Bernard Flinn operated a business known as Harvey Investment Co., Inc./High Risk Loans. Flinn worked as a loan broker, matching those who came to him with lenders willing to loan them money given their credit history and the amount involved. From 1982 through 1985, Flinn found loans for five people. Indiana requires that persons engaged in the business of brokering loans obtain a license from the state. Flinn was prosecuted for brokering loans without having a license. He raised the defense that he did not know that a license was required and that, accordingly, he lacked the criminal intent to broker loans without having a license. Does Flinn have a good defense?

Question

Business

Cesar Barnett

23 July, 18:28

Bernard Flinn operated a business known as Harvey Investment Co., Inc./High Risk Loans. Flinn worked as a loan broker, matching those who came to him with lenders willing to loan them money given their credit history and the amount involved. From 1982 through 1985, Flinn found loans for five people. Indiana requires that persons engaged in the business of brokering loans obtain a license from the state. Flinn was prosecuted for brokering loans without having a license. He raised the defense that he did not know that a license was required and that, accordingly, he lacked the criminal intent to broker loans without having a license. Does Flinn have a good defense?

+1

Answers (1)

Know the Answer?

Yurem Bright · Answer 1

The defense was not valid as per court.

Explanation:

The Indiana requirement of having license before initiating a credit business is to be fulfilled before starting the transactions and according to the customs when starting such business, a research is properly done to avoid any future claims and get firsthand knowledge of business initiation process.

Flinn's statement to be unaware of the fact that it is necessary to get license, and non-criminal intentions are not justifiable as per the law because law is more of explicit things rather than implicit, i. e. acts and intentions, respectively.

So, the defense is not justifiable.