In any criminal case, the burden of proof is placed squarely on the prosecution. This is derived from the idea that defendants are considered innocent until proven otherwise. If prosecutors do not provide adequate evidence to meet this burden, then conviction may not be possible.
Part of a prosecutor’s job is to show that accused individual demonstrated criminal intent in relation to a specific set of charges. This involves taking a look at whether or not a person, having made a decision, could have reasonably foreseen the result of their actions. This may be a point of discussion in an ongoing case of health care fraud involving an Iowa City pharmacist.
According to the Associated Press, a pharmacy owner recently pled guilty to more than a dozen counts of fraud in a Des Moines courtroom. Law enforcement officials say that the man submitted bills to an insurance company for expensive hemophilia drugs with fraudulent intent. Prosecutors claim that the Iowa-based pharmacy actually didn’t do much in terms of dispensing the drugs, but was operating to provide out-of-state companies with access to insurers.
One thing to note is that this pharmacy was providing “life-saving” drugs to people living with hemophilia, a dangerous blood disorder. In other words, it seems that the pharmacy was fulfilling an important purpose.
In response to the specific charges, a legal representative for the accused pharmacist says that this criminal matter has emerged from a business dispute with an insurance provider. Interestingly enough, it’s said that the supposed criminal nature of the man’s actions could be up for debate, since “reasonable minds” may not agree that the Iowa pharmacy provided a billable service.
Source: The Associated Press, “Trial begins for Iowa pharmacist accused of fraud,” Feb. 24, 2014