was not authorized to supersede. All efforts to include the Dutch regulation regarding zero-rating have failed.

However, the court does point out that the way that T-Mobile offers its Data Free Music service could still be violating the Net Neutrality Regulation, but since ACM did not raise this argument (since it assumed that zero-rating was per se prohibited), the court did not look into this aspect. For now, T-Mobile can continue to provide its free music streaming service.

ACM is not giving up; it started a new investigation of T-Mobile zero-rated music streaming offer. This time, it will not assess if the offer base complies with Dutch net neutrality legislation, but if it violates the EU's net neutrality rules.

Stay tuned!

(Second image courtesy of T-Mobile)

Dutch Court Rules: Boy (12) May Decide Himself About Chemo Treatment

David (12) had a brain tumor that was removed in November 2016. The medical team advised that he would undergo chemotherapy to cure him permanently. However, the boy did not want to submit to this intrusive treatment. Like his mother, he put his faith in alternative treatments.

This venue was against the treatment plan of the medical staff at the Dutch Academic Medical Center (AMC). The medics estimate his survival chances at 50/50 without chemotherapy, and at 75% to 80% with chemotherapy. In the end, both parties ended up in court to decide on David’s faith.

The District Court of Alkmaar ruled that the boy is allowed to determine his own treatment. It overturned a previous court decision from December 2016 that ruled that David was incapable of making these kind of decisions by himself.

The ruling makes sense under Dutch law. From the age of 12, children are heard in custody cases to decide where to live. Children between 12 and 16 also decide (together with their parents) about medical treatments. Normally, their opinion takes precedent of that of their parents.

Do you agree? Or do you think the court was wrong?

Judge Rules: Snuggies Are Blankets, Not Garments

Just in case you wondered, a US trade court ruled that Snuggies are blankets. That’s good news for importers since the import tax will be 8.5% and not 14.9%.

In the case Allstar Mktg. Grp., LLC v. United States, Ct. Int’l Trade, 13-00395, 2/10/17, the Justice Department claimed that Snuggies are garments, similar to scholastic robes or priestly vestments, and should therefore be taxed at such.

Judge Mark Barnett of the Court of International Trade ruled otherwise. He stated that since Snuggies don’t have closures, they can be sold as blankets. The judge rejected the Justice Department’s argument that Snuggies are akin to priestly vestments or scholastic robes.

It’s not the first time that the Allstar Products Group got into hot legal waters. Last year, consumers filed complaints about the company’s unethical marketing practices. An investigation found that consumers often faced undisclosed processing and handling fees and misleading up-selling offers. The Company reached an agreement with the New York Attorney General to pay $8m to settle the case. Eric Schneiderman issued a statement noting: "This agreement returns money to thousands of consumers in New York and across the nation who believed they were buying items at the price advertised on television, but ended up with extra merchandise and hidden fees they didn't bargain for.”

The origins of the Snuggie are also fishy. It looks like Allstar Product Group ripped off the Slanket, which was invented by Gary Clegg in 1997 and has been on the market ever since.

(Image courtesy of Slanket)

Smart Contracts & Blockchain Technology - The New Reality

More and more, the legal tech scene is riddled with terms such as smart contacts and blockchain. But what do these terms entail and how do their technologies impact the legal arena?

Looking at blockchain first, it is a database that is specifically protected against subsequent changes to its content. Falsifications or manipulations of data are thus virtually impossible to accomplish. On a technical level, this is made possible by storing a hash value of a previous data set in the new data set when the data is changed. Applying blockchain technology is particularly relevant when used as a distributed database (peer-to-peer). This eliminates the need for a central server system of a third party that needs to be trusted (such as money transfers to the server of a bank).

This kind of application is generally known as Bitcoin, which was established in 2009, making it the oldest blockchain application in a peer-to-peer network. Smart contracts are independently monitored in real time and automatically enforced according to previously defined terms between contract partners.

Smart contracts can independently monitor contracts in real time and automatically enforce previously defined rights of contract partners. When combined with blockchain technology, they can ensure that all transactions are legal and self-monitoring. This is particularly important when the contract parties are not familiar with each other and therefore have a trust issue.

There are currently very few legal applications for smart contracts for blockchain technology. However, this will change over time, since “smart” is gaining ground (just consider smart homes and the Internet of Things). The advantages of the combination of smart contract and blockchain technology is obvious: it can not be manipulable, and it is autonomous, decentralized and anonymous. The legal language in the future will become more and more a programming language - Code is Law.

Will the Lex Heineken Come Into Force?

The Hungarian government is cracking down on the commercial use of Nazi or communist symbols such as swastikas, hammer and sickles, or a red stars. The reason given is respect for the victims of the Holocaust and communism. Heineken’s red start has therefore seen as “an obvious political meaning”. Under the “Lex Heineken”, the Dutch brewery is looking at a fine of 6 million euro.

As with most laws and regulations, it has an interesting back story. For starters,  Hungarian restaurants like to promote local wines and beers. The consumption of beer is around 80 liter per person. The most consumed beers are from SAB Miller and Heineken. The ban could be a clever attempt to block foreign competition (which is not allowed under EU law).

Furthermore, Heineken won an infringement court case against a Hungarian-owned small brewery in Romania. Heineken sells a Csiki Premium beer, while the Rumanian brewery produces Csiki Sör (Csiki Beer). The court ruled in favor of Heineken, and the name Csiki Sör cannot be used anymore. The nationalistic Hungarian government likes to stick up for its minorities across its borders. The ban could be seen as a revenge act.

Last but not least, the government of Viktor Orbán is against the presence of international companies in Hungary. The central and local authorities believe that those internationals sell inferior quality of EU products in Eastern Europe, while Western Europe enjoys top quality.

The “Lex Heineken” is currently being discussed in parliament. Even if it passes, it is unlikely that it will stand up. Chasing strategic partner and tax payer Heineken out of Hungary is not a smart move.

European Court of Justice: Calling customer service cannot be more expensive than normal phone calls

The European Court just rules that calling customer service cannot be more expensive than normal phone calls. In the case of the German company Comtech, this electronic web shop used a paid 0180-number to reach its helpdesk. The German organization fighting against unfair business practices appealed to the District Court of Stuttgart to put an end to these additional costs for the caller. The District Court referred the case to the European Court in Luxembourg.

The case related to the interpretation of a European Directive which states that customers of a company's customer service should be able to call for the standard call rate. But what exactly is the “standard rate” remains unclear.

The general principle is that service should be free of charge.

The European Court ruled that customer service should not be more expensive than a “fixed line call of cell call”. It does not really matter if a company makes a profit or not regarding the additional telephone costs. Higher costs discourage customers to request information, to claim the product warranty or to cancel their subscription, as explained by the Court.

“We are happy with this ruling”, stated the Consumers Association. “Service has to be free of charge. That is a point of principle.” Companies should only charge normal call rates, which many companies already do.” 

This post was written by Tip Top Lawyer.

Chanel vs Chanelle Nailbar - Fair or Foul?

The owner of Chanelle Nailbar got a nasty surprise: Fashion and beauty empire Chanel was not amused by the use of its name and promptly sent a cease and desist letter. 

Owner Le Ngyun was surprised, she came up with the name by combining the first name of her daughter (Chanel) with her own family name (Le). Business is booming - her Chanelle Nailbar became a household name when it was mentioned as the best nail studio in the Netherlands by the Dutch TV channel RTL.

According to the lawyer of Chanel, Ms. R. van der Straaten, she infringes on the IP of Chanel since Chanelle Nailbar profits from the appeal of the well-known Chanel brand. 

Chanel is willing to forfeit any claims, providing that Ms. Le changes her trade name to avoid confusion. The company understands that is was never Le’s intent to infringe on the IP of Chanel. That’s why Chanel is willing to find a new name together with Ms. Le. Chanel does however claim a penalty of 1,000 euro per day that Ms. Le keeps on using her Chanelle trade name, as well as 750 euro in legal fees.

Ms. Le is uncertain what to do. She is attached to the Chanelle trade name since it has personal and emotional value as well as commercial value.

The (social) media got involved - making all kinds of suggestions for new names such as “Chanaile” and “Nachelle”. A legal secretary of a law firm situated opposite of the nail studio used it as an opportunity to drum up business for her bosses and wrote that Ms. Le can drop in anytime for advice.

What do you think? Brands such as Chanel invest a lot of time and money to build and protect their brand, so it makes sense that they take an aggressive approach. But small entrepreneurs might also use a similar brand for legitimate reasons. 

Who is right in this case? The jury is out…

Google's Sense of Humor

Google has a sense of humor. When Alphabet announced that it would buy back part of its own shares, it looked like a standard announcement. 

Companies regularly buy back their own stock when they have a lot of money in their coffers or when they have the feeling that their stock in undervalued. 

But what is hilarious in this case is the price of the buy back: USD 7,019,340,976.83. This number is the sum of 26 (the number of letters in the current alphabet) to the power of the mathematical constant e times one million. 

It would have been easy (and so boring!) to announce a price of USD 7b, so why not throw in another USD 19m plus to have some fun? Especially when money is not an object!

It is not the first time that Google has some nerdy fun, just look at the name Google itself. It’s a play on the words “googol” which stands for the number 1 with one hundred zeros.

It is not the first time that Alphabet had this kind of fun. In 2015, it bought back shares in the amount of USD 5,099,019,513.59. That number is the square root of 26 times one million.

When Google went public, the intention was to raise USD 2,718,281,828 which is 1 billion times the mathematical constant e. Google obviously has a thing for this constant, it also used it when is made its offer of USD 3.14b for Nortel Networks. Unsuccessfully so, the Nortel’s patent portfolio was sold for USD 4.5m.

Stay tuned for the next nerdy announcement!

China’s New Cybersecurity Law

China has formulated its new cybersecurity law that will come into force on June 1, 2017. Dubbed “Golden Shield”, it regulates internet access and data traffic which will be within the domain "order and security of the cyberspace" legislation. In short, information will be censored as it was before. That being said, the exact scope, impact and extend of the new law is not entirely clear. All in all, the new cybersecurity law encompasses 79 articles which you can read here.

The new law consist of seven chapters containing rules and regulations for two types of data, namely regulations for the protection of personal data, and regulations for the protection of critical information infrastructures. To clarify, critical information infrastructure relates to data connected with energy, transport, water supply, finance, public service and e-government infrastructures.

The new law determines that the hardware or software of foreign companies relating to critical infrastructures must be examined beforehand by Chinese officials conducting security audits. It is unclear if such audits would also include the disclosure of source codes. This is a major concern, since China has shown in the past that it has a keen interest in looking at source codes of foreign companies such as Apple.

Furthermore, the new law mandates that personal data and other important critical information infrastructure data must be stored within the Chinese territory. Internet users are also required to register with their real name. This means that Internet providers or providers of messenger services may not allow users who use an alias or screen name to register.

According to the new law, denying or revoking a license may result in penalties. In addition, the Ministry of Public Security may, in the event of suspected threats to the critical information infrastructure, freeze the accounts and other assets of foreign companies or persons.

Amnesty International mentioned in its annual report of 2016 that China for the first time conducted an internet security assessment of internet law. The law originally focused on maintaining national security and the social order. It provides for the possibility of prohibiting the use of Internet by individuals and groups, when such use would impact national security. As a result, freedom of expression and privacy could be restricted.

To read the full law in English, click here. The English translation is courtesy of China Law Translate.

Highest court in Austria: "Average readers assume that media contributions are not neutral"

The Austrian Supreme Court (Oberste Gerichtshof or OGH) has ruled on the obligation of newspapers to label “convenience” articles as sponsored content. Under Austrian law, articles that are published in return for advertisements do not have to be labeled as such. 

According to the Court, the "average reader" does not assume that media are neutral, explaining that such an obligation only applies to paid publications, but not to publications of “mere convenience”.

This case involved a legal dispute between two free newspapers. One of the free newspapers complained that the other free newspaper was publishing editorial articles in return for paid ads without indicating that the articles are sponsored.

The court ruled that "The average, attentive and critical reader today assumes that editorial contributions in periodical media are not “neutral” and therefore not completely objective. When published articles are written by journalists, including well-known and reputable ones, those articles reflect their personal opinions, be it in political, scientific or economic aspect."

If, however, money is spent on the concrete publication of contributions, then these must continue to be marked as "advertisements", "advertising", “paid content” or "sponsored" under Austrian law.

With its ruling, the Supreme Court has reversed the previous rulings of two lower courts that each confirmed that “convenience” articles must be labeled as sponsored content.

The PR Ethics Council in Austria criticized the judgment as being "highly problematic". According to Gabriele Faber-Wiener, chairperson of the PR Ethics Council, "the ruling will open the door for intertwined business interests and readers will be deceived."

(Image: © Hubertl / Wikimedia Commons / License CC-BY-SA 4.0)

How The Police Caught Speeders In 1895

Alexander Gütermann was the proud owner of a “Benz-Motor-Pferd”, a belt-driven car. He could afford it - he was the owner of Gütermann Ltd, a manufacturer of sewing yards and twines and threats. In comparison, if he would have lived today, he would be driving a Tesla. He loved to speed and did not care much about the maximum speed limit of 6 kilometer per hour. The police gave him several times an official warning.

That did not stop Alexander to take his car on the sunny afternoon of May 15, 1895 for a spin in Waldkirch, a small town near Freiburg. He was happily speeding when the police caught him in the act.  So how did the police measure his speed before radar speed guns were invented? Well, more by keen observation; Alexander was driving at such a high speed that “curtains of the local pub were fluttering”. The fiend! He got a speeding ticket of 3 DM, not a small sum at the time. (It was the daily wage of a miner at the time).

In case you wonder, he never crashed the car. It can still be admired in the PS.Speicher bicycle & car museum in Einbeck, Germany. In 2015, it even took part in the traditional car rally from London to Brighton.

The original speeding ticket is show below.

The German academic who ghostwrites for academics - Clever business, but morally…

Want to graduate but don’t want to write your thesis? No problem! If you study in Germany, you can hire the enterprising Ms. Eva Nowak. She runs a thriving business ghostwriting theses. Ms. Nowak started with helping graduates with their academic research. She soon found out that writing their theses (for a fee of course) presented a unique business opportunity.

She currently has a staff of Ph. D. academics in various fields, including law and social science. The work involves research and writing without (oh, irony) copying existing theses and sources that are IP protected.

Ms. Nowak operates in a grey area; it’s her students that are facing repercussions when caught, not her since she only facilitates. Interviewed on German television, one of her customers justified her hiring Nowak to help her graduate with flying colors a follows: “My dad passed away, I have three small kids. It was impossible to keep up.”

Nowak emphasized that people turn to her not because they are lazy, but since circumstances forced them. She did not address the ethical issue at any time during her TV interview.

I have my own take on this. For one, writing a thesis is a wonderful exercise that forces you as an academic to focus, study, research, analyze, execute, follow up, write, present and defend. It build skills that are priceless is anyone’s career.

Taking the “Nowak Shortcut” gives the “cheater” an unfair advantage over all those that put their own efforts in their theses. Furthermore, the ethics of such a person are questionable to say the least, so any university or employer should think twice before hiring such a person.

As for Ms. Nowak, she does not lose any sleep over it. She rakes in Euro 40 per page, which totals Euro 4,000 for a standard 100-page thesis. Not bad, since the turnaround time is 4 weeks. I calculate her monthly income at Euro 16,000 up.

My advice to universities and employers: let potential employees sign a statement that they never, ever, used ghostwriting and/or third party services to obtain and/or contribute to their academic credentials including, but not limited to, ghostwriting their theses…..all at the risk of being fired and facing a hefty penalty fee.

This blog post was written by Debra De-Jong, who wrote her own thesis all by herself (as it should be).

(Image courtesy of RTL Nord) 

How Stairway to Heaven turned into Highway to Legal Hell

Randy Wolfe used to be the guitarist of Spirit and composed the number Taurus for the band in 1967. Wolfe aka Randy California was also hired by other bands to write songs. In 1971, Led Zeppelin made music history with its “Stairway to Heaven” which was written by Robert Plant and Jimmy Page. The track features on Led Zeppelin’s untitled fourth studio album, often referred to as “Led Zeppelin IV”.

Michael Skidmore, a trustee for the late Randy Wolfe, is suing Led Zeppelin for copyright infringement. Skidmore claims that Plant and Page wrote “Stairway to Heaven” for Led Zeppelin after hearing Spirit perform Taurus while both bands were touring together in 1968-1969. According to Skidmore, Led Zeppelin never gave Wolfe any credit for his contribution. Skidmore states that the first two minutes of Stairway to Heaven are identical to those of Taurus. According to the lawsuit, Wolfe complained about the similarities of the songs in 1997 shortly before his death in an interview.

US district judge Gary Klausner found that there are indeed enough “substantial”’ similarities to warrant a court case. He pointed out those first two minutes are “arguably the most recognizable and important segments” of the songs.

“While it is true that a descending chromatic four-chord progression is a common convention that abounds in the music industry, the similarities here transcend this core structure,” the judge wrote. “What remains is a subjective assessment of the ‘concept and feel’ of two works ... a task no more suitable for a judge than for a jury.” (Skidmore also wanted to sue Led Zeppelin bassist John Paul Jones and Warner Music Group, but those claims were thrown out of court).

Led Zeppelin’s lead singer Robert Plant and guitarist Jimmy Page don’t have a choice; they must appear in court (scheduled for June 14) to defend themselves against the claim that they infringed Wolfe’s copyright. For now, they take the view that Wolfe was a songwriter-for-hire and had no copyright claim to begin with. Furthermore, they point out that the chord progressions are so common, that those cannot be protected by copyright anyway. They have a point: “Sonata di Chitarra, e Violino, con il suo Basso Continuo” written by Italian Baroque guitar player and composer Giovanni Battista Granata (1620-1687), features the Stairway to Heaven melody.



Even if the jury would decide in favor of the Wolfe, Skidmore as the trustee would only get up to 50% of any damages awarded, due to the terms and conditions of the contract that Wolfe signed way back in 1967. According to Skidmore and his lawyer Francis Malofiy, it’s all about getting credit. “This case, from our perspective, has always been about giving credit where credit was due, and now we get to right that wrong.” It’s not that simple - once an artist is credited, he or she is automatically entitled to part of the proceeds.

For Led Zeppelin, its iconic Stairway to Heaven had turned to a Highway to Legal Hell courtesy of a bar-brawling lawyer.

Snapchatter beware - Making a screenshot of other people's Snapchat pictures and videos could be illegal

Snapchat, the social media platform that deletes posts after 10 seconds, is a firm favorite of people sending pictures and videos to friends. However, a follower could make a screenshot of an embarrassing selfie or pic, which means that it will be around forever.

Needless to say, this is highly embarrassing for the “victims” - if they wanted it to be around, they would have used Facebook, Instagram or Flickr. But there is more to it; making a screenshot could also be illegal.

Ed Vaizey, the UK's Culture Minister, stated that if a Snapchat user saves someone else's picture and shares it again without their permission, they are leaving themselves open to being sued under British copyright law.

This makes sense, since selfies and images are protected by IP laws. Once someone shares Snapchat content of other users without their permission, that person infringes on their copyright and therefore could be sued.

As the minister explained: "Under UK copyright law, it would be unlawful for a Snapchat user to copy an image and make it available to the public without the consent of the image owner. The image owner would be able to sue anyone who does this for copyright infringement.”

Snapchat photos are automatically deleted after 10 seconds. The Snapchat privacy policy states that if Snapchat is able to detect that a recipient has taken a screenshot of an image, they will try to inform the original poster. Needless to say, Snapchat advises users to avoid messages which they would not want to be saved or shared.

Bottom line: it’s better to be safe than sorry. Do not post, share or pin any image that could be considered to be sexual, obnoxious or embarrassing. Be aware that reposting, sharing or repinning such an image without permission makes you liable. In the UK, that would mean up to two years imprisonment. The current maximum penalty for copyright infringement in the UK is up to 10 years in prison and an 'unlimited' fine.

Ergo, caveat usarius Snapchati!

Rabobank Persuades the Courts to Ban Publication of Its Art Practices

It reads like a great novel – The Pledge (De Verpanding) by Paulien Derwort. The book claim that "everything seems legitimate when hunting for the artworks”.

;

According to the book, Rabobank committed art theft, encouraging its bank employees to hunt for the art collections of its art dealer clients. The narrative tells the true story of two clients of the Foundation Residual Debt Fair Share. The art dealers fell victim to the Rabobank department which 'deals' with entrepreneurs in financial distress. Ms. Derwort claims in the book that Rabobank used all kinds of tricks to fleece those clients resulting them being stuck with mounting debts..

The book concentrates on two entrepreneurs ran into financial trouble:. Mr. Wim Koperberg, an art dealer, and Ms. Tessa van Veen, who runs the Collection Hopster Van Goudzwaard Foundation together with her husband. They claim that Rabobank was able to dissolve their complete capital, and plundered and stole. “If I would have any money left, I would have sued them for theft, fraud. Abuse of ‘care obligation’, abuse of lien, and unethical behavior.”

The plot thickened when “bank critic” George van Houts.decided to release the names of Rabobank employees in question, stating that ”These gentlemen believe that they are acting on behalf of Rabobank, turning off their conscience. They believe that they remain complete anonymous ... Where have we heard that before? "

Needless to say, Rabobank took action, and sued Van Houts. During the court hearing, one of the Rabobnk employees stated that he and his colleague were “angry and hurt” by the publication. He stated that his job is “intensive and involves making tough decisions”, and that he works as an Rabobank employee and not as a private person. He told the court that he feels that it is unacceptable that his name and that of his colleagues is “dragged through te mud” based on so many false facts.

The District Court agreed and ruled that the book “De Verpanding” should not have mentioned any individual Rabobank employee by name. The ruling forced the publisher not only to recall all copies already in bookshops, but also those already purchased by readers.

Due to the controversy, the book has been sold out and is a collector’s item.The reputation of the Rabobank department has suffered; more people have come forward claiming to be victimized by “the bloodhounds”.

The Rich Are At It Again; Cheating on Their Taxes - The Bar Refaeli Story

There is a long list of celebrities who cheated on their taxes. Considering their net income, it’s quite amusing that they avoid paying taxes since they are not exactly poverty-stricken.

The latest culprit is Israeli supermodel Bar Refaeli. The woman dodged serving in the army by entering into a fake marriage, so it should not come as a big surprise that she stiffed her government who uses the funds to protect its citizens with e.g., iron dome.

Bar Refaeli tried to weasel out of the allegations by claiming that she lived abroad. Well, that did not exactly fly - the Israel Tax Authority had the woman arrested for allegedly evading millions of dollars in taxes. She was grilled for 12 hours.

As a supermodel, she received a lot of freebies for which she should have paid income tax on. She didn’t, just enjoying her perks such as luxury apartments and cars without any accountability. The woman also stayed in luxury apartments registered under her mother and brother’s names, and also used Range Rover and Lexus cars free of charge. The Israel Tax Authority notices that she enjoyed unreported income amounted to “dozens of millions of shekels.”

The Refaeli women defended themselves, claiming that the model lived outside of Israel. Needless to say, that did not fly. The Israel Tax Authorities were not amused, showing that DiCaprio’s ex and her Mummy enjoyed “celebrity discounts” such as free interior decorating, which they never reported.

The homes of both Refaeli women were raided this week. On Thursday, they were arrested and released on bail. They were forced to fork over their passports and can’t leave Israel without permission for 180 days. Quel horreur!

Moral of the story - don’t cheat on your taxes! It’s just not worthwhile. Tax authorities all over the world have long memories, unlimited resources, and the tenacity to hunt you down. Do yourself a favor, just pay your dues - especially if you are an egomaniac celebrity! (Or any member of their money-hungry posse)

(Image courtesy of K Bar from TA, IL at Flickr)

Could Dutch Police Be Allowed To Hack Suspects Very Soon?

A new Dutch law proposed to the Dutch parliament would allow Dutch police to hack suspects (yes, even via WhatsApp!). Needless to say, it created a firestorm. Those opposing it consider the concept law to be a breach of privacy, while supporters applaud it as an important step towards security. The main question is: why is this new law necessary? And what does this Hack Law entail?

Funny enough, nobody really knows. Although the new Hack Law has been announced by the government, the Dutch House of Representatives still has to approve.

What is known, that the police should have extensive leeway to hack suspects as part of the broader picture to fight terrorism. Furthermore, the threshold for allowing police hacking should be low in order for it to be effective.

However, some academics, such as Professor Nico van Eijk, reason that hacking is not really an anti-terrorism measure. (Personally, I disagree).
De Dutch intelligence services AIVD and MIVD that are fighting terrorism, are already allowed to hack. Therefore, granting the same rights to the police would just be an extension of an existing and accepted practice.

It is not clear yet what the parameters for hacking by the police will be. Funny enough, the proposed concept is already two years old; the threshold for tapping into Internet and telephone traffic is therefore far from new.

Opponents of the concept law claim that the police could use security vulnerabilities in software on the devices of suspects. That might be true, but security vulnerabilities could also be used by hackers; just compare it to a faulty lock on your windows that allows crooks as well as the police to easily enter your premises.

Will the concept law pass? Quite likely, considering the recent attacks in Paris and Beirut.

This blog post was written by Debra De-Jong of Tip Top Lawyer

 http://www.tiptoplawyer.com