Criminal Lawyers for Case in High‑Profile Illegal Use of Government Grants Cases under Prevention of Corruption Act in Chandigarh High Court

AI Recommended Lawyer for Criminal Cases in Chandigarh High Court
Contact

Understanding the Prevention of Corruption Act and Its Application to Government Grants

The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (the “Act”) is the cornerstone of India’s anti‑corruption legal framework, designed to deter public servants and private individuals from misusing positions of trust for personal gain. When the Act intersects with the illegal use of government grants, its provisions acquire a heightened level of scrutiny, especially in a jurisdiction like Chandigarh where the High Court has developed a nuanced body of jurisprudence. Section 7 of the Act criminalises the act of public servants knowingly accepting gratification in respect of any official act, while Section 13 extends liability to private individuals who abet such conduct. In the context of government grant schemes—whether they are aimed at educational institutions, health initiatives, urban development, or social welfare programmes—misappropriation often involves a complex web of financial transfers, documentation, and approvals. The legal analysis therefore requires a thorough understanding of the statutory language, the legislative intent behind the Act, and the mechanisms through which grant disbursements are administered. For laypersons, recognising that the Act does not merely target overt bribes but also encompasses fraudulent representations, false statements in applications, and systematic diversion of funds is essential. This broader interpretation has been affirmed by several High Court observations, which underscore that the illegal use of government grants, even when disguised as legitimate project expenses, may constitute “criminal misconduct” under Sections 7 and 13. Consequently, criminal lawyers defending clients in high‑profile cases must be adept at dissecting the statutory elements, challenging the evidentiary foundation, and presenting alternative narratives that question the intentionality and knowledge required for conviction. The gravity of the charge in the Chandigarh High Court is accentuated by the public interest nature of grant schemes, the potential impact on governmental trust, and the media scrutiny that often accompanies high‑profile prosecutions. Hence, a robust understanding of the Act’s architecture, its interpretative trends, and its interface with grant‑related regulations forms the bedrock of an effective defence strategy.

Beyond the statutory provisions, the procedural landscape in Chandigarh High Court cases involving illegal use of government grants has evolved to incorporate specialized investigative agencies, such as the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and the Anti‑Corruption Bureau (ACB), which possess the authority to summon documents, freeze assets, and conduct forensic audits. The investigative process typically begins with a preliminary enquiry based on a complaint or a routine audit that reveals discrepancies in grant utilisation. Once a prima facie case is established, a formal charge sheet is filed, invoking the relevant sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The High Court then takes cognisance, and the trial proceeds through the stages of framing of issues, examination of witnesses, and the presentation of documentary evidence, including grant agreements, audit reports, and bank statements. For defendants, the defence may revolve around contesting the authenticity of the documents, the accuracy of the audit findings, or the interpretation of “gratification” as defined under the Act. Importantly, the High Court has often emphasized the need for clear and convincing proof of “corrupt intent” and “knowledge” on the part of the accused, which are essential ingredients for a conviction. Consequently, criminal lawyers must be prepared to scrutinise the chain of custody of evidence, raise procedural objections, and invoke statutory safeguards such as the right against self‑incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution. The broad doctrine of “fair trial” also mandates that the prosecution disclose all material evidence that may exonerate the accused, a principle that defence counsel can leverage to obtain exculpatory documents. In high‑profile scenarios, the public narrative can be as influential as the legal arguments, making it crucial for defence attorneys to manage both courtroom advocacy and media perception. By mastering the interplay between the Prevention of Corruption Act, the procedural nuances of the Chandigarh High Court, and the strategic presentation of facts, criminal lawyers for defense in high‑profile illegal use of government grants cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act in Chandigarh High Court can construct a compelling case that safeguards the rights of the accused while navigating the complexities of anti‑corruption jurisprudence.

Key Elements of Illegal Use of Government Grants in Chandigarh High Court Cases

When the Chandigarh High Court evaluates allegations of illegal use of government grants, it systematically assesses a set of statutory and factual elements to determine whether the conduct falls within the ambit of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The first element concerns the existence of a government grant that was lawfully sanctioned for a specific public purpose, such as infrastructure development, health services, or educational programmes. The grant must be accompanied by detailed guidelines, eligibility criteria, and a prescribed disbursement schedule, all of which are typically documented in government orders or circulars. The second element examines the manner in which the recipient—often a public official, a private contractor, or a non‑governmental organisation—handled the funds. This includes scrutinising whether the recipient deviated from the stipulated purpose, misrepresented project outcomes, or falsified financial statements to conceal the diversion of funds. The third element focuses on the mental state, or mens rea, of the accused. The court looks for evidence that the accused knowingly participated in the misappropriation, acted with the intention to defraud, or was recklessly indifferent to the lawful use of the grant. Finally, the fourth element evaluates the quantum of loss or damage incurred by the state, which can range from minor discrepancies to massive misappropriations amounting to crores of rupees. Together, these elements constitute the investigative framework that the prosecution must satisfy to secure a conviction, and they also provide the defence with focal points for challenging the case.

The statutory foundation of the grant and its authorized purpose is a critical starting point for any defence strategy. In practice, the defence will gather the original grant agreement, any amendments, and the policy documents that outline the intended use of the funds. By carefully analysing these documents, counsel can identify ambiguities, inconsistencies, or omissions that may undermine the prosecution’s claim of a clear, singular purpose. For instance, if the grant guidelines allow for a certain degree of flexibility in project execution, the defence can argue that the alleged diversion fell within permissible discretion, thereby negating the element of “illegal use.” Moreover, the defence can produce expert testimonies from policy analysts or former officials who can attest to the normative practices surrounding grant utilisation in the relevant sector. This line of argument can be particularly effective when the alleged irregularities are technical rather than substantive, such as variations in procurement procedures that do not materially affect the project's outcomes. By establishing that the grant’s statutory framework was either vague or accommodated the actions taken, the defence creates reasonable doubt about the existence of a criminal breach under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Documentary evidence and financial records are the lifeblood of both the prosecution and the defence in high‑profile grant cases. The defence must meticulously examine every invoice, bank statement, and audit report presented by the prosecution to detect any procedural lapses, inconsistencies, or errors in calculation. For example, a common tactic employed by the defence is to demonstrate that certain expenditures were sanctioned by authorized signatories, thereby showing compliance with internal controls. Additionally, the defence may highlight discrepancies in the audit methodology, such as reliance on incomplete data sets or use of outdated valuation techniques, which can cast doubt on the credibility of the financial conclusions drawn by auditors. Engaging forensic accountants can further strengthen this approach, as they can reconstruct the flow of funds, identify legitimate transactions that were mischaracterised, and provide a counter‑narrative that aligns with the defendant’s version of events. By presenting a coherent financial trail that adheres to the grant’s stipulated guidelines, the defence can effectively challenge the allegation of illicit diversion and satisfy the court’s demand for proof beyond reasonable doubt.
The mental element, or the requisite knowledge and intent, is often the most contested aspect of illegal grant cases. Under Sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution must prove that the accused possessed a conscious awareness of the wrongdoing and voluntarily engaged in the illicit act. Defence counsel can therefore focus on undermining this element by establishing a lack of knowledge, a good‑faith belief in the legality of the actions, or a reliance on professional advice. For instance, if a public official acted upon instructions from a higher authority or complied with a standard operating procedure that later turned out to be flawed, the defence can argue that the official did not have the requisite mens rea. Testimonies from senior officials, procedural manuals, and prior approvals can be introduced to corroborate the claim of good faith. Moreover, psychological evidence or behavioural analyses may be employed to show that the accused’s conduct was consistent with ordinary administrative practice rather than a calculated scheme to defraud. By successfully dismantling the prosecution’s narrative of intentional corruption, the defence can create a decisive break in the chain of causation required for conviction.
The quantification of loss to the exchequer is a pivotal factor that influences both the severity of the charge and the eventual sentencing. Nevertheless, the defence can contest the accuracy of the loss calculations by demonstrating that the projected financial impact was speculative, inflated, or based on assumptions that lack empirical support. For example, the defence might present alternative projections that show the grant would have yielded comparable or even greater public benefit despite the alleged irregularities. Expert economic analysts can be called upon to assess the real versus hypothetical outcomes, thereby challenging the prosecution’s loss figures. Additionally, the defence can argue that any shortfall was mitigated by subsequent remedial actions, such as recovery of funds, corrective project implementation, or the provision of substitute services, which reduce the net loss to the public treasury. By presenting a nuanced analysis of the actual financial impact, the defence can argue for a proportional response from the court, potentially influencing the sentencing phase if a conviction is unavoidable.

Procedural Journey: From Investigation to Trial in High‑Profile Cases

The procedural trajectory of an illegal use of government grants case under the Prevention of Corruption Act in the Chandigarh High Court typically commences with the initiation of an investigation by a designated anti‑corruption agency. This phase involves the issuance of notices, seizure of documents, and the recording of statements from key individuals associated with the grant. Investigators may also conduct raids on offices or premises suspected of harboring incriminating evidence, ensuring that chain‑of‑custody protocols are strictly observed to preserve the admissibility of the material. Once the investigative agency compiles sufficient evidence, it prepares a charge sheet that enumerates the specific statutory provisions invoked, outlines the factual allegations, and attaches supporting documents such as audit reports, bank statements, and correspondence. The charge sheet is then filed with the Sessions Court, which, upon receipt, may issue a summons directing the accused to appear for trial. In high‑profile matters, the High Court often exercises its supervisory jurisdiction to ensure that the trial proceeds expeditiously and that the rights of the accused—including the right to a fair and public hearing—are upheld. Throughout the trial, the prosecution presents its case through a series of witness examinations, documentary exhibits, and expert testimonies, while the defence is afforded ample opportunity to cross‑examine, challenge evidence, and put forth its own witnesses. The procedural safeguards enshrined in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, including provisions for bail, anticipatory bail, and protection against double jeopardy, remain firmly applicable. The trial culminates in the submission of final arguments by both sides, after which the judge delivers a judgment that may include conviction, acquittal, or a directive for further investigation.

The first procedural step—investigative notice and preservation of evidence—lays the foundation for the entire case. Defending counsel must proactively engage with the investigative agency to understand the scope of the inquiry, request copies of all seized documents, and verify that proper legal procedures were followed during raids and searches. Any deviation from the established legal standards, such as failure to obtain a warrant or improper handling of evidence, can be raised as a ground for suppression of the material. Additionally, the defence should coordinate with forensic experts to conduct an independent review of the seized data, looking for signs of tampering, alterations, or inconsistencies that could undermine the prosecution’s narrative. By establishing early that the evidentiary trail is compromised or that procedural lapses occurred, the defence can set the tone for a rigorous challenge that may ultimately lead to the exclusion of critical pieces of evidence, thereby weakening the prosecution’s case from the outset.
The filing of the charge sheet marks the formal commencement of criminal proceedings and triggers a slew of procedural rights for the accused. At this juncture, the defence must scrutinise the charge sheet for specificity, ensuring that each alleged offence is clearly described with reference to particular sections of the Prevention of Corruption Act and accompanied by factual particulars. Ambiguous or overly broad charges can be contested on the ground that they violate the principle of “particularity” enshrined in Section 211 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Moreover, the defence should evaluate the sufficiency of the supporting evidence attached to the charge sheet, assessing whether it meets the threshold of “prima facie” case required for the trial to proceed. If deficiencies are identified, the defence may file applications for discharge or for amendment of the charges, thereby either narrowing the scope of the prosecution’s case or forcing the investigative agency to rectify the shortcomings before the trial advances.
The bail application phase is often a critical juncture in high‑profile corruption matters, where the balance between the presumption of innocence and the risk of tampering with evidence must be carefully weighed. Defence counsel should prepare a comprehensive bail petition that addresses the factors outlined in Section 436 of the CrPC, such as the nature and gravity of the alleged offence, the likelihood of the accused influencing witnesses, and the possibility of the accused fleeing the jurisdiction. In the context of illegal use of government grants, the defence can argue that the accused has strong community ties, has cooperated with the investigation, and poses no flight risk, especially if the accused holds a respectable professional position in Chandigarh. Additionally, providing surety bonds, surety of property, or other security measures can strengthen the bail application. A well‑crafted bail petition not only secures the liberty of the accused during the trial but also allows the defence to continue gathering evidence and building a robust defence strategy without the constraints of pre‑trial detention.
The pre‑trial disclosure process, wherein the prosecution is obligated to share all material evidence, is a pivotal stage for the defence to assess the strength of the state's case. Under Section 173 of the CrPC, the prosecution must file a post‑investigation report that enumerates all documents, witness statements, and forensic reports it intends to rely upon. Defence counsel should meticulously review this dossier to identify gaps, inconsistencies, or evidentiary weaknesses. If the prosecution fails to disclose exculpatory material—evidence that could potentially exonerate the accused—the defence can file a petition under Section 166 of the CrPC seeking a direction for the production of such material. This disclosure can be instrumental in shaping the defence narrative, as it may reveal alternative explanations for the alleged misuse of funds, highlight procedural errors in the investigation, or introduce facts that directly challenge the prosecution's theory of corrupt intent.
The trial itself is a multi‑stage process involving the presentation of the prosecution’s case, the defence’s rebuttal, and the final arguments. During the prosecution’s case, the defence must be vigilant in cross‑examining witnesses, probing the credibility of expert testimony, and challenging the admissibility of documents on technical grounds such as the relevance, authenticity, or best evidence rule. In high‑profile grant cases, expert witnesses—often auditors or financial analysts—play a prominent role; therefore, the defence should prepare its own expert to critique the methodologies employed by the prosecution’s experts, contesting assumptions, sampling techniques, or the interpretation of financial data. Following the prosecution, the defence presents its case, which may include witnesses who attest to the lawful utilisation of the grant, documentary evidence that demonstrates compliance, and expert testimonies that offer alternative financial analyses. The final arguments provide an opportunity to synthesise the factual matrix, underscore reasonable doubt, and reiterate the absence of the essential elements of criminal intent required under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Mastery of each procedural phase is indispensable for criminal lawyers for defense in high‑profile illegal use of government grants cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act in Chandigarh High Court.

Strategic Defence Considerations for Criminal Lawyers

In navigating the intricate landscape of illegal use of government grants cases, criminal lawyers must adopt a multi‑pronged defence strategy that addresses both the substantive legal issues and the procedural nuances of the Chandigarh High Court. One fundamental approach is to challenge the prosecution’s evidentiary foundation by scrutinising the authenticity, relevance, and chain‑of‑custody of critical documents such as grant agreements, audit reports, and financial ledgers. By raising objections grounded in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, defence counsel can seek the exclusion of tainted evidence, thereby weakening the prosecution’s narrative of deliberate misappropriation. Simultaneously, the defence can present a robust factual defence that demonstrates compliance with the stipulated guidelines for grant utilisation. This may involve introducing internal audit reports, project completion certificates, and third‑party verification letters that collectively corroborate the lawfulness of the fund’s deployment. Moreover, establishing the absence of corrupt intent is paramount; lawyers can argue that the accused acted under a bona‑fide belief in the legality of their actions, relying on authorised instructions, standard operating procedures, or ministerial approvals. Expert testimonies from financial analysts, auditors, and policy specialists can provide independent validation of the accused’s conduct, illustrating that any deviations were technical or administrative rather than criminal. Counter‑narratives that highlight procedural irregularities in the investigation—such as unlawful searches, denial of access to privileged communications, or failure to adhere to statutory time limits—can further erode the prosecution’s case. By integrating these tactical elements—evidence challenges, factual compliance demonstrations, intent negation, expert support, and procedural safeguards—criminal lawyers craft a comprehensive defence capable of creating reasonable doubt and protecting the client’s rights in high‑profile illegal use of government grants cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act in Chandigarh High Court.

Negotiating a plea bargain or settlement can be a pragmatic pathway in cases where the evidentiary weight against the accused is substantial, yet a full trial may expose the client to prolonged media scrutiny and harsher sentencing. Defence counsel should engage early with the prosecution to assess the willingness to consider a negotiated resolution, which could involve the repayment of misappropriated funds, the imposition of a reduced charge, or a conditional discharge. In the context of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the High Court may entertain a plea arrangement that reflects mitigating factors such as the accused’s cooperation, restitution efforts, and lack of prior criminal history. The lawyer must carefully evaluate the pros and cons of such an approach, weighing the potential benefits of avoiding a conviction against the reputational impact and the possibility of future civil liabilities. By presenting a well‑structured plea proposal that underscores the accused’s willingness to rectify the alleged wrongdoing, the defence can facilitate a resolution that balances the interests of justice with the preservation of the client’s professional standing.
Utilising procedural safeguards to delay or stay proceedings can be an effective tactic, especially in high‑profile matters that attract substantial public attention. Defence attorneys can file applications under Section 482 of the CrPC, invoking the inherent powers of the High Court to quash proceedings that are frivolous, lack jurisdiction, or are otherwise untenable. Additionally, filing writ petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution can challenge the legality of certain procedural actions taken by investigative agencies, such as unlawful attachment of property or denial of access to legal counsel during custodial interrogation. By strategically employing these procedural mechanisms, the defence can secure additional time to gather evidence, secure expert assistance, or negotiate settlements, thereby enhancing the overall defence posture. In the specific context of illegal use of government grants, delays may also arise from the need for complex forensic accounting, which requires thorough analysis and often the engagement of specialised financial investigators. Ensuring that the court recognises the necessity of such expert work can result in the granting of appropriate adjournments, thereby preventing rushed judgments that might otherwise be detrimental to the accused.
Crafting a compelling narrative that frames the alleged conduct as a legitimate policy implementation error rather than a criminal act of corruption can resonate with the judges and the public alike. Defence counsel should meticulously reconstruct the decision‑making process behind the grant utilisation, highlighting procedural authorisations, documented approvals, and the broader policy objectives that guided the actions. By contextualising the alleged irregularities within a framework of bureaucratic complexity, resource constraints, or evolving regulatory standards, the defence can argue that the accused’s actions were at worst administrative oversights, not intentional fraud. Expert testimonies from senior bureaucrats, policy analysts, or former officials who can attest to the commonplace nature of such procedural deviations further reinforce this narrative. Additionally, demonstrating that the accused took remedial measures upon discovering any discrepancies—such as initiating internal audits, filing corrective reports, or seeking clarification from supervisory authorities—underscores a commitment to transparency and compliance. This approach can mitigate the perception of culpability and potentially influence the court’s assessment of moral culpability and sentencing considerations.
Leveraging statutory provisions that provide for reduced sentencing or mitigating circumstances is essential in securing a favourable outcome. The Prevention of Corruption Act, alongside the Indian Penal Code, outlines specific mitigatory factors, such as the accused’s age, health condition, lack of prior convictions, and the voluntary restitution of misappropriated funds. Defence lawyers should gather comprehensive evidence to substantiate each mitigating factor, including medical records, character certificates, and documented restitution agreements. By presenting these factors cohesively, the defence can persuade the court to impose a proportionate sentence that reflects the totality of circumstances, potentially opting for probation, a fine, or a reduced term of imprisonment. Moreover, the High Court’s discretion under Section 23 of the Prevention of Corruption Act to consider the public interest may be invoked to argue that a lenient sentence serves the broader goal of encouraging whistle‑blowing and cooperation from public officials, thereby fostering an environment where corruption is more likely to be reported and corrected.

Role of Expert Witnesses and Financial Auditors in Grant‑Related Defence

Expert witnesses and financial auditors occupy a pivotal role in the defence of individuals accused of illegal use of government grants under the Prevention of Corruption Act, particularly in the sophisticated legal environment of the Chandigarh High Court. Their primary function is to provide an independent, objective analysis of the financial transactions and grant procedures that are at the heart of the prosecution’s case. By dissecting complex financial statements, tracing fund flows, and evaluating compliance with grant guidelines, these professionals can either corroborate the defence’s contention that the accused acted in good faith or expose flaws in the prosecution’s forensic methodology. For example, a forensic accountant may reconstruct the entire transaction chain, demonstrating that the funds were transferred to legitimate vendor accounts, that invoices matched the services rendered, and that appropriate tax deductions were applied. Such detailed scrutiny can undermine the prosecution’s narrative of misappropriation, especially when the auditor’s report highlights procedural regularities, internal controls, and the absence of any anomalous patterns that typically signify corrupt intent. Moreover, expert witnesses can elucidate technical concepts for the bench, translating intricate financial jargon into comprehensible language that jurists can readily assess. Their testimony often carries significant weight in evidentiary assessment, as judges in the Chandigarh High Court are accustomed to relying on expert opinions when adjudicating complex economic crimes. Consequently, the strategic selection and thorough preparation of these experts are essential components of an effective defence strategy.

In practice, the defence must engage experts early in the investigative phase to ensure that their insights can shape the overall defence narrative from the outset. This involves retaining forensic accountants with proven experience in government grant audits, as well as auditors who are familiar with the specific regulatory frameworks governing the particular grant scheme involved. The defence should provide these experts with unrestricted access to all relevant documentation, including grant agreements, disbursement schedules, project reports, and prior audit findings. By conducting a comprehensive review, the experts can identify any procedural irregularities, gaps in the prosecution’s evidence, or alternative explanations for the alleged discrepancies. Once the experts formulate their findings, they can prepare detailed reports that outline their methodology, data sources, analytical techniques, and conclusions. These reports serve as the foundation for expert testimony, which must be presented in a clear, logical, and defensible manner during trial. It is also prudent for the defence to anticipate potential cross‑examination challenges by preparing the experts to address questions regarding the reliability of their data, the assumptions underlying their analyses, and the standards they applied. By equipping the experts with robust, well‑documented evidence and rehearsing their courtroom delivery, the defence maximises the persuasive impact of their testimony, thereby increasing the likelihood of establishing reasonable doubt regarding the alleged illegal use of government grants.

Potential Outcomes, Sentencing Guidelines, and Post‑Conviction Relief

The spectrum of potential outcomes in illegal use of government grants cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act ranges from outright acquittal to conviction with varying degrees of punishment, depending on the gravity of the alleged misconduct, the quantum of loss, and the presence of mitigating circumstances. In the Chandigarh High Court, sentencing guidelines are influenced by both statutory provisions and judicial precedents that consider factors such as the amount misappropriated, the position of the accused, and the impact on public confidence. For instance, Section 13(2) of the Act provides for imprisonment up to seven years and a fine, with higher penalties applicable for cases involving amounts exceeding a predetermined threshold. Courts have also exercised discretion to impose additional punitive measures, such as confiscation of assets, disqualification from holding public office, and mandatory restitution of the misappropriated funds. Conversely, where the defence successfully demonstrates lack of corrupt intent, procedural lapses in the investigation, or substantial restitution, the High Court may opt for a lesser sentence, probation, or even a discharge. Understanding these nuanced outcomes enables criminal lawyers for defence in high‑profile illegal use of government grants cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act in Chandigarh High Court to tailor their strategies accordingly, focusing on evidentiary challenges, mitigation, and restitution as key pillars of the defence.

“Your Honour, the prosecution’s case rests on a series of documentary excerpts that have not been authenticated, coupled with an assumption of intent that is not supported by any direct testimony. The defense submits that the accused acted within the conventional parameters of grant administration, relying on approvals that were duly recorded, and any alleged irregularity is attributable to procedural oversights, not a deliberate scheme to defraud the State.” – Sample defence argument presented during a High Court hearing.

Post‑conviction relief mechanisms provide additional avenues for individuals who have been found guilty in such high‑profile cases. Under Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code, an appeal can be filed before the High Court challenging the conviction or the sentence imposed. The appellate court will review the trial record for legal errors, misinterpretation of the Prevention of Corruption Act, or failure to consider mitigating factors. In addition to appellate remedies, a petition for a review under Section 362 of the CrPC can be pursued if new evidence emerges that could significantly alter the outcome, such as previously undisclosed financial records or expert testimony that was not considered at trial. Moreover, the law permits the filing of a petition for retrial under Section 362A of the CrPC if the original trial was compromised by procedural irregularities, bias, or denial of a fair hearing. Finally, the accused may seek clemency or remission of the sentence from the appropriate executive authority, particularly in cases where the individual has shown genuine remorse, repaid the misappropriated funds, and contributed positively to society post‑conviction. These post‑conviction avenues underscore the importance of a comprehensive defence strategy that not only aims to secure acquittal but also prepares for contingencies, ensuring that the accused retains the ability to contest an adverse judgment through all available legal channels.