Page 46 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 46 of 234 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
40
What raised suspicions about Zanakis was the fact that during the “rat” investigation, it was discovered that he had three years earlier received a settlement of forty-six hundred dollars from Coca-Cola for his claim of lost wages caused by nausea and intestinal upset from having swallowed “small bits of greasy particles” from a can of Coke.124 He originally sought more than ten thousand dollars, but settled for less. Paul Grover of the National Restaurant Association was quoted as saying, “People who are smart – and corrupt – know how the system works, often it’s not until someone goes back to the well one too many times that it comes to light.”125 With the evidence of the previous claim against Coke and the huge dollar amount requested from McDonald’s, officials of the company believed that this was both a product-tampering case and one of attempted extortion. Being Federal offenses, McDonald’s officials turned the case over to the United States Attorney’s Office for review.126
The Federal Bureau of Investigation examined the situation for about a year resulting in a grand jury indictment involving both the initial Coke claim and the subsequent McDonald’s case. The grand jury returned a twenty-three count indictment charging Zanakis with mail fraud, wire fraud, and extortion; he faced five years in prison for each of the twenty-one counts of fraud and twenty years each for
124Paula Span, “McDonald’s Smell’s a Rat; Alleged Extortionist, Charged,” The Washington Post, March 29, 1997, p. A. 01. Part of the Coke claim was that Dr. Zanakis had to cancel patient evaluations, it was determined later that this was false since as a Ph.D. researcher, Dr. Zanakis had no patients.
125 Paula Span, “McDonald’s Smell’s a Rat; Alleged Extortionist, Charged,” The Washington Post, March 29, 1997, p. A. 01.
126 Ibid.
Object Description
| Title | An argument for the criminal hoax |
| Author | Pellegrini, Laura A. |
| Author email | user1963@yahoo.com; teachpolsci@yahoo.com |
| Degree | Doctor of Philosophy |
| Document type | Dissertation |
| Degree program | Political Science |
| School | College of Letters, Arts and Sciences |
| Date defended/completed | 2008-08-20 |
| Date submitted | 2008 |
| Restricted until | Unrestricted |
| Date published | 2008-10-13 |
| Advisor (committee chair) | Renteln, Alison Dundes |
| Advisor (committee member) |
Wong, Janelle S. Newland, Chester A. |
| Abstract | Hoaxes are part of the fabric of history. While many provide humor and lighthearted joy, the criminal hoax does not. To date, researchers have included aspects of the criminal hoax in larger academic works. This is an original typology that sets forth the criminal hoax as a distinct part of the larger field of law and public policy. This work provides newly created definitions including four distinct categories of hoaxes: the monetary hoax, the attention getter hoax, the hate crime hoax and the racial hoax. It further illustrates these types with actual detailed accounts of hoaxes and provides insights to each one. It makes policy recommendations concerning the four categories of needs: 1. legislative action, 2. a nationwide statistical database of hoax events, 3. media involvement, and 4. law enforcement training and action to deal with criminal hoaxes. Finally, it recommends further research to identify the causes and motivations of vipers. The ultimate goal of this project is to find ways to eliminate criminal hoaxes. |
| Keyword | criminal hoax; hoax categories |
| Language | English |
| Part of collection | University of Southern California dissertations and theses |
| Publisher (of the original version) | University of Southern California |
| Place of publication (of the original version) | Los Angeles, California |
| Publisher (of the digital version) | University of Southern California. Libraries |
| Provenance | Electronically uploaded by the author |
| Type | texts |
| Legacy record ID | usctheses-m1659 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Rights | Pellegrini, Laura A. |
| Repository name | Libraries, University of Southern California |
| Repository address | Los Angeles, California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Filename | etd-Pellegrini-2397 |
| Archival file | uscthesesreloadpub_Volume26/etd-Pellegrini-2397.pdf |
Description
| Title | Page 46 |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Repository email | cisadmin@lib.usc.edu |
| Full text | 40 What raised suspicions about Zanakis was the fact that during the “rat” investigation, it was discovered that he had three years earlier received a settlement of forty-six hundred dollars from Coca-Cola for his claim of lost wages caused by nausea and intestinal upset from having swallowed “small bits of greasy particles” from a can of Coke.124 He originally sought more than ten thousand dollars, but settled for less. Paul Grover of the National Restaurant Association was quoted as saying, “People who are smart – and corrupt – know how the system works, often it’s not until someone goes back to the well one too many times that it comes to light.”125 With the evidence of the previous claim against Coke and the huge dollar amount requested from McDonald’s, officials of the company believed that this was both a product-tampering case and one of attempted extortion. Being Federal offenses, McDonald’s officials turned the case over to the United States Attorney’s Office for review.126 The Federal Bureau of Investigation examined the situation for about a year resulting in a grand jury indictment involving both the initial Coke claim and the subsequent McDonald’s case. The grand jury returned a twenty-three count indictment charging Zanakis with mail fraud, wire fraud, and extortion; he faced five years in prison for each of the twenty-one counts of fraud and twenty years each for 124Paula Span, “McDonald’s Smell’s a Rat; Alleged Extortionist, Charged,” The Washington Post, March 29, 1997, p. A. 01. Part of the Coke claim was that Dr. Zanakis had to cancel patient evaluations, it was determined later that this was false since as a Ph.D. researcher, Dr. Zanakis had no patients. 125 Paula Span, “McDonald’s Smell’s a Rat; Alleged Extortionist, Charged,” The Washington Post, March 29, 1997, p. A. 01. 126 Ibid. |
