The state crime lab has contracted AB Investigative Services (ABIS) to prepare a forensic plan to ensure that current problems with computer forensic investigations are erased and training is provided.
An initial ABIS audit shows that many areas of the lab are not prepared to conduct extensive computer forensic evidence collection. You have been asked to prepare a set of recommendations on how to handle the following areas and related problems:
Forensic plan and policy adherence: How will the investigator and the lab ensure proper QA and QC over computer forensic products? Order of volatility: How do we deal with suppliers, distributors, and end-consumers? Do we offer special pricing to different customer sets? Inventory and warehouse management: How do we handle returns? Customer service: How will customers communicate with us? Security and privacy: How do we protect our intellectual property and customer data? Technology: Should we outsource any applications/functions? What new technology applications are required to accommodate e-business? Sample Solution
âMay refuse to apply or withdraw the benefit of all or any part of the provisions⦠where it appears the merger⦠has at its principal objective or one of its principal objectives tax evasion or tax avoidanceâ It then went on to emphasise that in line with the general principle that abuse of rights is prohibited, Article 11(1)a of the Directive states that individuals: âmust not improperly or fraudulently take advantage of provisions of Community law.â , along with stating that the application of Community law cannot cover transactions carried out not in the context of commercial operations, but âsolely for the purpose of wrongfully obtaining advantages provided for by Community lawâ. In this instance it is apparent the Court adopted a rather flexible use of concepts which it had been using in its anti-abuse case law. Although Halifax formed a appeared to accept the prohibition of abuse of EU law as a general principle, the Court did not characterise the prohibition as such. The Court did not make the pivotal distinction between two anti-abuse doctrines. The first of these entails prohibiting tax advantages when tax considerations were the only way to determine the taxpayerâs legal behaviour and there was no other credible explanation based on objectively ascertainable facts. The second involves a doctrine in which tax considerations may be the principal (or one of the princ>
âMay refuse to apply or withdraw the benefit of all or any part of the provisions⦠where it appears the merger⦠has at its principal objective or one of its principal objectives tax evasion or tax avoidanceâ It then went on to emphasise that in line with the general principle that abuse of rights is prohibited, Article 11(1)a of the Directive states that individuals: âmust not improperly or fraudulently take advantage of provisions of Community law.â , along with stating that the application of Community law cannot cover transactions carried out not in the context of commercial operations, but âsolely for the purpose of wrongfully obtaining advantages provided for by Community lawâ. In this instance it is apparent the Court adopted a rather flexible use of concepts which it had been using in its anti-abuse case law. Although Halifax formed a appeared to accept the prohibition of abuse of EU law as a general principle, the Court did not characterise the prohibition as such. The Court did not make the pivotal distinction between two anti-abuse doctrines. The first of these entails prohibiting tax advantages when tax considerations were the only way to determine the taxpayerâs legal behaviour and there was no other credible explanation based on objectively ascertainable facts. The second involves a doctrine in which tax considerations may be the principal (or one of the princ>
