last time I checked faking a sickness wasn't illegal.
I did not say that faking sickness is illegal. So no need for checking that. What I said is that the whole situation is illegal. Indeed, faking a sickness with deliberate purpose not to come to work is fraudulous in terms of not honoring the contract and getting paid for doing nothing, yet being legally covered by the doctor's notice. If you do that it could lead you to serious trouble and penalties (loss of job, difficulties to find another job and even to lose some rights to insurances or whatever other social aid you might have in your country to compensate your jobless situation).
and the doctor gives you a note willingly (regardless of whether you are sick or not) that note isn't illegal either.
Let's not be naive. If the doctor refuses to give you a note --and we both know that there are honest doctors who won't easily give notes-- you will always find one to give you a note. Unfortunately doctors don't always see you as a patient, but rather as a client. Earning quick money for a 5-minute note is easy money for them.
plus fraudulous contracts and contracts for illegal activities are two totally things.
Yes, totally different, but in essence the activity is the same. If there is no need for a contract why make one? SONY or ESTATE or Cascio did not have a choice but make one, otherwise they couldn't have achieved what they wanted to. It would be rather illegal not to have a contract in Cascio's situation. What we don't know is what is in the contract and how it is formulated.
(in your example a patient and a doctor agreeing to fake a document to get sick pay will be illegal and that sick note will be fraudulous but I don't think they'll sign a paper saying "we are conspiring to steal from this company" - thats a contract for illegal activity)
As I said, no need for a contract between the doctor and the patient. So why bother, when they can achieve fraud without contracts?
do whatever they want? let me repeat fraud, fraud , fraud.
Sad, isn't it? Yes, fraud, fraud, fraud. That's my point too. Many companies unfortunately keep on doing that. If you sell your (or someone's) intellectual properties the possessors can do whatever they want. Do you want a recent example? Someone sold Renault group's secret of the technology used for electrical cars to a Chinese car constructor. Because of that the relationship between France and China deteriorated. Did Renault sue the Chinese car company? No! (Not yet, anyway). Renault know they need solid proof for that, but they don't have them. All they know is that the presumed frauds have a bank account in Switzerland and have all of sudden earned between 100 000 and 500 000 euros.
In our situation, what do we know about presumed imposter's bank account situation? Nothing at all, but it would be worthy to dig and see.
well contracts are written on paper and copies are given to both sides. you have lawyers involved in it. several people see the contracts. that singer would have a copy of the contract and a monetary payment to prove that he was hired to sing the songs.
You do not need lawyers to make a contract. Anyone can make and sign a contract. When you sign a contract with your employer do you come with a lawyer? I don't think so. Several people do not necessarily see the contract. Confidential contracts between two people only are perfectly possible.
The singer might have a copy or not. It depends on the nature of the contract. If it is a written contract, yes, he should have a written copy. But oral contracts exist too. So he might have been employed for several days and -why not- been paid in cash (by whom I do not know). No trace of money in the bank and no trace of a written contract. As a result, the songs become someone's possessions and have the copyright. Didn't they registered those songs quite late?
All kind of fraudulous scenarios are possible, look what happened to Milli Vanilli (and they really had damn good songs and hit busters). Everything seemed legal. But in fact there was a huge fraud.
and it's not about the singers ability to sue and get money for his intellectual rights. even if the singer initially didn't know (JM not knowing Sony/cascio and hired to replace MJ ?) but then heard himself on the MJ album and realized that he part took in an illegal activity the reasonable thing to do to go to the police or he would be held responsible as well.
If he has no ways to prove that it is him singing, despite the silmilarities such as vocals between MONSTER and LET ME LET GO, then it's a dead end for him anyway and a huge loss of time and money going to court. The contrary can happen also. Imagine he loses the case and is sued back for attempt to extort money from any of the company who hired him in the first place? It would be a lose-lose situation for him in any case. You don't go to the police just like that without any proof and say: "listen it's me singing on those songs, I want damage reparation."
I'm sorry to say this but "Sony hired JM to fake the vocals and made a contract with him that includes confidentiality clause" might be the most ridiculous thing I heard in a long time.
I didn't say that in that way. Whoever stands behind this, it is not necessarily the whole SONY group. The fraud could be done with Cascios too, not necessarily with SONY. Anyway, two people are enough to create this whole situation: the singer and the investor. All the rest can be sold, registered, signed, etc.
Even if Sony would fake the vocals you can be sure that they wouldn't be leaving paper trails.
To avoid any misunderstanding :
If you said "Sony paid money to X to sing as MJ" - okay possible.
when you say "sony left a paper trail by a contract signed by the imposter (that shows his identity) " - you lost me
and this is not really about the law. a very basic common sense should tell you that if someone is doing something illegal and wrong , they would be covering their tracks and not leaving breadcrumbs.
Yes, but that is the evil beauty of the fraud - making and signing a contract as if it was all legal. In other words, all the laws are so skilfully avoided or turned around in the contract that you become unattackable in court. Or, if they play it the safe way, they could also have purely an oral based contract - or common sense. In other words, you ask for services, you pay, no need for a contract. Many examples are out there: builders who are paid in cash to build a house (without a contract), real agents who lower the price of the house get paid for that in cash, weapon sellers, doctors (look what did Dr Murray), frequent plagiarism in music industry...black market, it is there and difficult, if not, impossible to prove if you don't catch people in the act.
