Interpreter Billing Statement And Verification Form: Fill & Download for Free

GET FORM

Download the form

A Complete Guide to Editing The Interpreter Billing Statement And Verification Form

Below you can get an idea about how to edit and complete a Interpreter Billing Statement And Verification Form in seconds. Get started now.

  • Push the“Get Form” Button below . Here you would be taken into a webpage making it possible for you to make edits on the document.
  • Choose a tool you want from the toolbar that appears in the dashboard.
  • After editing, double check and press the button Download.
  • Don't hesistate to contact us via [email protected] regarding any issue.
Get Form

Download the form

The Most Powerful Tool to Edit and Complete The Interpreter Billing Statement And Verification Form

Edit Your Interpreter Billing Statement And Verification Form Instantly

Get Form

Download the form

A Simple Manual to Edit Interpreter Billing Statement And Verification Form Online

Are you seeking to edit forms online? CocoDoc can help you with its detailed PDF toolset. You can make full use of it simply by opening any web brower. The whole process is easy and quick. Check below to find out

  • go to the PDF Editor Page of CocoDoc.
  • Upload a document you want to edit by clicking Choose File or simply dragging or dropping.
  • Conduct the desired edits on your document with the toolbar on the top of the dashboard.
  • Download the file once it is finalized .

Steps in Editing Interpreter Billing Statement And Verification Form on Windows

It's to find a default application capable of making edits to a PDF document. Luckily CocoDoc has come to your rescue. Check the Manual below to find out how to edit PDF on your Windows system.

  • Begin by adding CocoDoc application into your PC.
  • Upload your PDF in the dashboard and make edits on it with the toolbar listed above
  • After double checking, download or save the document.
  • There area also many other methods to edit your PDF for free, you can check this ultimate guide

A Complete Guide in Editing a Interpreter Billing Statement And Verification Form on Mac

Thinking about how to edit PDF documents with your Mac? CocoDoc offers a wonderful solution for you.. It enables you to edit documents in multiple ways. Get started now

  • Install CocoDoc onto your Mac device or go to the CocoDoc website with a Mac browser.
  • Select PDF document from your Mac device. You can do so by hitting the tab Choose File, or by dropping or dragging. Edit the PDF document in the new dashboard which includes a full set of PDF tools. Save the file by downloading.

A Complete Manual in Editing Interpreter Billing Statement And Verification Form on G Suite

Intergating G Suite with PDF services is marvellous progess in technology, with the potential to cut your PDF editing process, making it faster and more cost-effective. Make use of CocoDoc's G Suite integration now.

Editing PDF on G Suite is as easy as it can be

  • Visit Google WorkPlace Marketplace and find CocoDoc
  • install the CocoDoc add-on into your Google account. Now you can edit documents.
  • Select a file desired by hitting the tab Choose File and start editing.
  • After making all necessary edits, download it into your device.

PDF Editor FAQ

In this age of “fake news” and “alternative facts,” how do we know that the so-called fact-checking sources are accurate and honest arbiters of what is true and what is false?

Dr. Julian Bashir: You know, I still have a lot of questions to ask you about your past.Elim Garak: I have given you all the answers I'm capable of.Bashir: You've given me answers, all right; but they were all different. What I want to know is, out of all the stories you told me, which ones were true and which ones weren't?Garak: (slightly agahst) My dear Doctor, they're all true!Bashir: Even the lies?Garak: Especially the lies!- Star Trek: Deep Space Nine, “The Wire”Back when I used to teach high school language arts, I did a unit with my sophomores on critical thinking and source evaluation that focused on essentially this very question.Not specifically Snopes or Politifact, but all sources.How do you know that what you’re reading or viewing is credible and accurate?I started the unit by asking how many of my students believed in the Grand Canyon. All of them raised their hands. I asked them how many had been to the Grand Canyon. Usually a few would keep their hands up, no more than three or so. I’d ask how much of it they had viewed. Whether they measured its depth or length personally.By the time we were done, no student could ever definitively say for absolute sure that the Grand Canyon, precisely as described in scientific literature, existed for sure.Then I’d ask the students to find some event that they had all witnessed personally, usually something recent. I’d have them write down as many details as possible personally, and then go start comparing on the board.They’d start to notice inconsistencies between themselves. “Why?” I would ask, while hiding a smile. They were all there, right? Why is it that they remember it different? What’s the truth?This answer will be long. There will not be a TL;DR version.Pretty much everything in source evaluation comes down to credibility. You have to decide whether or not you trust that source. You have to decide whether the scientists who measured the length, depth, and width of the Grand Canyon were honest about it. You have to trust that any student had an accurate perception of an event.There’s just one problem with that trust: human beings really suck at intuiting who to trust.We all routinely tend to overestimate our abilities to determine whether or not someone is telling the truth.[1] We are very prone to disbelieving facts that do not correlate with our inbuilt implicit biases, or which challenge our core beliefs.[2] And likewise, we are prone to automatically accept information that verifies our core beliefs without challenging it.[3] [4]Some people are more prone to this than others.[5]This is why eyewitnesses to a crime are actually surprisingly untrustworthy.[6] Our very memories are not necessarily as reliable as we’d like to believe.[7]So, who should you trust? And what factors tell you that you can you trust them?There are some important things to think about whenever evaluating sources.(1) Do I want to believe it?Do you know you have more nerve endings in your stomach than in your head? Look it up. Now somebody's gonna say, "I did look that up and it's wrong." Well mister, that's cause you looked it up in a book. Next time, try looking it up in your gut. I did. And my gut tells me that's how our nervous system works.~ Stephen Colbert, The Colbert Report, October 17, 2005Ask yourself, do I want to believe this? Do I not want to believe this? Where are you predisposed?Is this another story that confirms your fears about Killary having those with evidence of her wrongdoing in Benghazi knocked off? Is this a story about some new horrible thing that Trump tweeted at 2:30 AM? Do you immediately dismiss it as nonsense because it says something unflattering about something you believe?How do you feel about the story, right from the title? What is, as Stephen Colbert calls it, the “truthiness” of the story?The stronger you feel about the story, the more critically you should vet it, either way.This is because of confirmation bias.I’ll talk more about biases in general later, but I want to address this specifically as a gateway question in source evaluation.Confirmation bias is the tendency to accept information that corroborates our worldviews and reject information that is dissonant to our worldviews. The Oatmeal has an excellent strip about this and the “backfire effect” in debate, which is how confirmation bias leads people to entrench themselves more deeply in a belief when presented with contrary facts.Confirmation bias is the single biggest reason that fake news goes viral. People read something, it agrees with their already-held views, and without even questioning it, they pass it along. Everyone that also already agrees with those views sees that, nods their head, and without questioning it, passes it along.People don’t do that when it violates their worldviews.That’s why the first check for evaluating any source ought to be “do I want this to be true or false.”Being aware of your own predisposition is critical in actively evaluating a source, because it can lead you to overlook or place undue emphasis on other information that disagrees with or corroborates the source.Intelligence professionals have this hammered into them constantly. It is very tempting to get a piece of intel and then only look to confirm it or dispute it - even when, especially when they don’t know it’s what they’re doing. It’s a great way to get people killed.This is how the United States got into the Second Gulf War in Iraq: when the intelligence community didn’t tell the administration what it wanted to hear, it created a specialized task force within the military to circumvent the rest of the intelligence community and find enough evidence to support what the administration wanted.Attorneys like me also have this hammered into them. It’s very tempting to just look for case law or facts that support the client’s position. It affects the very way we construct searches for those pieces of information, and it can cause us to overlook contrary law or facts, and then get ambushed with it. Good attorneys learn to think antagonistically to their own case and look for ways to destroy their own positions, so they can defend against them. That requires being very aware of our own confirmation biases. (One mentor attorney I know routinely plays chess against himself to train his brain to attack his own preferred positions.)Before moving on to any other steps of source evaluation, this is the first and most critical one. Don’t let the wish be the father of the thought.Now, some people are more susceptible to confirmation bias than others.(2) Levels of sources: primary, secondary, tertiary.The next most important places to start with source evaluation is checking how close to the original fact reporting the source is.Primary sources are sources that have direct, first-hand knowledge.Some examples of primary sources would be eyewitnesses, autobiographies, diaries, or photographs that can be authenticated by the person who took them. Audio or video recordings are primary sources. Original legal documents are primary sources.Secondary sources are interpretations of those primary sources. Scholarly research would be a secondary source, while the data scholarly research relies on would be the primary source. Editorial commentary on a news story is a secondary source.Secondary sources fall along a spectrum from original fact journalism that gathers up and reports primary source material to analysis of primary facts to outright opinion on the facts.Tertiary sources are unrelated to the facts themselves and are tools to help interpret primary and secondary sources. Dictionaries, thesauruses, almanacs, fact books, encyclopedias, that kind of stuff are tertiary sources.Now, the line between primary and secondary sources can sometime be a little fuzzy.For example, reporting itself can be a secondary source. Good, ethical journalism tries to refrain from editorializing as much as possible, and focuses on just reporting the primary source material without interpretation or commentary.However, good journalists also understand that just reciting facts without putting those facts into context is also problematic. Trying to add that context can sometimes end up interjecting analysis and opinion into the mix.A critical reader understands how to sort out the primary source material from the secondary source material.This is where Fox News gets itself into a lot of trouble, where Politifact sometimes straddles the line, and where Snopes is generally quite good.Snopes, Politifact, Factcheck.org, and other fact checking sources will cite the primary sources and follow up on those sources. They will link to online sources and vet those sources for verification.Snopes is excellent at just checking whether or not there is primary source material, and whether that primary source material supports the conclusion. Snopes does a very good job at providing links and citations to the primary source material so that a responsible critical reader can follow up on that source material and verify it for themselves.Politifact is also very good at linking to its primary sources.Fox News, Occupy Democrats, Breitbart, Huffington Post, InfoWars, the Daily Kos, and others are not very good at this.These sources tend not to link to primary source reporting or primary sources at all. If you follow those links, the original source might be buried five layers deep. Fox News cites to World News Daily which cites to Breitbart which cites to The Daily Mail tabloid which simply pulled it out of its ass to start with.Or worse, these links are circular. Fox News cites to WND which cites to Breitbart which cites to InfoWars which cited to a Fox News article in the first place. In that game of telephone, the information got distorted enough that the new article becomes an amped up pile of steaming bullshit.This kind of source burying and game of telephone is exactly how an Obama administration “scandal” got started that never actually existed. President Obama went on a trade summit mission to India in 2010. These kinds of visits abroad require a lot of staff and routinely cost several million dollars a day.On November 2nd, the website for New Delhi TV reported that this trip was going to cost the United States two hundred million dollars a day. It cited an anonymous Indian official. There was no other verification.The Drudge Report picked up the story and posted a link to it, either believing the story or simply not caring whether it was or wasn’t. Rush Limbaugh, popular conservative radio host, picked up the Drudge Report story, and runs with it. Fox News picks up the Limbaugh broadcast, where then-Fox commentator Glenn Beck adds 34 warships or approximately fifteen percent of the U.S. Navy, and ups the staff count of folks coming along to three thousand people.This prompts the administration to put out a statement that these figures “have no basis in reality.”Then-Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann ignored the statement, and restated to Anderson Cooper these entirely unverified numbers and now adding that President Obama’s administration had booked over 800 rooms at the Taj Mahal Hotel - which has only 550 rooms total. When Cooper asked her where they came from, she simply said, “These are the numbers coming out of the press.”It took less than 48 hours for this story, which was made up whole cloth, to make it up to a Congresswoman to be recited as gospel truth, because nobody in that chain looked for the primary source to verify its accuracy or credibility. It passed through at least six levels of secondary sources. And in that game of telephone, an inflated number of staff, nearly one-sixth of the United States Navy, and double-booking at least half of the Taj Mahal Hotel were all added.(3) What are the actual, verified facts the source contains?There’s an old expression: trust, but verify. Look for facts.Importantly: look for actual facts and not just opinions masquerading as facts. This is becoming an all-too-common problem today. Someone’s unsupported conclusion is taken as fact.Facts are verifiable. They happened, or they did not. They exist, or they do not.Opinions carry around a conclusion or a preference with them. A person who says that the color green is their favorite is stating what looks like a fact about themselves, but it’s a preferential opinion: green is the best color. This can’t be verified. This is merely a conclusion.Facts, on the other hand, are simply neutral. That grass is green. How do you know that? We can verify it. Five people can look at the grass, and come to a consensus about whether it is green. We can settle the matter by using a spectrometer and determining whether the grass reflects electromagnetic waves at 560–520 nm (the accepted consensus definition of green.)This is one of the reasons that Snopes and Politifact are generally regarded as safe: they verify the facts that various statements rely on.Some time back, a friend of mine posted an article she ran across in something called the Freedom Daily about Islamberg, New York being raided by a massive counter-terrorism task force who caught more than two dozen Muslim terrorists with various explosives and weapons.The problem is… it never happened.The only thing that can be verified is that one Muslim person from a town nearly fifty miles away with no verified ties to Islamberg was arrested for stealing several boxes of ammunition, and in the subsequent search related to that investigation, it was discovered that he had several illegal firearms.There is absolutely no verification of a Federal raid on Islamberg.Primary sources such as the county sheriff, someone that would have to be included in something like that, noted that it was familiar with the article and that there was “absolutely no truth” to it.There was literally no verification of the story.But what if there’s proof, like photos, right? Surely they can’t be made up!Even pictures can lie.Graphic pictures are another area where untrustworthy sources can try to grab you and suck you in. For example, there was a photograph that was circulated in around several evangelical Christian blogs depicting a bloodied woman with her eyes and mouth sewn shut, and touted as a Saudi woman who had been tortured for her Christian faith.A reverse Google image search quickly reveals that this woman is actually Japanese, and is into “extreme body modification.”Stock images or composite images are often used in many fake news sites. While some composites are difficult for the average person to detect, others are usually obvious - shadows or lighting that doesn’t match, that sort of stuff. If a photograph is reported in the news source, do a reverse image search if you’re not sure about it. And if it’s graphic or seems extremely damning, definitely you shouldn’t be sure of it.Even reputable news sources can sometimes re-use old photographs or video, particularly of various natural disasters or extreme weather. A photograph or video of people walking through a blizzard could be years old.Snopes, Politifact, FactCheck.org, etc., are excellent secondary sources when it comes to pulling out the verifiable, relevant facts from the primary sources. They follow up on the sources from other information outlets, internet stories, or statements of public figures, and find out what the verifiable facts are. The only opinion they make is whether the facts support the conclusions reached by these information outlets, and they’re up front about what their opinion is and how they reached it. They check whether photos are real or not. They do the reverse image searches. They follow the links. They make sure to vet the material before presenting it.(4) What inferences can reasonably be drawn from the facts, and do you have all of the facts to draw accurate inferences?Inferences are conclusions that people make after looking at the facts.This is where people mostly get into trouble. This is also where the spin doctors make their money. NPR, MSNBC, and FOX can all report the exact same piece of news, and all three of these sources could result in three entirely different and competing narratives. Why? Because of the why. Each will present the story slanted to let the reader come up with their own context about what those facts mean, why the story happened that way. The sources, the context, all of it is designed to lead you to a certain conclusion.Facts on their own are just trivia. People naturally try to put facts into a narrative. It’s just how we think, how we operate as human beings.That is why people will make viral a Natural News article that shows that a study “conclusively proved” that there is usually 1 part per billion of glyphosate in wine.Why does that matter?Because glyphosate is a boogeyman to a large group of people. It could (very disputably) be a carcinogen. Never mind that your typical wine contains approximately 130 million parts per billion of a known carcinogen (ethanol) because that’s not the story. The narrative is something sinister is amok. The article invites you to draw a conclusion from the facts they present, namely that Big Wine is in the pocket of Monsanto who doesn’t want you to know they’re spraying grapes with Roundup because Monsanto wants you to have cancer. Why? Because they’re eeee-ville!What logically follows from the facts? Not what you want them to mean. Not what you wish them to mean. This is where you have to walk back over to step 1 and ask yourself what do I want to hear?Logical inferences are created by applying facts to rules.For example, what happened here?It probably seems pretty obvious to most people that this guy’s wife snuck up behind him, smashed him with a bottle while brushing his teeth, and then tried to make it look like he slipped on some soap coming out of the shower, right?There is a whole set of rules about the evidence we see in this picture getting applied. What does a bathroom typically look like? How do shoe prints get there, and what rules do we have about the shape of shoe prints? What do we know about monogrammed towels and their typical usage? There are a whole host of rules that get subconsciously applied here: only women wear high heels. A man doesn’t use the “hers” towel - he uses the “his” towel.These rules are the critical link between the facts and the conclusions we can draw from those basic facts. The facts here are not in dispute. We can all look at those facts and agree what the facts are.But the rules we impose on those facts to draw inferences might not be accurate.When assessing the credibility of a source, it’s essential to be self-reflective and personally critical of the rules that you are applying to reach a conclusion. This goes back to that confirmation bias that I referred to earlier.Even certain pieces of evidence might be inferred, or conclusions stacked on top of each other to make larger inferences.For example, if there’s a missing person, a pool of blood, and drag marks, and you don’t have a body, would you not typically infer there was a dead person somewhere? So, if it’s somewhere, where is it? And what happened?It seems obvious that someone was murdered, right? But that’s merely an inference, which filled in certain missing pieces of evidence.This is also why it’s important to have all of the facts before making an inferential conclusion.Are you using all the facts, or ignoring ones that go against the narrative you want to hear?During the 2016 U.S. election cycle, a black church was burned, and the words Vote Trump spray painted on the side.Factually, this happened. Depending on how crazy you want to get, you could either trust the photos, or have bought a plane ticket and driven down to Mississippi to go see it with your own eyes. It’s verifiable, authentic.What came after that is the problem. Assumptions and inferences ran amok.Not without good reason, mind you.It was a historically black church in Mississippi. It’s not hard to add a little into the fact pattern. It’s not a stretch to find a context. A lot of people wanted it to be Trump supporters. They wanted them to be as vile and deplorable as they were led to believe Trump supporters were. A few facts were enough data points combined with some historical precedence to reach a plausible conclusion. A lot of liberal people wanted that story to be true.Then, it turned out later that the church was burned down and tagged by a black man, who was a congregation member.Immediately, conservatives went crazy. This was vindication, based on that one little fact alone. They tweeted and posted and blogged immediately, crowing their victory. They wanted a different story to be true, one in which they weren’t the bad guys. Black guy trying to set us all up, we knew it all along! See?! See?! Y’all called us deplorables, and look how mistaken you were!And so they ignored (or didn’t bother to look for) any other facts. They went straight from a little bit of fact to an inference about what those facts showed, because it supported their narrative.I admit, when the story first broke originally, I wanted it to be true. Black church, Mississippi, plenty of white supremacists at Trump rallies, sure. It wasn’t a stretch. It wasn’t implausible. And it said something about Trump supporters that I personally liked, that some of them were terrible enough people to firebomb a church and tag the ruins with self-supporting graffiti. I wanted that to be true.Still, I cautioned myself and others at the time after a day of thinking about it to wait for the investigation to come back. Let’s wait for the facts. All of the facts.Turns out, after we got those facts, everyone was wrong. Everyone drew inferences from scant facts, and every one of those inferences was wrong.It turned out that the man arrested wasn’t doing it for racially motivated reasons at all. He was taking advantage of the charged, polarized environment around the election to cover up a burglary he committed at the church. It was a convenient cover for him. He would have gotten away with it, as well, if it weren’t for good police work that went beyond the initial theory of the case, and looked for all the facts. (And those meddling kids!) Not just facts that supported one version of events, but all the facts.If all the police did was look at the early facts and didn’t investigate more, didn’t follow up on everything, they might very well have reached the same conclusions the internet did. They might have reached the same conclusions that many of their predecessors in the same town might have reached a hundred years ago, and those people a hundred years ago typically ended up lynching someone over it.Remember: there are two parts to inferences, the facts and the rules.In my profession as an attorney, we talk about “garbage in, garbage out.” If there is a breakdown in the facts, either inaccurate or incomplete facts, or if there is a breakdown in the rules, either inaccurate or incomplete rules, then the inference drawn from those facts and rules will also be inaccurate.When evaluating a source, evaluate the inferences it makes, and the inferences you draw from the source, and ask whether it is logically supported, whether it is based on incomplete or inaccurate data, or whether it is based on incomplete or inaccurate logical rules.Furthermore, you need to be self-aware of any rules that you are imputing into the situation. Again: go back up to the picture here and think about how you arrived at any conclusions. What rules did you apply to those facts?Those rules didn’t come out of nowhere.Our brains are constantly creating a framework of rules for how the universe operates. We literally couldn’t function without them. Many of these rules are intuited from our observations.In the Tragedy in the Bathroom, some of those rules might include:Women are the ones who usually wear high heels, not men.A man is likely to use the “his” towel and a woman is likely to use the “hers” towel.Bare feet don’t leave the same kinds of footprints as shoes and certainly don’t leave the kinds of footprints as high heels.Additionally: high-heeled shoes leave a distinctive footprint pattern that looks like this.A person who suffers a slip-and-fall-injury leading to death would probably be facing parallel to the place where they would have slipped and fallen, not perpendicular.You could chart these out like this:If you have evidence and a conclusion, have you consciously articulated how you got there? If not, stop and think about that for a moment: what rule did you apply that bridged that evidence and conclusion?And then ask whether that rule is valid. Is that rule an assumption? Or based on assumptions?For example, if you concluded that the poor schmuck in the photograph was killed by his wife, what assumptions did you likely make?Did you assume that whoever owned these “his” and hers” towels were married?This assumes that only people who are married cohabitate. This assumption may or may not be true, depending on where you live and the culture there.This also assumes that it was whoever used the “hers” towel that killed the guy.This neglects possibilities such as a jilted mistress who just found out that the guy was married, or that this poor schmuck was at the mistress’ place and his wife found out. The deceased might have even been at a crappy run-down motel for a tryst.For that matter, maybe the guy was killed by a femme fatale assassin looking to set up another woman?The key here is to be self-reflective: if you’ve come to a conclusion, do you have both verifiable evidence to support that conclusion, and valid rules? Make sure to think critically about those rules and whether they are built on any assumptions of how the world works. Question those.This is quite difficult in practice, and often best done by bringing in an objective third party to question those rules and assumptions.(5) What is the authorial bias?I imagine most of you thought we ought to start here. If the source is biased, we can just dismiss it, right?Absolutely not.Every source is biased. And that’s okay.Bias is not inherently a discrediting problem.There are a couple of common forms of authorial bias.Confirmation bias. I discussed this earlier. It’s the tendency to accept things we already like and reject things that we don’t.Partisan or “statement” bias. This is what we most often think of as bias, or “spin,” where the author engages in active advocacy. This kind of bias is where the author goes beyond simple primary fact reporting and interjects a preferential or partisan slant on the material. They present the facts in such a way that it clearly favors a perspective.Selection or “gatekeeping” bias. Some news sources go out of their way to try to be balanced in their presentment of a news story, such as NPR, but have a different kind of bias: what stories they present at all. This is selection bias. By cherry-picking only certain events or facts, even if the story is presented in a balanced manner, the overall source is biased.A subset of this is “ventriloquism,” where a source edits experts or witnesses out of context so that their quotes agree with the author’s bias, or only show the parts of the expert or witness that agree with the author’s bias.Coverage or “visibility” bias. Some stories are juicier or more popular than others, and so get more coverage. Hundreds of children are killed by their parents every year in shaken baby incidents or abuse. But the Casey Anthony trial ended up becoming incredibly high profile, dominating the national news for weeks and captivating the country, because it had a special twisted kind of appeal to it.Concision bias. In the TL;DR culture today, sources are having a harder and harder time with complex, nuanced reporting and analysis. Investigative journalism can take months if not years of research; see the Boston Globe’s Spotlight team’s investigation of the clergy sexual abuse in the Catholic church. There is a lot of information that needs to be put into context.And people are less patient to read that. They want the quarter-page summary. The 140 character tweetable explanation.The McDonald’s hot coffee case is a perfect example. The original story was long and complex. The jury found that McDonald’s was not only negligent, but actively reckless in how it stored and served coffee, having broken regulations on safe temperatures. The woman involved was not driving; her son was. They had pulled over into a parking stall; they were not in motion when she spilled the coffee. She had received third degree burns to much of her body. The jury award was not only for her medical bills, but punitive damages because McDonald’s had acted so egregiously.But the story continued to get truncated and truncated as it was repeated by outlets until it was 250 words and a headline that made it sound like a frivolous lawsuit.Sensationalism. This is bias for the extraordinary over the ordinary. Sometimes also called “yellow journalism,” it is the tendency of media outlets to hype up an otherwise less exciting story to get better ratings or circulation, thereby giving the impression that relatively rare events (such as an illegal immigrant committing a violent crime,) are more common than ordinary events (American citizens committing violent crimes.)Modern mass media’s newest form of sensationalism is what we call “clickbait.” If you see articles about “X Politician Blasts Obama!” or “21 Unconstitutional Things Obama Did - You’ll Never Believe #17!” it’s just sensationalized clickbait.The Spanish-American war was started because of a circulation war between Joseph Pulitzer’s New York World and William Randolph Hearst’s New York Journal. On February 15, 1898, the U.S.S. Maine blew up in the Havana harbor after what a Spanish investigation determined to be a spontaneous coal bunker fire that spread to the ship’s main magazine. The Navy tried to push the narrative that it was a Spanish mine, but openly ignored their own internal investigators that believed the Spanish conclusion was accurate and the explosion was initially caused by firedamp released by the use of bituminous coal over anthracite coal.Decades later, further exploration of the wreck of the Maine and investigation of firsthand accounts leaned heavily to confirm the conclusion that the Maine had been destroyed by a coal explosion and not a Spanish mine, in part because many other ships of the same construction type and class using the same coal suffered similar nearly catastrophic explosions until the Navy quit using coal and switched to fuel oil.But at the time, Pulitzer and Hearst hyped it up as an attack on the Maine by Spanish forces to sell more papers. Quickly, the chant “Remember the Maine; to hell with Spain!” became a rallying cry that shut down ongoing diplomatic negotiations and instead goaded a hawkish Congress into declaring war on Spain two months later in April of 1898.False Balance or “fairness bias.” Sometimes sources try to present facts in a balanced manner to avoid the appearance of bias, but this can lead to giving the appearance of fairness at the expense of artificially making it seem like a side of the story is more based in reality than it is.There’s a good little exchange in the television show The Newsroom that illustrates this:Maggie: How can you be biased towards fairness?MacKenzie: There aren't two sides to every story. Some stories have five sides; some only have one.Tess: I still don't underst...Will: Bias towards fairness means that if the entire congressional Republican caucus were to walk into the House and propose a resolution stating that the Earth was flat, the Times would lead with "Democrats and Republicans Can't Agree on Shape of Earth."False Timeliness. This can come in two main flavors:Presenting an old story as new. This is more common to hoax sites or actual fake news, recycling old scaremongering and just updating the release dates. This happens a lot with crimes; something from five or ten years ago is brought out as having freshly happened.Bringing up an old story as suddenly relevant because a similar event has now occurred, or without specific context and thus implying that the old story is new or timely.The key to evaluating a source for bias is understanding what bias it might have, and then accounting for it when verifying the source material or judging the credibility of the source.I don’t ignore Fox News, but I know very well that if I see a Fox News article, I’m going to have to do a lot of extra digging to get the rest of the facts that they inevitably decided weren’t relevant (and usually are,) and spend a lot of time sorting out the spin from the primary source material and isolating the rest of the biases.Now, most of the time I’m just too lazy to do that much work on it, so I don’t bother with Fox News in most circumstances.There’s an excellent chart out there called the Media Bias Chart.This is a good chart, but it really only covers partisan or statement bias, and where along the secondary source spectrum a source tends to exist on average.This chart doesn’t tell you much about selection bias, coverage bias, or other authorial biases.Some of the sources at the top of that chart are highly reliable sources in terms of their partisanship and original primary source reporting. The AP and Reuters are some of the gold standard in journalism.But the AP and Reuters can also still be subject to selection or concision biases without ever being partisan. The AP doesn’t often do extremely in-depth investigative journalism; it tends to report shorter stories of current events.ProPublica, The Economist, USA Today, or even Time Magazine are all reasonably centrist in partisan bias, but these tend to interject a great deal of selection bias simply due to format of presentation. Most of these are periodicals for their long-format pieces. They don’t do much short reporting. They do more analysis. It might be non-partisan analysis, but because they only have so much space and time, they have to pick and choose what to write about. That inherently results in some selection or coverage bias.That’s not necessarily anything bad. It just means you might not get other important, relevant facts or stories that could shed relevant context on the original story.Snopes, Politifact, and other fact checkers are also susceptible to these kinds of biases, particularly selection bias.Politifact is criticized by conservatives as liberal-biased because of this. Politifact tends to fact-check more conservative claims than liberal claims. As a result, a broad survey of the site makes it seem like it is biased towards liberalism.And conservatives sometimes gripe about the site simply not bothering to check on certain liberal claims. That can be a valid criticism.Now, there’s also something to be said that conservatives might just also make more and more incendiary claims, and make more erroneous claims.For example, conservatives argue that the bulk of the media outlets must be liberally biased simply because they tend to report much more negative press about President Donald Trump than positive stories.But, that doesn’t inherently indicate partisan, selection, or any other bias. It could simply be that President Trump keeps consistently lying out every corner of his mouth and constantly picking fights with the press over policies that are generally criticized by a majority of the public figures out there.If Republicans do a dozen crazy things and Democrats do one, it isn’t unbiased to make up eleven crazy stories about Democrats to balance it out. That would just be introducing a fairness bias, instead.As I said, every source has some degree of bias. That’s fine. Apply the appropriate corrective lenses, and evaluate the facts and inferences on their merits.(6) What degree of institutional integrity does this source have?Good journalistic outlets know that the only resource they have is credibility. If a journalist is not credible, she is finished in the industry. Lying, just once, even by mistake, is (usually) a career death sentence.Sources that are reputable and credible take this very seriously. If they have to issue a retraction, they have probably fired the journalist who reported the story and that guy is likely blackballed from everything with more integrity than Buzzfeed.Look at how the source handles corrections and retractions when it turns out they’re wrong about something. That will tell you a lot about the credibility of the source right there. FOX virtually never issues corrections or retractions, and never for its flagship primetime shows hosted by what they go out of their way to call entertainers, such as Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity. Even if these guys are straight up factually wrong, provably so, they never issue an apology for getting it wrong. That should tell you something about the institutional integrity of the source; namely, that it has virtually none.CNN is likewise slow to correct itself when it does. The Huffington Post doesn’t readily admit mistakes, either. I’ve never seen the Daily Kos issue a significant correction or retraction about anything.WaPo and the Times, in contrast? Generally, they’re quick to admit mistakes and issue corrections, updates, or even retractions. The AP, Reuters, NPR, The Wall Street Journal, The Economist, CBS, ABC, NBC, The Atlantic, really most major journalistic outlets are pretty good about this.There are some red flags you should immediately recognize for any source, article, or media outlet that should alert you to credibility issues. Some can be “immediately discount this source and do not engage further with it,” while others can be “proceed with caution.”You are barraged with advertising and pop-ups the minute you get to the site. Even reputable sources make money off of advertising, but if your screen starts to look like the house from Chevy Chase’s Christmas Vacation, especially if it’s advertising to lots of clickbaity things like “This one weird trick in your town can lower your insurance by 75%!” it’s less likely to be a reputable, credible source.Run away and don’t come back to these sources.Listicles and articles that require you to click through 15 pages to read all of it. If you’re in a source that requires you to wade through 30 ads a page and click on “next” a dozen times to read the whole thing, it’s a red flag that this is not a reputable, credible source, and is just a steaming pile of clickbait trying to extract advertising dollars from you.Again, run, don’t walk, and never come back.Number Seven Will Shock You! These are another form of clickbait closely related to listicles. Spoiler alert: number seven probably won’t shock you.This is why sources like Buzzfeed, Twenty-Two Words, etc. are generally crap. Don’t use these for news or credible sources.Headlines that don’t match the articles. You’d be amazed at how often shitty sources will try to grab you with a sensationalized headline that has little or nothing to do with the article. “Joe Biden Actually Registered Member of KKK!” turns out to be a story about some idiot that just happens to be named Joe Biden that lives in Mississippi and not the former vice president.One time here or there and it’s minimal? Flag it and be skeptical of anything it publishes. If a source does this a lot, or it’s really egregious (like the Biden example above), just stop using it.Headlines with graphic pictures or promises of graphic pictures. This is often clickbait. The source is trying to lure you in with the promise of a novelty. That picture may not even be in the article.This is again why sources like Buzzfeed, Twenty-Two Words, etc. are generally crap. Don’t use these for news or credible sources.Also, be really aware of photographs. Some of the pictures of kids in cages published during the Trump Family Separation Crisis were either from the previous administration or, when zoomed back, were random kids on a street behind a chain link fence who were not being held in detention at all. There are many sources, even reputable sources that as of August 2019 are using old stock images of forest fires for headlines about Amazon rainforest wildfires; at least two normally reputable sources used photographs that weren’t even of the Amazon.Headlines that are questions. This is also clickbait. The source is trying to lure you in by offering a question, not a fact. The article probably doesn’t answer it. No, it’s not a “thinkpiece.” It’s usually just a pile of trash designed to generate ad dollars.“Native advertising,” or pieces written by advertisers, not the actual content providers. These can be really hard to spot sometimes. They look like actual articles. They have headlines and graphics, sometimes infographics, and can very accurately mimic a real piece. But in actuality, they’re written by advertisers, not journalists.Sometimes this is called “branded content,” or “sponsored content,” or “featured partners.” It’s the same thing.Some sources try to take good care to make this very explicit. The Times usually has a big banner that reads “Paid Post.” But even this may be misleading to the reader, if they are not aware that not all content is written by the outlet itself, and these don’t look like ads at times - they look like articles.If you see these kinds of articles, and you might have to look carefully, it may not be an instant disqualification for the source itself, but you can safely discount that entire article.Vague attacks or generalized references. If you see something about “Washington” or “The White House,” or “Trump supporters” or “Bernie fans,” you can safely discount it by at least 50%.Anonymous sources. Be careful with these. They can be reputable. Mark Felt was the whistleblower who brought down Nixon, and nearly until his death in 2008 was an anonymous source known only to the public as “Deep Throat.”But anonymous sources can also be extremely disreputable. Look to see if any of the facts can be verified by independent sources. The “Deep Throat” information was all vetted very, very carefully through independent sources before the Times ran with it.Future speculation. If the source is speculating on what might happen, be wary of it. Unless military scientists have something with time travel not generally available to the public, it’s pretty difficult to get accurate fact reporting from the future. Be wary of sources talking about what’s going to happen as if it were fact.“Lawmaker says [insert shitty foot-in-mouth statement here]” or “Lawmaker proposes bill to [insert extremely stupid or divisive issue here.]” Turns out that “lawmaker” is a pretty generic term that can apply right on down to a city alderman somewhere that has about as much national level political clout as the secretary of the local PTA. Sources use “lawmaker” because it’s not a Congressman or Senator and it makes the person sound more important.That “lawmaker” is probably a low-level junior freshman politician that has absolutely zero chance of passing his “ban breastfeeding for public morality” bill. But a disreputable source might try to make it sound like he’s the governor of New York or Speaker of the House.There are over seven thousand state-level elected legislators, some of whom won their seats while getting fewer than 1500 people to vote for them. New Hampshire alone has over 400 elected legislators.The same is true of “advisors” or “officials.” These are basically no better than anonymous sources. The source is trying to make them sound more important than they probably are. Take it with a salt lick.The same is also true of [insert celebrity figure with zero expert qualifications here.]Let me get this off my chest:Ted Fucking Nugent is not a reliable source regarding literally any goddamned piece of information, including music. Ted Nugent is not a politician. Ted Nugent is not a policy expert. Ted Nugent doesn’t have any expertise in any area except how to sing “Cat Scratch Fever” and avoid getting drafted by the military. Ted Nugent does not hold a single degree above a high school diploma nor have any relevant professional experience that would qualify him to be a credible source of anything except for how to look like human-rat hybrid experiment that went horrifically wrong.Stop giving this moron any sort of credibility. He is not a credible source of information.The same is true of all sorts of other celebrities who have decided that for some reason or another, their opinion matters and should be taken serious. Just because you have a million followers on Instagram does not make you a credible source. Just because your parent was a senator doesn’t qualify you as an expert on foreign policy or politics.It’s on the blog portion of an otherwise reputable source’s website. Forbes and Reuters are respected, usually highly credible news sources. However, both Forbes and Reuters have third-party-blog portions of their websites that are not vetted and edited by Forbes or Reuters. I could go get a blog on Forbes. Reuters has a section of its site dedicated to unvetted, unedited press releases that literally anyone can publish. Contributors are solely responsible for the content. These sources do no fact checking about these posts. Make sure its from the journalism side of those generally reliable, credible sources before trusting it, not Joe’s Totally Unbiased Blog hosted on Forbes.Avoid these sources, or very carefully review them.Look for weasel words. “Many experts agree” or “polls indicate” is often a way to weasel out and report something that isn’t really credible without actually saying it is. “Many experts” could turn out to be four guys in a bar in Djibouti. The source ought to tell you who those experts are and where they work.Follow up and see if they’re actually credible sources and experts in the field they’re talking about.Recent/new study shows [insert inflammatory conclusion or health benefit of otherwise unhealthy habit, etc.] This is another classic piece of clickbait. News sources are notoriously scientifically illiterate and rarely report on methodology, confidence levels, what “statistically significant means,” the fact that correlation is not causation, and a lot more. Take everything that involves studies with a salt lick unless it’s from a peer reviewed journal and you actually know how to read the published results. Which also leads to…Watch out for “journals” that aren’t actually peer-reviewed, credible sources, or are actually just think tanks, foundations, and institutes that spout made up bullshit.There is an ever-increasing number of sources that really look and sound like they would be scientific, prestigious journals, and are anything but.For example, the American Journal of Engineering Research sounds like a pretty reputable source from the title, but it’s nothing more than a predatory journal that does not publish anything even approaching peer-reviewed quality scientific research.There are also various organizations, think tanks, and “institutes” that sound like credible sources, but publish conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, hoaxes, and other entirely made up nonsense. It’s really easy to fall down the rabbit hole these days, especially on Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, etc.Avoid these like the plague on humanity they are.Public Survey Push Polls. Unless it’s conducted by a reputable pollster who specializes in this kind of statistical work, polls are not always a very credible source of information. Worse yet if they’re a poll conducted by a local news outlet by putting a question up on Facebook or Twitter.Discount them as credible sources of anything except how many really angry people use Facebook or Twitter.Polls can be useful if they’re well conducted by otherwise reputable sources. Gallup, for example, is generally a pretty good pollster. Marist and Quinnipiac are fairly highly regarded. Zogby… not so much.Fox News, surprisingly, is a pretty good credible pollster. They source this out to two firms, one Democratic and one Republican (Anderson Robbins Research and Shaw and Company research, respectively). These firms are quite respectable and their methodology usually quite sound. While Fox News itself might be a dumpster fire of credibility, their polls are usually fine. (With thanks to resident stats expert Mac Tan on this one.)Check the URL. There are hundreds of fake websites that look almost exactly like actual news sites and are off by just a letter or two. ABC News is an actual source, and generally highly respected. There’s a website at the URL abcnews dot com dot co, and it looks very similar, but is loaded with actual fake news instead.Conventional source evaluation used to hold that .edu or .gov sources were likely to be reputable. Many educational institutions today host web content that is not reviewed or fact checked, much like Forbes and Reuters above. Government sources are still likely to be mostly credible, but the current administration has a tenuous grasp at best of what constitutes credible, reliable fact-based information and those running various agencies are little better.Your mileage may vary here.Nobody else is talking about it. If your source’s headline or article isn’t reported literally anywhere else except a handful of blogs or some threads on Reddit, that’s a good clue that it’s not credible. There is no validity to the idea that there is a massive conspiracy to hide Teh Truth!™ from all of us by the mainstream media, only to be thwarted by a plucky band of YouTube commentors and Redditors.Look for at least local news articles. Most small towns have at least a local radio station or weekly newspaper that publishes local news, even “Cow Crosses Road; Traffic Halted for Hour.”If it’s something that seems nationally important and even the local herald doesn’t report on it, odds are it never happened.View foreign government-run sources with a healthy skepticism. Some of my conservative friends have started sharing a lot of things from RT. RT is literally Russia Today, a Russian state-run media corporation. For the love of God, don’t. This is literally a propaganda arm of the Russian government.Now, not all foreign sources are bad. The Times of India, British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), and Der Spiegel are excellent journalism and well-respected sources.But don’t rely on foreign state-run media as a rule.Edit: Al Jazeera is a bit of an oddity here. It’s generally pretty well-respected and credible, but it’s also the state media arm of Qatar. It’s not without controversy for that precise reason. I take it seriously as a source, but I always follow up to see if anyone else is also reporting it and whether there’s anything missing.Edit 8/26/19: Some Indian residents are telling me that the Times of India isn’t what it used to be and has become far less reputable.Snopes, Politifact, and other fact checkers are usually very good at avoiding these kinds of red flags.Snopes, Politifact, and other fact checkers are generally accurate and honest arbiters of truth because they don’t engage in shady journalistic practices, verify and disclose their sources so anyone can decide that if they don’t want to take the fact-checker’s word for it that they can follow up and do the math themselves, and have reputations for correcting mistakes.They have good journalistic integrity and that is why they are regarded as high quality, reputable, credible sources.Mostly Standard Addendum and Disclaimer: read this before you comment.I welcome rational, reasoned debate on the merits with reliable, credible sources.But coming on here and calling me names, pissing and moaning about how biased I am, et cetera and so forth, will result in a swift one-way frogmarch out the airlock. Doing the same to others will result in the same treatment.Essentially, act like an adult and don’t be a dick about it.Getting cute with me about my commenting rules and how my answer doesn’t follow my rules and blah, blah, whine, blah is getting old. Again, ornery enough today to not put up with it. Stay on topic or you’ll get to watch the debate from the outside.If you want to argue and you’re not sure how to not be a dick about it, just post a picture of a cute baby animal instead, all right? Your displeasure and disagreement will be duly noted. Pinkie swear.I’m done with warnings. If you have to consider whether or not you’re over the line, the answer is most likely yes. I’ll just delete your comment and probably block you, and frankly, I won’t lose a minute of sleep over it.Debate responsibly.Footnotes[1] Page on apa.org[2] You're not going to believe what I'm about to tell you - The Oatmeal[3] Liberals and Conservatives Are Both Susceptible to Fake News, but for Different Reasons[4] https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2018/08/fake-news[5] Dunning–Kruger effect - Wikipedia[6] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-it/[7] Revisionist History Season 3 Episode 4

Why are start-ups or Facebook itself not using Facebook's large user base for money-transfer services?

Payments on the Facebook platform for commercial money transfer services has been the proverbial $64 Million question amongst all those in the payments space.From what I know of friends in Facebook, is that they are working on the payments space. Actively. None can disclose too much, but let me share some extrapolated understanding.To provide a little bit of perspective, here is a statement of Facebook's filing with U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC): (filed for year end (31st December 2012).From the Government Regulation clause on page 11/12Various laws and regulations in the United States and abroad, such as the Bank Secrecy Act, the Dodd-Frank Act, the USA PATRIOT Act, and the Credit CARD Act, impose certain anti-money laundering requirements on companies that are financial institutions or that provide financial products and services. Under these laws and regulations, financial institutions are broadly defined to include money services businesses such as money transmitters, check cashers, and sellers or issuers of stored value.Requirements imposed on financial institutions under these laws include customer identification and verification programs, record retention policies and procedures, and transaction reporting.To increase flexibility in how our use of Payments may evolve and to mitigate regulatory uncertainty, we have applied through subsidiaries for certain money transmitter licenses in the United States and similar licenses in certain foreign countries, which will generally require us to show compliance with many domestic and foreign laws relating to money transmission, gift cards and other prepaid access instruments, electronic funds transfers, anti-money laundering, counter-terrorist financing, gambling, banking and lending, and import and export restrictions.and under the clause: Payment transactions on the Facebook Platform may subject us to additional regulatory requirements and other risks that could be costly and difficult to comply with or that could harm our business. (Page 24)Payment transactions on the Facebook Platform may subject us to additional regulatory requirements and other risks that could be costly and difficult to comply with or that could harm our business.Our users can use the Facebook Platform to purchase virtual and digital goods from our Platform developers using our Payments infrastructure.Depending on how our Payments product evolves, we may be subject to a variety of laws and regulations in the United States, Europe, and elsewhere, including those governing money transmission, gift cards and other prepaid access instruments, electronic funds transfers, anti-money laundering, counter-terrorist financing, gambling, banking and lending, and import and export restrictions.In some jurisdictions, the application or interpretation of these laws and regulations is not clear. To increase flexibility in how our use of Payments may evolve and to mitigate regulatory uncertainty, we have applied for and received certain money transmitter licenses in the United States and expect to apply for certain regulatory licenses in Europe, which will generally require us to demonstrate compliance with many domestic and foreign laws in these areas.Our efforts to comply with these laws and regulations could be costly and result in diversion of management time and effort and may still not guarantee compliance. In the event that we are found to be in violation of any such legal or regulatory requirements, we may be subject to monetary fines or other penalties such as a cease and desist order, or we may be required to make product changes, any of which could have an adverse effect on our business and financial results.In addition, we may be subject to a variety of additional risks as a result of Payments on the Facebook Platform, including:increased costs and diversion of management time and effort and other resources to deal with bad transactions or customer disputes;potential fraudulent or otherwise illegal activity by users, developers, employees, or third parties;restrictions on the investment of consumer funds used to transact Payments; andadditional disclosure and reporting requirements.Source: FB-12.31.2012-10KAs per my knowledge, a team of 7-8 people are working in understanding the regulatory framework for all countries concerned and they are prioritising which markets to enter first and which one will follow later.There is an active team looking at compliance, risk, fraud, AML/KYC, etc. for all these countries and territories.Though I have not followed up recently, Facebook was in the news last year (in Feb/2012) when they cited that they had applied and received money transmitter licenses in 15 states already. Article reference: Facebook Fast-Tracks Its Payments BusinessI am sure the number has grown by now (will update this answer in the future once I have more information as to how many more states have granted a money transmitter license to Facebook).In Russia for example last year it was reported that Facebook is ready to transfer the money of Russians supported "Russian Standard" and "http://Bank24.ru" (the article is in Russian and you can use Google to translate the page): Facebook начнет переводить деньги в России с помощью банков «Русский стандарт» и Банк24.ру - РБК dailyA lot of work is being done to reduce the number of steps it takes to make a payment on Facebook. Last year Steven Musil of CNET (product) wrote an article on this: Facebook launches 'low-friction' mobile payments systemFacebook is now getting more and more comfortable in handling payments on its platform. Though there are restrictions. This is one reason why Facebook will not allow external app developers &/or companies to use its platform for Person-to-Person payments or using the Facebook canvas as it is called to make a payment (in one form of credit) transferable to another app (in another form of credit). See: Facebook Platform Policies and Facebook Developer Payments TermsIt is also important to note, Facebook now has adequate experience with Carrier based billing for its Facebook Credits program.So with all this happening, where is Facebook heading with payments? There is a debate within Facebook if FB wants to compete with PayPal by offering P2P payments. There has been discussion on how PayPal could somehow natively be embedded within Facebook for P2P payments. There has been much debate if FB should enter into the payments space at all (for purposes of Money Transfers). A lot of well known players have approached Facebook directly (and indirectly) for money transfer services. The primary one being Western Union, who wanted to leverage the 1+ Billion MAU (Monthly Average Users) of Facebook for a possible platform of doing money transfers.If I were to wage a bet, I would lean towards a Facebook + Western Union partnership. Facebook can easily partner up with anyone to service over 200+ countries & territories, there is no stronger candidate than Western Union.WU is licensed in almost every conceivable country either directly or via a correspondent banking/MTO partner.They know the KYC/AML rules of every territory they operate in and could very well integrate their systems with Facebook with a little bit of effort.For this relationship, FB/WU would have to agree on some preferential pricing. Such a marriage can represent a huge (potential) income stream for Facebook, and they would piggy back on Western Union's licenses in all the territories that WU and FB jointly operate in. Visa/Mastercard cannot offer such an arrangement to FB, neither can any bank (how many banks are operating in 200+ countries & territories).However, that is just a speculative assessment. In Silicon Valley, opposite decisions do happen. Facebook may decide to go their own route on this, starting with US alone for P2P payments, which in itself would be a big step (they would have to cut-off their relationship with PayPal for this). They can, just like PayPal then extend outwards and start integrating with other countries (Canada, UK, EU, etc.)Having talked to many people, both within Facebook and outside of it, related to the payments space, the question is most certainly not one of if Facebook will end up doing P2P payments, but a matter of when.What has surprised a lot of people is the "when" part. Some pundits say its long overdue. Many herald that 2012 was the year of payments for FB, now some say 2013. Some are not sure. This is true for Apple and Amazon too (two other contenders who are seen most likely to enter into the payments space). Does the first mover advantage still remain? Or is everyone holding on their bets to see who comes out first and then re-evaluate their position and strategy and then launch?Everyone seems to be very tight-lipped on this, and perhaps rightly so. I personally feel, Facebook is under tremendous pressure to launch a P2P system, but they are being very cautious about it, considering the great regulatory framework to which they have to adhere, fraud and risk mitigation AML/KYC controls and then how to handle the money itself? How will one pay and then get paid? It would not surprise me one bit if Facebook launched its own prepaid Debit card (in association with either Visa or Mastercard).A great article to get more perspective on Payments by the four giants (Facebook (product), Amazon.com (product), Google (company) and Apple (company)) is to read a great article by Farhad Manjoo who wrote an article in Fast Company called: The Great Tech War Of 2012.

Why isn't perjury considered as a serious crime in India? How many people were prosecuted for perjury?

FAMOUS CASESo KTMS Mohd And Anr vs Union Of India on 28 April 1992 in the Supreme Court, 1992 AIR 1831o K Karunakaran vs T V Eachara Warrier on 16 November 1977 in the Supreme Court (in Famous Rajan Murder case by police during emergency) 1978 AIR 290o KTMS Mohd And Anr vs Union Of India on 28 April 1992 in the Supreme Court, 1992 AIR 1831(supra)o Re: Suo Moto Proceedings against MR. R, KARUPPAN, ADVOCATE vs Re: Suo Moto Proceedings against MR. R, KARUPPAN, ADVOCATE on 12 May 2001 in the Supreme Court 2204, (para12) AIR (2001) SC 2204,o State Of Gujarat vs Hemang Pramesh Rai Desai on 17 January, 1964 in the Gujarat High Court 1966Cri.L.J 474o Jotish Chandra Chaudhary vs The State Of Bihar on 26 April, 1968 in the Supreme Court, 1969 AIR 07o M S Jaggi V/S Registrar Orissa High court Cr.L .J 1983 page1527o Re: Suo Moto Proceedings against MR. R, KARUPPAN, ADVOCATE vs Re: Suo Moto Proceedings against MR. R, KARUPPAN, ADVOCATE on 12 May 2001 in the Supreme Court 2204, (para12) AIR (2001) SC 2204, (Supra)o Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Anr Vs State Of Gujarat and Ors on 8 March, 2006 in the Supreme Court (BEST BAKERY CASE in Gujarat)o Perjury cases against Shayan Munshi and Prem Sagar Manocha in JESSICA LAL MURDER CASE in Delhio BABULAL NAGAR CASE in RajasthanIMPOTANT EVENTS:o Law commission of India in its 154th report,1996o Malimath committee on reforms of criminal justice system 2003The repeated problem of large number of witnesses turning hostile in these high profile cases had led to a growing demand for making change s in our law to effectively deal with the problem of dealing of witness turning hostile.As a result, the then central government introduced in the Rajya sabha CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE (AMENDMENT) BILL 2006 but that could not see the light of day for best reasons known to our parliamentarians but prima-facie,The reason seems to be that the heat generated at that time has settled/ subsidized as there have never convictions later on in these very cases, which caused public resentment against the hostile witnesses_________________________Law provisions:COMPANIES ACT 2013CHAPTER XXIXMISCELLANEOUS[SECTION 449 IS BROUGHT TO FORCE WITH EFFECT FROM SEPTEMBER 12, 2013.]PUNISHMENT FOR FALSE EVIDENCE.SECTION 449. SAVE AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS ACT, IF ANY PERSON INTENTIONALLY GIVES FALSE EVIDENCE:(a) upon any examination on oath or solemn affirmation, authorised under this Act; or(b) in any affidavit, deposition or solemn affirmation, in or about the winding up of any company under this Act, or otherwise in or about any matter arising under this Act, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN THREE YEARS BUT WHICH MAY EXTEND TO SEVEN YEARS AND WITH FINE WHICH MAY EXTEND TO TEN LAKH RUPEES.__________________THE INDIAN PENAL CODEIPC SECTION 191. GIVING FALSE EVIDENCE.—Whoever, being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, or being bound by law to make a declaration upon any subject, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or be­lieves to be false or does not believe to be true, is said to give false evidence. Explanation 1.—A statement is within the meaning of this sec­tion, whether it is made verbally or otherwise. Explanation 2.—A false statement as to the belief of the person attesting is within the meaning of this section, and a person may be guilty of giving false evidence by stating that he believes a thing which he does not believe, as well as by stating that he knows a thing which he does not know. Illustrations(a) A, in support of a just claim which B has against Z for one thousand rupees, falsely swears on a trial that he heard Z admit the justice of B’s claim. A has given false evidence.(b) A, being bound by an oath to state the truth, states that he believes a certain signature to be the handwriting of Z, when he does not believe it to be the handwriting of Z. Here A states that which he knows to be false, and therefore gives false evidence.(c) A, knowing the general character of Z’s handwriting, states that he believes a certain signature to be the handwriting of Z; A in good faith believing it to be so. Here A’s statement is merely as to his belief, and is true as to his belief, and there­fore, although the signature may not be the handwriting of Z, A has not given false evidence.(d) A, being bound by an oath to state the truth, states that he knows that Z was at a particular place on a particular day, not knowing anything upon the subject. A gives false evidence whether Z was at that place on the day named or not.(e) A, an interpreter or translator, gives or certifies as a true interpretation or translation of a statement or document which he is bound by oath to interpret or translate truly, that which is not and which he does not believe to be a true interpretation or translation. A has given false evidence._______________IPC SECTION 192. FABRICATING FALSE EVIDENCE.—Whoever causes any circumstance to exist or 1[makes any false entry in any book or record, or electronic record or makes any document or electronic record containing a false statement], intending that such circumstance, false entry or false statement may appear in evi¬dence in a judicial proceeding, or in a proceeding taken by law before a public servant as such, or before an arbitrator, and that such circumstance, false entry or false statement, so ap¬pearing in evidence, may cause any person who in such proceeding is to form an opinion upon the evidence, to entertain an errone¬ous opinion touching any point material to the result of such proceeding, is said “to fabricate false evidence”. Illustrations(a) A, puts jewels into a box belonging to Z, with the intention that they may be found in that box, and that this circumstance may cause Z to be convicted of theft. A has fabricated false evidence.(b) A makes a false entry in his shop-book for the purpose of using it as corroborative evidence in a Court of Justice. A has fabricated false evidence.(c) A, with the intention of causing Z to be convicted of a criminal conspiracy, writes a letter in imitation of Z’s handwriting, purporting to be addressed to an accomplice in such criminal conspiracy, and puts the letter in a place which he knows that the officers of the Police are likely to search. A has fabricated false evidence.IPC SECTION 193. PUNISHMENT FOR FALSE EVIDENCE.Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.Explanation 1A trial before a Courtmartial is a judicial proceeding.Explanation 2:An investigation directed by law preliminary to a proceeding before a Court of Justice, is a stage of a judicial proceeding, though that investigation may not take place before a Court of Justice.CHAPTER XI -------CLASSIFICATION UNDER SCHEDULE 1 CRPCOFFENCE-------------------------------------------------------PUNISHMENTGiving or fabricating false evidence in a judicial proceeding------7 Years + FineGiving or fabricating false evidence in any other case------3 Years + FineCOGNIZANCE----------------BAIL------------------TRIABLE BY1. Non-Cognizable----------Bailable----------Magistrate First Class2. Non-Cognizable----------Bailable----------Any Magistrate_______________IPC SECTION 196. USING EVIDENCE KNOWN TO BE FALSE.Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use as true or genuine evidence any evidence which he knows to be false or fabricated, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave or fabricated false evidence._______________IPC SECTION 199. FALSE STATEMENT MADE IN DECLARATION WHICH IS BY LAW RECEIVABLE AS EVIDENCE.Whoever, in an declaration made or subscribed by him, which declaration any Court of Justice, or any public servant or other person, is bound or authorized by law to receive as evidence of any fact, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, touching any point material to the object for which the declaration is made or used, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence. In context of cases under above sections section 195 of the Criminal Procedure Code is applicable._______________IPC Section 200. Using as true such declaration knowing it to be false.—Whoever corruptly uses or attempts to use as true any such decla­ration, knowing the same to be false in any material point, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence. Explanation.—A declaration which is inadmissible merely upon the ground of some informality, is a declaration within the meaning of sections 199 to 200._______________IPC Section 201. CAUSING DISAPPEARANCE OF EVIDENCE OF OFFENCE, OR GIVING FALSE INFORMATION TO SCREEN OFFENDER.—Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false; if a capital offence.—shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with imprisonment for life.—and if the offence is punishable with 1[imprisonment for life], or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprison­ment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine; if punishable with less than ten years’ imprisonment.—and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment pro­vided for the offence, or with fine, or with both.ILLUSTRATIONA, knowing that B has murdered Z, assists B to hide the body with the intention of screening B from punishment. A is liable to imprisonment of either description for seven years, and also to fine._______________IPC SECTION 202. INTENTIONAL OMISSION TO GIVE INFORMATION OF OFFENCE BY PERSON BOUND TO INFORM.—Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, intentionally omits to give any information respecting that offence which he is legally bound to give, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both._______________SECTION 203. GIVING FALSE INFORMATION RESPECTING AN OFFENCE COMMITTED.—Whoever knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, gives any information respecting that offence which he knows or believes to be false, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.1[EXPLANATION.—In sections 201 and 202 and in this section the word “offence”, includes any act committed at any place out of 2[India], which, if committed in 2[India], would be punishable under any of the following sections, namely, 302, 304, 382, 392 393, 394, 395, 396, 397, 398, 399, 402, 435, 436, 449, 450, 457, 458, 459 and 460.]_______________IPC SECTION 204. DESTRUCTION OF 1[DOCUMENT OR ELECTRONIC RECORD] TO PREVENT ITS PRODUCTION AS EVIDENCE.—Whoever secretes or destroys any 1[document or electronic record] which he may be lawfully compelled to produce as evidence in a Court of Justice, or in any proceeding lawfully held before a public servant, as such, or obliterates or renders illegible the whole or any part of such 1[document or electronic record] with the intention of preventing the same from being produced or used as evidence before such Court or public servant as aforesaid, or after he shall have been lawfully sum­moned or required to produce the same for that purpose, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both._______________IPC SECTION 205. FALSE PERSONATION FOR PURPOSE OF ACT OR PROCEEDING IN SUIT OR PROSECUTION.—Whoever falsely personates another, and in such assumed character makes any admission or statement, or confesses judgment, or causes any process to be issued or becomes bail or security, or does any other act in any suit or criminal prosecu­tion, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both._______________IPC SECTION 206. FRAUDULENT REMOVAL OR CONCEALMENT OF PROPERTY TO PREVENT ITS SEIZURE AS FORFEITED OR IN EXECUTION.—Whoever fraudulently removes, conceals, transfers or delivers to any person any property or any interest therein, intending thereby to prevent that property or interest therein from being taken as a forfei­ture or in satisfaction of a fine, under a sentence which has been pronounced, or which he knows to be likely to be pronounced, by a Court of Justice or other competent authority, or from being taken in execution of a decree or order which has been made, or which he knows to be likely to be made by a Court of Justice in a civil suit, shall be punished with imprisonment of either de­scription for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both._______________IPC SECTION 207. FRAUDULENT CLAIM TO PROPERTY TO PREVENT ITS SEIZURE AS FORFEITED OR IN EXECUTION.—Whoever fraudulently accepts, receives or claims any property or any interest therein, knowing that he has no right or rightful claim to such property or interest, or practices any deception touching any right to any property or any interest therein, intending thereby to prevent that property or interest therein from being taken as a forfei­ture or in satisfaction of a fine, under a sentence which has been pronounced, or which he knows to be likely to be pronounced by a Court of Justice or other competent authority, or from being taken in execution of a decree or order which has been made, or which he knows to be likely to be made by a Court of Justice in a civil suit, shall be punished with imprisonment of either de­scription for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both._______________IPC SECTION 208. FRAUDULENTLY SUFFERING DECREE FOR SUM NOT DUE.—Whoever fraudulently causes or suffers a decree or order to be passed against him at the suit of any person for a sum not due or for a larger sum than is due to such person or for any property or interest in property to which such person is not entitled, or fraudulently causes or suffers a decree or order to be executed against him after it has been satisfied, or for anything in respect of which it has been satisfied, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both.ILLUSTRATIONA institutes a suit against Z. Z knowing that A is likely to obtain a decree against him, fraudulently suffers a judgment to pass against him for a larger amount at the suit of B, who has no just claim against him, in order that B, either on his own ac­count or for the benefit of Z, may share in the proceeds of any sale of Z’s property which may be made under A’s decree. Z has committed an offence under this section._______________IPC SECTION 209. DISHONESTLY MAKING FALSE CLAIM IN COURT.—Whoever fraudu­lently or dishonestly, or with intent to injure or annoy any person, makes in a Court of Justice any claim which he knows to be false, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, and shall also be liable to fine.IPC SECTION 210. FRAUDULENTLY OBTAINING DECREE FOR SUM NOT DUE.—Whoever fraudulently obtains a decree or order against any person for a sum not due or for a larger sum than is due, or for any property or interest in property to which he is not entitled, or fraudu­lently causes a decree or order to be executed against any person after it has been satisfied or for anything in respect of which it has been satisfied, or fraudulently suffers or permits any such act to be done in his name, shall be punished with imprison­ment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both._______________IPC SECTION 211. FALSE CHARGE OF OFFENCE MADE WITH INTENT TO INJURE.—Whoev­er, with intent to cause injury to any person, institutes or causes to be instituted any criminal proceeding against that person, or falsely charges any person with having committed an offence, knowing that there is no just or lawful ground for such proceeding or charge against that person, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both; and if such criminal proceeding be instituted on a false charge of an offence punishable with death, 1[imprisonment for life], or imprisonment for seven years or upwards, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine.___________________________________________CrPC 195. PROSECUTION FOR CONTEMPT OF LAWFUL AUTHORITY OF PUBLIC SERVANTS, FOR OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC JUSTICE AND FOR OFFENCES RELATING TO DOCUMENTS GIVEN IN EVIDENCE.(1) No Court shall take cognizance(a) (i) of any offence punishable under section 172 to 188 of I P C,1860(ii) of any abetment of ,or attempt to commit such offence, or(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit such offence.(b) (I) of any offence punishable under any of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code,(45 of 1860) namely, sections 193 to 196 (both inclusive), 199, 200, 205 to 211 (both inclusive) and 228, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any Court, or(ii) of any offence described in section 463, or punishable under section 471, section 475 or section 476, of the said Code, when such offence is alleged to have been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any Court, or(iii) of any criminal conspiracy to commit, or attempt to commit, or the abetment of, any offence specified in sub clause (I) or sub-clause (ii),_______________CrPC 340. PROCEDURE IN CASES MENTIONED IN SECTION 195(1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of Justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of subsection (1) of Section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court, or as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary,(a) record a finding to that effect;(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;(c) send it to a Magistrate of the first class jurisdiction;(d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate, and(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate. .(2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-section (1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that Court has neither made a complaint under sub-section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of sub-section (4) of Section 195.(3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed(a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the court as the Court may appoint;(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court.(4) In this section, "Court" has the same meaning as in Section 195.In the case of established the two pre-conditions for an enquiry held under Section 340(1) of the Code. These are that there has to be prima faciecase to establish the specified offence and that it has to be expedient in the interest of justice to initiate such enquiry.________________________________It is a criminal offence u/s 191,193,195,199 of IPC, 1860 to make false affidavit in one’s pleadings or filing false affidavit or false document in evidence before court of law.Criminal proceeding may be initiated against guilty person by making an application u/s 340 Read with section 195 of CrPC 1973 before the criminal or civil court for giving false evidence.When false affidavit or false documents were given in any quasi-judicial or administrative proceedings, then a private complaint can be filed u/s 200 before competent magistrate.If any tribunal declared as court in the statue then application be filed in accordance with 340 r/w 195 of CrPC 1973.IPC 191. Giving false evidence192. Fabricating false evidence193. Punishment for false evidence194. Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of capital offence195. Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of offence punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment195-A. Threatening or inducing any person to give false evidence196. Using evidence known to be false197. Issuing or signing false certificate198. Using as true a certificate known to be false199. False statement made in declaration which is by law receivable as evidence200. Using as true such declaration knowing it to be falseCrPC Section 340 means to PerjuryPROSECUTION OF PERJURY:1. Legal obligation to state the truth2. The making of a false statement.3. Belief in its falsity.Criteria for establishing offense:(a) The statement is false(b) The parson making the statement knew or believed it to be false or did not believe it to be true.(c) The statement was made intentionally.All three criteria must be proved for conviction. Intention is most important.False evidence is said to be given intentionally, if, the person making the statement is aware or has knowledge that it is false and has deliberately used such evidence in a judicial proceeding with the intention of deceiving the court.________________________________In Many cases witnesses tell lies due to fear of opposite party against whom you can tell facts and help the law and its enforcing agencies.A witness is a person who possesses relevant information to criminal proceedings about which he or she has given or is about to give testimony. The testimony may be out of free will or under some compulsion; and it can be oral or written.The importance of a witness can be gauged from the observation of Supreme Court in the HIMANSHU SINGH SABHARWAL VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ORS. 2008 case, whereby the court observed that witnesses are the eyes and ears of the justice system and when a witness is threatened or killed or harassed, it is not only the witness who is threatened but also the fundamental right of a citizen to a free and fair trial is vindicated. Protection of the witness is the duty of the state and when state fails to protect a witness, it actually fails to uphold the national motto – Satyamev Jayate.Similarly, in the NEELAM KATARA VERSUS UNION OF INDIA CASE, SC observed that the edifice of administration of justice is based upon witnesses coming forward and deposing without fear or favour, without intimidation or allurements in court of law. If witnesses are intimidated or allured, the foundation of administration of justice gets weakened and even obliterated.What are key Witness Protection Laws around the world? Witness protection laws are not in all countries, however, in most countries, the local police may provide some kind of protection when needed. A few countries where there are proper witness protection laws include CANADA (WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM ACT), IRELAND (WITNESS SECURITY PROGRAMME), ISRAEL (WITNESS PROTECTION LAW AND AUTHORITY), ITALY (CENTRAL PROTECTION DEPARTMENT), UK (UNITED KINGDOM PROTECTED PERSONS SERVICE), THAILAND (WITNESS PROTECTION OFFICE); UNITED STATES (FEDERAL WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAM) ETC.What has been progress on Witness Protection Law in India so far?India does not have a witness protection law as of now. The subject was addressed by several committees and commissions in past.In a First, THE 14TH REPORT OF THE LAW COMMISSION (1958) had addressed the inadequate arrangements for witnesses and recommended some travel allowances and facilities for witnesses. The report said that if the witness is not taken care of, he or she may develop an attitude of indifference to the question of bringing guilty to justice.The issue was also addressed by 4TH NATIONAL POLICE COMMISSION (1980) REPORT which said that while a prisoner suffers from some act, witness suffers for no fault of his own. The report advocated removing inconveniences / handicaps and also a daily allowance payable to witnesses for appearance in the Courts.Similarly, THE LAW COMMISSION IN ITS 178TH REPORT, 2001 addressed the issue of preventing witnesses turning hostile. This report suggested that Police should take precautions during investigations to prevent prevarication by witnesses when they are examined. The most significant recommendation of this report was to amend the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and insert a new SECTION 164-A which would to provide for recording of the statement of material witnesses in the presence of Magistrates where the offences were punishable with imprisonment of 10 years and more. On the basis of this recommendation, THE CRIMINAL LAW (AMENDMENT) BILL, 2003 was introduced to make it mandatory to record statement before a Magistrate where the sentence for the offence could be seven years or more.THE JUSTICE MALIMATH COMMITTEE ON REFORMS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM also addressed the issue and said that a law should be enacted for giving protection to the witnesses and their family members on the lines of the laws in USA and other countries.THE 198TH REPORT OF LAW COMMISSION most elaborately addressed the issue covering various aspects such as Witness Identity Protection v. Rights of accused, WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAMMES on the lines of existing laws in New Zealand and Portugal.On the basis of THE 198TH REPORT and the proposed ‘witness identity protection and witness protection programme’, a bill was prepared towards witness protection.WITNESS PROTECTION BILL, 2015This bill was prepared and introduced in parliament in 2015. Its objective was to put in place a strong law for witness protection in a manner which ensures a fair trial to both the parties.The bill sought to ensure protection of witness by the following:o Formulation of WITNESS PROTECTION PROGRAMME to be provided to a witness at all stages i.e. (a) during the course of an investigation; (b) during the process of trial; and (c) after the judgment is pronouncedo Constitution of a “WITNESS PROTECTION CELL” to prepare a report for the judge of the trial court to examine and grant protection to the witness referred a “protectee” after being admitted in the programmeo Constitution of NATIONAL WITNESS PROTECTION COUNCIL AND STATE WITNESS PROTECTION COUNCILS To ensure implementation of witness protection programme in its letter and spirito Providing safeguards to ensure protection of Identity of witnesso Providing transfer of cases out of original Jurisdiction to ensure that the witness can depose freelyo Providing stringent punishment to the persons contravening the provisions;o Prescribing stringent actions against false testimonies and misleading statements.THE ABOVE BILL HAS NOT BEEN PASSED SO FAR.KEY CHALLENGES AND ISSUESThe above bill was circulated to the state governments and UT administrators but no consensus could be formed.Since police and public order are State Subjects under the seventh Schedule to the Constitution, the state governments are responsible for witness protection also.At the same time, the criminal law and criminal procedure are under concurrent list, so best the Central government can do is amend those laws to the extent of its jurisdiction.Further, the witness protection programme would incur huge expenditures also which shall be paid by the states. Most states are reluctant in India to incur expenditures on such things.CURRENT STATUSDue to non-consensus among the states, the witness protection programme was shelved. In 2016, the Union Government entrusted THE BUREAU OF POLICE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT (BPR&D) with the task of examining the concerns raised by them regarding THE FEASIBILITY OF THE PROGRAMME and also look into the financial implications of the scheme. As of now, this matter thus lies with BPR&D.________________________________In order to sustain and maintain sanctity and solemnity of the proceedings in law courts it is necessary that parties should not make false or knowingly, inaccurate statements or misrepresentation and/or should not conceal material facts with a design to gain some advantage or benefit at the hands of the court, when a court is considered as a place where truth and justice are the solemn pursuits. If any party attempts to pollute such a place by adopting recourse to make misrepresentation and is concealing material facts it does so at its risk and cost.Read a judgment about the above in Vijay Syal Vs. State of PunjabPROSECUTION OF PERJURY:1. Legal obligation to state the truth2. The making of a false statement.3. Belief in its falsity.Criteria for establishing offense:(a) The statement is false(b) The parson making the statement knew or believed it to be false or did not believe it to be true.(c) The statement was made intentionally.All three criteria must be proved for conviction. Intention is most important.False evidence is said to be given intentionally, if, the person making the statement is aware or has knowledge that it is false and has deliberately used such evidence in a judicial proceeding with the intention of deceiving the court.ELEMENTS OF PERJURY:1) False statement made by a person Who is —a) Bound by an oathb) By an express provision of lawc) A declaration which a person is bound by law to make on any subjectd) Which statement or declaration is false and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true.2. Oath must be administered by a person of competent authority.The authority must be competent to administer the oath. The proceedings where oath is administered must be sanctioned by law.3. Express provisions of law include—Plaints, Written Statements, and other pleadings.a) CPC casts a legal duty to speak the truthb) Verification of pleadings is a legal obligation.4. Affidavits are declaration made under oath.5. A statement could be verbal or otherwise.a) Statement that he believes a thing which he does not believe.b) Statement that he knows a thing which he does not know.c) Statement that he knows to be false or does not believe to be true.d) Statement need not be on a point material to the proceedings.Due to this the related other section which can be used are:IPO 191: Giving false evidence, judicial perjuryIPO 192: Fabricating false evidenceIPO 193: punishment for offenses u/s 191 & 192 IPOIPO 194 & 195: Aggravated forms of offenses u/s 191 & 192 IPOIPO 196 to 200: Offenses punishable in the same way as giving or fabricating false evidenceIPO 201 to 229: Offenses against public justiceOFFENCES U/S 195 CrPC:(a) IPO 172 to IPO 188 relate to contempts of the lawful authority of public servants and also of attempt to commit or conspiracy to commit such offense or abatement thereof.(b) IPO 193, 194, 195, 196, 199, 200, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211 and 228, when such offense is alleged to havebeen committed in, or in relation to, any proceeding in any court.CrPC 195:Generally any person can lodge complaint of an offence and set the law in motion. Exception to this rule is offences. Specified u/s 195 CrPC. Section 195 lays down rules to be followed by the court to take cognizance of an offence specified under it. Court has full discretion in deciding whether any prosecution is necessary or not.Considerations for sanctioning prosecution:a) Administration of justice is not hamperedb) Not to be used as a means for wreaking vengeance by peoplec) Every incorrect or false statement does not make it incumbent upon the court to order prosecution.d) Judicial discretion to order prosecution only in the larger interest of administration of justice.e) When police finds that complaint was false and case is cancelled u/s 173 CrPC, the police can start proceeding u/s 211 IPO against person who lodged false complaint.CrPC 340:Section 340 CrPC lays down directions for the guidance of the court which desires to initiate prosecution in respect of an offence covered under IPC 195. Court can take action and make a complaint to concerned magistrate u/s 340 either suo motu or on an application made to it on that behalf. Sanction of the public servant court is a must for offenses in (a) under Criteria for establishing offence. Sanction of the court is a must for offenses in (b). under Criteria for establishing offense. Any Civil, Revenue or criminal court can proceed under this section. Person against who proceedings are initiated has no right to participate in preliminary Inquiry. The trial for the offence will be held by the magistrate based on complaint by the court acting u/s 340 sanctioning prosecution. The order is appealable only once and no second appeal or revision lies.Requirements for starting prosecution:The court is not bound to start prosecution. Only if it is expedient in the interest of justice and affects administration of justice. Contradictory evidence is not enough for prosecution. Offence must have been committed intentionally. Perjury should appear to be deliberate and conscious. Conviction is reasonable probable or likely. Reasonable foundation for the charge must exist. Statement given by complainant in FIR u/s 154 cannot be basis of prosecution u/s 340. Statements given to police u/s 161 are not evidence.PROCEDURE:Receive application or suo motu – application can be filed by a person not party to the proceedings in relation to which the offense is committed. The court where application is filed only decides if inquiry should be made Hold preliminary inquiry (not essential in law).Record findings.Make a complaint in writing – include offence, facts on which it is based and evidence available for proving it. The judge has to sign the complaint himself.Forward it to a first class Magistrate having jurisdiction.IPC 192:No condition to be bound by oath.Reasonable prospect of proceedings and intention to use the fabricated evidence in such proceedings. Proceedings need not be in progress.Material omission is made in an entry or a statement Affidavit- making a document containing false statement to be used as evidence in a judicial proceeding.Criteria:Particular Intention that false document so made should appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding.Reasonable prospect of using the document is sufficient to establish offence.Should be material to the result of the proceedings- Judge is made to entertain an erroneous opinion touching nay point material to the result of such proceeding based on such fabricated evidence.IPC 199: False statement made in declaration which is by law receivable as evidence.IPC 200: Using as true such declaration knowing it to be false.__________________Your statement that “perjury considered as a serious crime in India” may be partly correct But the following Judgement tells otherwiseRAMRAMESHWARI DEVI AND ORS VS NIRMALA DEVI AND ORS ON 4 JULY, 2011 IN THE SUPREME COURT, This Judgement contained following para:“51. In a recent judgment in the case of Mahila Vinod Kumari v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2008) 8 SCC 34 this court has shown great concern about alarming proportion of perjury cases in our country.52. The main question which arises for our consideration is whether the prevailing delay in civil litigation can be curbed?In our considered opinion the existing system can be drastically changed or improved if the following steps are taken by the trial courts while dealing with the civil trials:A. Pleadings are foundation of the claims of parties. Civil litigation is largely based on documents. It is the bounden duty and obligation of the trial judge to carefully scrutinize, check and verify the pleadings and the documents filed by the parties. This must be done immediately after civil suits are filed.B. The Court should resort to discovery and production of documents and interrogatories at the earliest according to the object of the Code. If this exercise is carefully carried out, it would focus the controversies involved in the case and help the court in arriving at truth of the matter and doing substantial justice.C. Imposition of actual, realistic or proper costs and or ordering prosecution would go a long way in controlling the tendency of introducing false pleadings and forged and fabricated documents by the litigants. Imposition of heavy costs would also control unnecessary adjournments by the parties. In appropriate cases the courts may consider ordering prosecution otherwise it may not be possible to maintain purity and sanctity of judicial proceedings.D. The Court must adopt realistic and pragmatic approach in granting mesne profits. The Court must carefully keep in view the ground realities while granting mesne profits.E. The courts should be extremely careful and cautious in granting ex-parte ad interim injunctions or stay orders. Ordinarily short notice should be issued to the defendants or respondents and only after hearing concerned parties appropriate orders should be passed.F. Litigants who obtained ex-parte ad interim injunction on the strength of false pleadings and forged documents should be adequately punished. No one should be allowed to abuse the process of the court.G. The principle of restitution be fully applied in a pragmatic manner in order to do real and substantial justice.H. Every case emanates from a human or a commercial problem and the Court must make serious endeavour to resolve the problem within the framework of law and in accordance with the well settled principles of law and justice.I. If in a given case, ex parte injunction is granted, then the said application for grant of injunction should be disposed of on merits, after hearing both sides as expeditiously as may be possible on a priority basis and undue adjournments should be avoided.J. At the time of filing of the plaint, the trial court should prepare complete schedule and fix dates for all the stages of the suit, right from filing of the written statement till pronouncement of judgment and the courts should strictly adhere to the said dates and the said time table as far as possible. If any interlocutory application is filed then the same be disposed of in between the said dates of hearings fixed in the said suit itself so that the date fixed for the main suit may not be disturbed.___________________________o The court have to play proactive role during the court of trial. The Apex court also in Zahira sheikh case (BEST BAKERY) emphasized the duty as well as need to court to play proactive role. Section 311 of code and 165 of Evidence Act confer vast and wide power on court to elicit all necessary material by playing an active role in the evidence recording process.o In my opinion section 344(4) of code should be amended that notwithstanding the filling of an appeal or revision against impugned judgment, the trial for giving false evidence shall continue. But the sentence imposed by impugned order shall not be executed till decision of appeal or revision whatever be.o Another recourse available though not to court but to investing officer of getting the statement recorded under section 164 of code before magistrate. A statement recorded under section 164 of code, can be used for corroboration. Law commission has recommended for making mandatory for the police to get statement of all material witnesses recorded under 164 of code, but in reality, this provisions is resorted by police only in sexual offences, where complainant/ victim is minoro Practical experience shows that whenever a witness resiles from his 161 statement. It happens vary rarely that a witness is informed by the prosecutor or court about the consequences of turning hostile, as such hostile witness after recording of his evidence goes back home without being prosecuted for giving false evidence.o There is certainly need for a proper legislation frame work for the protection of witness. The legislator cannot for a long period of time keep their eyes shut from ground realities.o Amendment should be introduced in law so that the judge administering the oath should caution that he is bound to state truth on oath and if he does not state truth, he shall be prosecuted for giving false evidence so as to save judicial system from to being Deaf and blind

Feedbacks from Our Clients

CocoDoc's minimalist but colorful design is easy to navigate and easily accessible to users of nearly all computer skills. It's a no-frills approach that's ideal for it's function and making reviewing documents a simple and convenient transaction.

Justin Miller