Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Cui bono?

Cui bono? is a Latin phrase translating to "to whom is it a benefit?" or "who benefits?", employed as a rhetorical question to identify motives by determining who stands to gain from an action or event. The phrase originates from Roman oratory, first prominently featured in a speech by the statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero in 80 BCE. In his defense Pro Sex. Roscio Amerino, Cicero attributes the maxim to the Roman consul and judge Lucius Cassius Longinus Ravilla (c. 142–107 BCE), noting that Cassius habitually posed the question cui bono fuisset? ("to whom would it have been a benefit?") in criminal trials to uncover the perpetrator's incentive.^[1]^[2] In the oration, Cicero applies it to argue that Sextus Roscius's accusers, including the freedman Chrysogonus, benefited from the elder Roscius's murder by seizing his estates, thereby exonerating the defendant of parricide.^[1] Historically, cui bono? served as a foundational principle in Roman jurisprudence, emphasizing profit as a key indicator of guilt, and Cicero invoked it in other works like Pro Milone to similar effect.^[2] In modern contexts, the phrase persists in legal, investigative, and analytical discourse as a heuristic for probing causality and intent, often summarized as the idea that "responsibility for an act lies with one having something to gain."^[3] Its enduring relevance underscores a timeless approach to skepticism, urging examination of beneficiaries in crimes, politics, and conspiracies.^[3]

Etymology and Meaning

Literal Translation

The Latin phrase Cui bono? literally translates to "To whom (is it) a benefit?" or "Who stands to gain?". It breaks down into two key components: cui, the dative singular form of the interrogative pronoun quis (meaning "who?"), which here functions as "to whom" or "for whom," and bono, the dative singular form of the neuter noun bonum (meaning "good," "benefit," or "advantage").^[4]^[5] In classical Latin pronunciation, cui bono? is rendered approximately as /kuj ˈboː.noː/, with cui diphthongized as /kuj/ and bono featuring a long o sound. Modern English approximations often simplify it to /kwi ˈboʊ.noʊ/ or /ˌkwi ˈboʊˌnoʊ/.^[6]^[7] As a concise interrogative, cui bono? implies a search for motive by questioning potential beneficiaries, a rhetorical device used to probe underlying interests.^[4]

Rhetorical Significance

In classical rhetoric, "cui bono?" serves as a key topos, or argumentative strategy, employed in oratory to investigate motives by questioning who derives benefit from a particular event or action, thereby inferring potential responsibility or intent from the outcomes observed.^[8] This rhetorical question functions as a heuristic device, guiding speakers and audiences toward probable explanations without requiring exhaustive evidence, and it highlights how advantage can reveal underlying purposes in persuasive discourse.^[8] The phrase connects to broader patterns of reasoning akin to syllogistic logic, positing an implicit structure where actions are assumed to stem from self-interest: if an individual or group gains an advantage, they are likely to have orchestrated the event, though this remains a probabilistic inference rather than a deductive proof.^[9] By framing benefit as a clue to causation, it enables orators to construct compelling narratives of motive, emphasizing ethical and practical implications in debates over justice or policy.^[8] Distinct from the related expression "cui prodest?"—which translates to "to whom does it advance?" or "who profits?" and often implies material or immediate gain—"cui bono?" carries a broader connotation of "good" or overall advantage, encompassing moral, social, or long-term benefits beyond mere profit.^[10] This nuance allows the phrase to apply more flexibly in rhetorical contexts, probing not just financial incentives but any form of welfare derived from the act in question.^[11]

Historical Origins

Ancient Roman Usage

The phrase cui bono? ("to whom is it a benefit?") first gained prominence in ancient Roman rhetorical and legal discourse through the works of Marcus Tullius Cicero (106–43 BCE), the renowned orator and statesman who popularized its use as a tool for scrutinizing motives. In his early speech Pro Roscio Amerino (80 BCE), Cicero invoked the question to defend Sextus Roscius against charges of parricide, attributing it to the esteemed judge Lucius Cassius Longinus Ravilla (consul 127 BCE), known for his rigorous approach to justice. Cicero described Cassius as habitually posing the query in trials to uncover the true beneficiary of a crime, thereby redirecting suspicion toward those with apparent gain. The original Latin passage states: "L. Cassius ille, quem populus Romanus verissimum et sapientissimum iudicem putabat, identidem in causis quaerere solebat 'cui bono fuisset?'" (Pro Roscio Amerino 84), translating to "That Lucius Cassius, whom the Roman people regarded as the most honest and wisest judge, was accustomed to repeatedly ask in cases, 'To whose benefit would it have been?'"^[12]^[1] Within Roman law, cui bono? functioned as a cornerstone of forensic argumentation, emphasizing motive as a critical element in establishing culpability during judicial proceedings. Roman trials, often conducted before large juries in the quaestiones perpetuae, relied heavily on oratory to persuade through logical deduction rather than modern evidentiary standards. Cicero leveraged the phrase to argue that apparent beneficiaries—such as powerful figures connected to the prosecution—held greater incentive for the alleged crime than the impoverished defendant, illustrating its role in dismantling adversarial narratives. This approach aligned with broader Roman legal principles, where questions of advantage helped juries navigate complex interpersonal and property disputes, as seen in Cicero's strategic reversal of the prosecution's logic.^[13] In the political sphere, cui bono? extended beyond courtrooms to senate debates and public orations, where Roman statesmen used it to expose self-interest amid factional rivalries. Cicero, drawing on his training in both Roman and Hellenistic traditions, integrated the query into speeches that critiqued opponents' ambitions, reinforcing ideals of civic virtue against personal gain. Its adoption reflected the competitive nature of Roman politics, where eloquence could sway assemblies and influence policy by implicating motives in accusations of corruption or conspiracy.^[14] The emergence of cui bono? in Roman usage was influenced by earlier Greek rhetorical traditions, particularly Aristotle's (384–322 BCE) doctrine of the four causes, including the final cause (telos), which denotes the purpose or end for which an action occurs. In works like Physics and Rhetoric, Aristotle stressed inquiring into ends to understand events and persuade audiences in judicial contexts, concepts Cicero adapted into Latin oratory to probe intentions systematically. This adaptation bridged Greek philosophical inquiry into causation with Roman practical forensics, transforming abstract teleology into a concise interrogative for motive analysis.^[15]

Classical Examples

In his Catilinarian Orations (63 BCE), Cicero employs the underlying logic of "cui bono?" to dismantle the conspiracy led by Lucius Sergius Catilina, emphasizing how the plotters stood to gain politically and financially from the overthrow of the Republic. During the first oration before the Senate, Cicero argues that Catiline's associates, driven by debt and ambition, benefit from the chaos of assassination and arson, as it would allow them to seize power and erase their obligations, while no loyal citizen profits from such treason. Although the exact phrase is not quoted, the rhetorical strategy mirrors Cassius's maxim by interrogating the personal gains of the conspirators, such as Catiline's hope to become consul through violence.^[16] The phrase and its investigative principle also feature in later classical rhetorical training, as documented by Quintilian in his Institutio Oratoria (ca. 95 CE), where it exemplifies arguments from motive in forensic declamation. Quintilian references "cui bono?" as a key question in assessing probability during judicial speeches, advising orators to probe beneficiaries in cases of suspected crime to build persuasive narratives. Similarly, Seneca the Elder in his Controversiae (ca. 25–35 CE) illustrates its role in declamation exercises, where students debated fictional lawsuits involving murder or inheritance, often resolving disputes by determining who profited most, thereby honing skills in ethical and logical persuasion.^[17] In Cicero's Pro Milone (52 BCE), the phrase is invoked explicitly when defending Titus Annius Milo against the murder of Publius Clodius Pulcher, applying the Cassian maxim to argue that Clodius's followers benefited more from Milo's death than Milo did from Clodius's.^[18]

Evolution Through History

Medieval and Renaissance Interpretations

During the Middle Ages, the phrase "cui bono?" survived through the study and application of classical Roman law in both secular and ecclesiastical contexts, as part of the legal tradition revived at the University of Bologna in the 12th century. This revival influenced canon law. In the Renaissance, humanists breathed new life into the phrase by integrating it into moral and rhetorical writings, emphasizing its utility for exposing self-interest and corruption. Desiderius Erasmus prominently featured "cui bono?" in his Adagia (1508), a compendium of classical proverbs, where he used it to dissect ethical dilemmas and societal vices, aligning with the era's focus on classical revival for contemporary critique.

Enlightenment and Modern Adoption

During the Enlightenment, the phrase cui bono? saw renewed adoption among rationalist thinkers as a tool for dissecting the motives behind political and social structures, particularly in critiques of absolutist regimes. English cleric and economist Josiah Tucker exemplified this in his 1781 pamphlet Cui bono? or, an inquiry, what benefits can arise either to the English or the Americans, the French, Spaniards, or Dutch, from the greatest victories, or successes, in the present war?, a series of letters questioning the gains from the American Revolutionary War for monarchies and nations alike, thereby challenging the self-serving nature of imperial conflicts.^[19] In the 19th century, cui bono? became formalized in English common law commentaries, serving as a maxim to evaluate motive and benefit in judicial reasoning. Literary discussions of the era, such as those surrounding Edgar Allan Poe's analyses, explicitly identified it as a legal phrase denoting "for whose advantage," underscoring its embedding in Anglo-American legal thought to probe culpability and interest.^[20] By the early 20th century, the phrase transitioned into investigative journalism, where it aided in exposing hidden beneficiaries of events. Irish-Argentine journalist William Bulfin signed his inaugural article for The Southern Cross—a Buenos Aires-based Irish expatriate newspaper—with cui bono? around 1892, using it to interrogate social and national interests, a practice that anticipated its role in detective fiction by emphasizing motive as key to narrative resolution.^[21]

Applications in Law and Investigation

Forensic and Legal Contexts

In forensic and legal contexts, the principle of cui bono? serves as a rhetorical and analytical tool to establish motive by examining who stands to gain from a wrongful act, often linking opportunity with potential benefit to narrow investigative focus or support prosecutorial arguments.^[22] This approach underscores the idea that individuals or entities unlikely to derive advantage from an offense are less probable perpetrators, aiding in the assessment of culpability during pretrial investigations and courtroom deliberations.^[3] In criminal law, it functions not as direct evidence but as circumstantial reasoning to contextualize intent, particularly in cases involving complex schemes where financial or positional gains are pivotal.^[23] In United States case law, cui bono? has been invoked to probe motive through the lens of personal benefit, notably in insider trading prosecutions where courts evaluate whether tippers received tangible advantages from disclosing nonpublic information. For instance, in Dirks v. SEC (1983), the Supreme Court articulated that a breach of fiduciary duty requires proof of a personal benefit to the insider, such as pecuniary gain or reputational enhancement, effectively applying cui bono? to determine if the disclosure served the tipper's interests.^[24] Subsequent cases like United States v. Newman (2014) refined this by demanding evidence of a close relationship and concrete gain, emphasizing that mere association without benefit fails to establish motive, though this was later adjusted in Salman v. United States (2016) to reaffirm gifts to friends or family as sufficient under the benefit inquiry.^[23] These rulings illustrate how the principle integrates with evidentiary standards to link benefit to criminal intent without supplanting forensic proof. The phrase has also appeared in international law, particularly in war crimes proceedings, to interrogate the beneficiaries of atrocities and allocate responsibility among hierarchical actors. During the Nuremberg Military Tribunals (1945–1946), specifically in the Medical Case (United States v. Karl Brandt et al.), defense arguments referenced the "old axiom 'cui bono?'" to deflect blame from the Wehrmacht's medical service onto other parties, suggesting that those who profited from unethical experiments—such as gaining territorial or strategic advantages—bore primary guilt.^[25] This usage highlighted how cui bono? aids in dissecting command structures and motives in collective crimes, probing whether subordinates acted for personal advancement or under duress benefiting superiors.^[25] Despite its utility, cui bono? carries inherent limitations as a legal tool, functioning primarily as inductive reasoning that infers motive from benefit without proving causation or exclusivity.^[22] It cannot stand alone as evidence and must complement direct or corroborative proof, such as witness testimony or physical traces, to meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" threshold in criminal proceedings. Courts have cautioned against overreliance, noting that apparent beneficiaries may be coincidental or framed, requiring integration with broader evidentiary frameworks to avoid miscarriages of justice.^[23]

Motivational Analysis in Crime

In criminal investigations, the principle of cui bono—asking who stands to benefit from a crime—serves as a foundational tool for identifying motives and prioritizing suspects. This approach directs investigators to examine potential gains, such as financial profit, power, or revenge, to narrow down individuals or groups with the most to gain from the offense. By focusing on beneficiaries, law enforcement can eliminate unlikely perpetrators and concentrate resources on those whose actions align with rational self-interest.^[3] Agencies like the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have integrated motivational analysis, including cui bono considerations, into their Behavioral Analysis Units (BAUs) since the 1970s. Established in 1972 as the Behavioral Science Unit, the BAU applies psychological and behavioral insights to violent and complex crimes, assessing offender motives to develop profiles that aid in suspect prioritization and case linkage. For instance, in cases involving serial offenses or targeted violence, analysts evaluate how the crime's outcomes benefit the perpetrator, drawing from interviews with convicted offenders to refine predictive models. This method enhances investigative efficiency by linking behavioral patterns to potential rewards, helping local agencies solve cases faster.^[26]^[27] The cui bono principle finds particular application in corporate fraud investigations, where tracing financial beneficiaries reveals hidden schemes. In the Enron scandal of 2001, FBI agents and financial analysts sifted through bank records and brokerage accounts to identify fraudulent transactions that enriched executives like Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling, who profited millions through stock sales and bonuses amid manipulated earnings reports. This beneficiary-focused tracing led to indictments and convictions, demonstrating how the approach uncovers motive in white-collar crimes by following illicit gains.^[28] Psychologically, cui bono aligns with rational choice theory in criminology, positing that offenders commit crimes when perceived benefits outweigh risks. Under this framework, investigators probe situational factors—like opportunity costs and rewards—to reconstruct decision-making processes, emphasizing immediate gains over long-term consequences. This theory underpins much of modern profiling, shifting focus from solely pathological traits to pragmatic calculations of advantage.^[29]^[30] While primarily an investigative heuristic, cui bono analysis can briefly inform legal proceedings by highlighting motive as circumstantial evidence.^[31]

Broader Rhetorical and Philosophical Uses

In Politics and Debate

In political rhetoric, "cui bono?" serves as a critical tool for dissecting the true beneficiaries of policies, decisions, or crises, thereby illuminating potential ulterior motives and imbalances in power dynamics.^[32] By prompting debaters to ask who stands to gain from a particular action, the phrase shifts focus from surface-level justifications to underlying interests, often revealing how political maneuvers favor specific groups over the public good.^[3] Rooted in classical rhetorical traditions, it has evolved into a staple of modern argumentation, encouraging scrutiny of proposed legislation or executive actions.^[33] A prominent historical application occurred during the Watergate scandal (1972–1974), where the investigative principle encapsulated by "cui bono?" manifested through the directive "follow the money." This approach, famously advised by informant "Deep Throat" to reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, traced financial contributions and expenditures back to President Richard Nixon's re-election committee, exposing how the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters benefited those seeking to suppress opposition research.^[34] In the ensuing Senate hearings, questioning the motives and gains of involved parties underscored the scandal's core dynamics, contributing to Nixon's resignation. In contemporary politics, the phrase frequently arises in discussions of lobbying and campaign finance, particularly following the U.S. Supreme Court's 2010 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.^[35] The ruling struck down restrictions on independent political expenditures by corporations and unions, allowing unlimited spending on electioneering communications and primarily benefiting wealthy donors, corporations, and special interest groups by enhancing their sway over electoral outcomes and policy-making.^[35] Critics invoked "cui bono?" to highlight how such reforms post-Citizens United perpetuated a system where financial influence distorts democratic representation, prompting calls for finance reforms to curb undue advantages. The phrase's role in political discourse is not without pitfalls, as it can be misused in conspiracy theories to assert hidden orchestration based solely on perceived benefits, bypassing the need for verifiable evidence and fostering baseless claims about political events.^[36] This application often conflates opportunity with culpability, undermining rigorous debate by promoting speculation over substantiated analysis.^[37]

In Philosophy and Ethics

In philosophical and ethical discourse, the Latin phrase cui bono?—meaning "to whom is it a benefit?" or "who profits?"—serves as a probing tool for examining the motives and consequences of human actions, emphasizing the distribution of benefits as a key criterion for moral evaluation. Originating from Roman oratory, it has been integrated into ethical frameworks to challenge assumptions about altruism, justice, and the hidden interests underlying decisions. This approach encourages philosophers to assess whether apparent moral imperatives truly serve the greater good or merely advance particular agendas, fostering a critical lens on the interplay between intention and outcome.^[3] Within utilitarian ethics, cui bono? aligns closely with the principle of utility, which evaluates actions based on their capacity to maximize overall happiness or net benefits for the affected parties. Jeremy Bentham, in his seminal work An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789), proposed that moral worth derives from the balance of pleasure and pain produced, implicitly posing the question of who benefits from a policy or act to determine its societal utility; Bentham himself employed the phrase in his writings.^[38] This consequentialist method, later refined by John Stuart Mill, prioritizes aggregate welfare over deontological rules, using benefit analysis to guide legislation and personal conduct—such as weighing the advantages of public health measures against individual liberties. For instance, Bentham's hedonic calculus quantifies benefits across intensity, duration, and extent, ensuring ethical decisions account for the broadest distribution of good. In moral philosophy, cui bono? features prominently in debates over pragmatism versus virtue ethics, as exemplified by Niccolò Machiavelli's The Prince (1532), where political actions are judged by their effectiveness in securing power and stability rather than adherence to traditional virtues. Machiavelli argues that a ruler must sometimes employ deceit or force if it benefits the state, contrasting with classical ideals of moral integrity and prompting ongoing ethical discussions about whether outcomes justify means. This realpolitik perspective critiques idealistic ethics by highlighting how apparent virtues often mask self-interested calculations, influencing later thinkers to question the authenticity of moral claims in governance. Scholars interpret Machiavelli's counsel as a radical application of benefit-oriented reasoning, where the prince's success—measured by enduring rule—defines ethical legitimacy over abstract principles.^[39] Postmodern critiques extend this inquiry into examinations of power dynamics, where cui bono? unmasks how societal structures perpetuate inequality by benefiting dominant groups at others' expense. Michel Foucault, in works like Discipline and Punish (1975), analyzes disciplinary institutions—such as prisons and schools—as mechanisms that normalize power relations, concealing the beneficiaries (elites maintaining control) behind discourses of reform and justice. This perspective challenges Enlightenment rationalism by revealing ethics not as universal truths but as constructs serving hegemonic interests, urging philosophers to deconstruct narratives that obscure exploitative benefits. Foucault's genealogical method thus reframes moral philosophy around questions of who gains from normalized power, influencing contemporary ethical theories on inequality and resistance.^[36]

Contemporary Relevance

In Journalism and Media

In investigative journalism, the principle of cui bono?—Latin for "to whose benefit?"—serves as a critical tool for uncovering hidden motives and beneficiaries behind events, particularly in exposés that reveal power imbalances. The 1970s Watergate scandal coverage by Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein of The Washington Post exemplified how questioning who stood to gain from the Nixon administration's actions helped trace financial trails and political interests leading to the president's resignation. Their reporting demonstrated how probing beneficiaries exposes corruption, influencing subsequent journalistic practices by emphasizing the need to follow incentives rather than surface narratives. In the digital era, fact-checking organizations have integrated analyses of potential beneficiaries to debunk misinformation by tracing who profits from false claims, such as in viral stories promoting conspiracy theories or corporate agendas. This method has become standard in combating disinformation, as highlighted in analyses of online media ecosystems where identifying gainers helps prioritize high-impact verifications. For instance, as of 2025, discussions of media bias in U.S. journalism invoke cui bono? to examine ideological leanings and their impacts.^[40] Ethical guidelines in journalism further institutionalize motive scrutiny akin to cui bono?, urging reporters to examine underlying interests for balanced coverage. The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) Code of Ethics, revised in 2014, directs journalists under its "Act Independently" principle to avoid conflicts of interest, identify sources' potential biases, and disclose any influences that could shape reporting—effectively requiring an assessment of who benefits to maintain public trust. This framework supports comprehensive investigations by mandating transparency in motive evaluation, ensuring stories reveal not just facts but their implications for societal stakeholders.^[41]

In Popular Culture and Everyday Discourse

The phrase "cui bono?" has permeated literary fiction, particularly in the detective genre, where it serves as a foundational tool for unraveling motives and plot twists. In Agatha Christie's novels from the 1920s to the 1970s, such as The Murder of Roger Ackroyd (1926) and Murder on the Orient Express (1934), the principle of identifying who benefits from a crime drives the narrative structure, emphasizing financial gain, inheritance, or revenge as key suspects in whodunit scenarios. This approach reflects the phrase's utility in classical mystery writing, where detectives systematically apply "cui bono?" to narrow down beneficiaries among a cast of suspects.^[42] In film and television, "cui bono?" appears as a rhetorical device to question motives in crime dramas and thrillers. The procedural series Law & Order (1990–2010, with revivals) explicitly invokes the phrase in its first-season episode "The Blue Wall" (1991), where a prosecutor uses it to prioritize suspects based on who stands to gain from a killing, such as a spouse or colleague.^[43] Similarly, the film The Departed (2006) features the line "Yeah, but cui bono? Who benefits?" during a tense interrogation scene, highlighting corruption and personal vendettas within law enforcement.^[44] More recently, The Lincoln Lawyer (2022–present) titled its second-season episode "Cui Bono" (2023), centering the plot on a trial where the phrase underscores investigations into corporate fraud and hidden incentives.^[45] Beyond scripted media, "cui bono?" has entered colloquial language and online discourse since the early 2000s, often as a shorthand for skepticism toward official narratives in discussions of elections, corporate scandals, and geopolitical events. In political online communities, particularly during U.S. elections, users invoke the phrase to probe who profits from controversies, such as foreign interference allegations or policy shifts, framing it as a tool against perceived manipulation.^[46] This vernacular use aligns with its role in countering disinformation, where the maxim prompts analysis of beneficiaries in conspiracy-laden memes and forum threads questioning corporate actions like mergers or lobbying influences.^[47] By the 2010s, it had become a meme-like staple in digital rhetoric, encouraging critical inquiry into power dynamics without formal legal application. As of November 2025, the phrase continues to appear in global media analyses, such as questioning beneficiaries in high-profile legal decisions.^[48]^[49]

References

[1]
Cicero: Pro Sex. Roscio (1) - ATTALUS
This speech was delivered for Sextus Roscius of Ameria, in 80 B.C.. The translation is by J.H. Freese (1930). Click on the L symbols to go to the Latin text ...
[2]
Cicero - Oxford Reference
Cui bono? To whose profit? Pro Roscio Amerino ch. 84 and Pro Milone ch. 12, sect. 32, quoting L. Cassius Longinus Ravilla.
[3]
Cui Bono: Why You Should Ask “Who Benefits?” - Effectiviology
Cui bono is a Latin phrase that means “who benefits?”, and is used to suggest that there's a high probability that those responsible for a certain event are the ...The benefits of implementing... · How to implement 'cui bono' · Related concepts
[4]
cui bono? exclamation - Oxford Learner's Dictionaries
cui bono? ... Word OriginLatin, 'to whom (is it) a benefit?' ... Look up any word in the dictionary offline, anytime, anywhere with the Oxford Advanced Learner's ...Missing: literal | Show results with:literal
[5]
What is the etymology of 'cuius' and is it different from 'quis'?
Oct 13, 2020 · It seems to be pronounced differently. 'quis' is /kwis/ but 'cuius' is /ku jus/, not /kwi us/ (and 'cui' is /ku i/ not /kwi:/).
[6]
The Latin Dictionary
No readable text found in the HTML.<|control11|><|separator|>
[7]
cui bono, phr. & n. meanings, etymology and more
cui bono, phr. & n. meanings, etymology, pronunciation and more in the Oxford English Dictionary.
[8]
CUI BONO definition in American English - Collins Dictionary
cui bono in British English. Latin (kwiː ˈbəʊnəʊ IPA Pronunciation Guide ). for whose benefit? for what purpose? Collins English Dictionary. Copyright ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[9]
Demystifying Classical Rhetoric on JSTOR
often use the topic expressed by the question, Cui bono? Asking who profits from a crime is naming a line of inquiry, a direction for thinking. For the ...
[10]
https://ia800501.us.archive.org/11/items/dictionaryoflati1891rileuoft/dictionaryoflati1891rileuoft.pdf
[11]
[PDF] Dictionary of Latin and Greek quotations, proverbs, maxims, and ...
"For whose benefit r" A maxim of Cak the judge, quoted by Cicero ... Cui prodest scelus, is fecit. Sen. — " He who profits by the villany ...
[12]
cui prodest - Latin is Simple Online Dictionary
Short for cui prodest scelus is fecit (for whom the crime advances, he has ... cui bono). Word-for-word analysis: Cui · qui Relative Pronoun = who, which ...
[13]
Cicero: Pro Sex. Roscio Amerino - The Latin Library
M. TVLLI CICERONIS PRO SEX. ROSCIO AMERINO ORATIO. [1] Credo ego vos, iudices, mirari, quid sit, quod, cum tot summi oratores hominesque nobilissimi sedeant ...
[14]
Evidence and Rhetoric in Cicero's "Pro Roscio Amerino" - jstor
EVIDENCE AND RHETORIC IN CICERO'S PRO ROSCIO AMERINO 237. II. THE ... Ravilla,27 who was wont to pose the simple question: cui bono? (?84). Cicero ...
[15]
[PDF] Cicero Pro Roscio Amerino INTRODUCTION
the oration other than the narratio. Page 4. on the misleading cui bono argument. ... "The Publication of Cicero's Pro Roscio Amerino," Mnemosyne 57: 80–87.
[16]
https://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0019%3Atext%3DCatil.%3Aspeech%3D1
[17]
CICERO, Pro Sexto Roscio Amerino - Loeb Classical Library
L. Cassius ille, quem populus Romanus verissimum et sapientissimum iudicem putabat, identidem in causis quaerere solebat, “cui bono” fuisset. Sic vita ...
[18]
https://www.thelatinlibrary.com/cicero/milo.shtml
[19]
SENECA THE ELDER, Controversiae | Loeb Classical Library
<Latro> ait patrem durum fuisse, crudelem, bono publico hunc non fuisse partium ducem. Dixit, inquit, eo vultu, ea adfirmatione, ut videretur non iubere ...
[20]
[PDF] the Ames Foundation - Harvard University
... cui bono, that is, to the pope to whose Camera they were paid or owed. For example, the spoils of a cleric who died after the death of Clement VI are ...
[21]
[PDF] Culture-bound Shifts in the First French and Italian Translations of ...
Cui bono (for whom?) concerns the effects of translation and their function in a target society. It examines whether translation holds an independent ...
[22]
Cui bono? Or, an inquiry, what benefits can arise either to the ...
Sep 28, 2023 · Cui bono? Or, an inquiry, what benefits can arise either to the English or the Americans, ... in the present war? Being a series of letters ...Missing: 18th | Show results with:18th
[23]
Origins of Poe's Critical Theory (M. Alterton, 1925) (Chapter 02)
Jan 16, 2015 · In one instance he says that “cui bono” is a legal phrase, meaning “for whose advantage,” and that the term is mistranslated in “all the crack ...
[24]
[PDF] IRELAND AND LATIN AMERICA: A CULTURAL HISTORY - CORE
“He signed his first article 'Cui bono?', meaning 'To whose benefit?' but the typesetter changed the name to 'Che Buono'. The name, with the distinctly.
[25]
Principle of “Cui Bono” in Crime Investigation!
Mar 30, 2021 · Cui bono is a Latin phrase that means, “who benefits?”. Cui bono is often used as a mechanism to work out who committed a crime or to establish who is likely ...Missing: literal translation etymology
[26]
[PDF] Cui Bono? The (Latest) Personal Benefit Test in Insider Trading Cases
Jul 31, 2018 · Cui Bono? The (Latest) Personal. Benefit Test in Insider Trading. Cases. In the last four years, the Federal Courts of Appeal and the Supreme ...<|separator|>
[27]
https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/minds-madmen-how-fbis-behavioral-science-unit-revolutionized-crime
[28]
Transcript for NMT 1: Medical Case - Nuremberg Trials Project
so that, according to the old axiom "cui bono", the Wehrmacht, i.e. the medical service of the Wehrmacht, could be pointed to as the guilty party. In an ...
[29]
Behavioral Analysis - FBI.gov
The FBI uses in-house, cutting-edge psychological research and operational experience to better understand criminal behavior and assist in solving cases.
[30]
Into the Minds of Madmen: How the FBI's Behavioral Science Unit ...
The FBI's BSU, established in 1972, developed criminal profiling, training, research, and consultation to improve law enforcement and solve crimes.
[31]
Enron - FBI.gov
Financial analysts combed through hundreds of bank and brokerage accounts to track fraudulent purchases, which proved critical in securing restraining orders, ...
[32]
Computer crime motives: Do we have it right? - Compass Hub
Feb 18, 2023 · ... crime and criminal motives is provided. ... There is certainly no shortage of novel, fascinating, and often devastating computer crime cases ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[33]
[PDF] Research on White Collar Crime - Thinking About
Quinney (1973), Meier (1975). 11. Page 18. The "cui bono" notion is essentially an individualistic one; it simply sorts out individual behaviors according to ...
[34]
Cui bono - RunSensible
“Cui bono” is a Latin phrase that means “To whose benefit?” or “Who benefits?” It is often used in the context of investigating a crime or a suspicious event.
[35]
Cui Bono? Who Gains and Who Loses
Dec 1, 1996 · "Cui bono?" was a query used in debate in the Roman Senate. Meaning "to whose benefit," the question cuts to the heart of many proposed ...
[36]
The O'Toole Chronicles: Cui Bono – For Whose Benefit?
Dec 5, 2023 · The literal translation of Cui Bonoi is “to whom is it a benefit,” but we simplify the Latin term so it is more digestible for us.Missing: primary sources
[37]
Cui Bono? The Question Rarely Asked, Let Alone Investigated ...
One of the basic principles of reporting is to ask "cui bono" - who benefits? In the Watergate scandal, the key informant whispered to reporters Woodward ...Missing: hearings | Show results with:hearings
[38]
Former Reporter Evaluates Possible Shield Law - NPR
Nov 24, 2009 · CONAN: There's always the question of Cui bono, who benefits if somebody comes to you with the story and says you have to protect me ...
[39]
Big Takeaways From the FBI's Mar-a-Lago Raid - WIRED
Aug 9, 2022 · One of the most important questions in an investigation is about establishing motive, summed up by the Latin phrase cui bono, or Who benefits?
[40]
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/cui-bono/202509/why-media-journalists-might-lean-left
[41]
New Conventions in Corruption | Chris Lehmann - The Baffler
Jul 7, 2016 · ... cui bono agenda of the American punditocracy. As Intercept reporter Lee Fang notes, the national party conventions in Cleveland and ...
[42]
How Conspiracy Theorists Get the Scientific Method Wrong
Sep 10, 2020 · This is where a second fallacy comes into play, the cui bono principle, which says: “To whom is it a benefit?”. The principle is attributed ...
[43]
How Conspiracy Theorists Get the Scientific Method Wrong
Jul 28, 2020 · This is where a second fallacy comes into play, the cui bono principle, which says: “To whom is it a benefit?”. The principle is attributed ...
[44]
Truth, power and the rehabilitation of the facts
Apr 19, 2011 · The Pentagon Papers and Watergate scandals triggered a fresh celebration of investigative journalism ... cui bono approach. The ability of a ...
[45]
[PDF] Media literacy - Parliament (publications)
Jul 25, 2025 · Cui bono—Who benefits? 120. Academics researching public ... standard fact checking tool”. The speech expressed an intention to ...
[46]
SPJ's Code of Ethics | Society of Professional Journalists
Sep 6, 2014 · Minimize Harm. Ethical journalism treats sources, subjects, colleagues and members of the public as human beings deserving of respect.
[47]
Solved: the real Agatha Christie mystery - The Times
Dec 22, 2018 · Cui bono, who benefits from the crime, is the oldest rule in detection and the basis of almost every Christie mystery. After her ...
[48]
Cui Bono? Transcript - Shedunnit
May 27, 2020 · Cui bono, a Latin phrase meaning literally “to whom is it a benefit?” was popularised by the Roman senator and lawyer Marcus Tullius Cicero. He ...
[49]
Law & Order (1990) s01e19 Episode Script | SS
But But if I convince a jury and we're wrong- Cui bono? who benefits? Look at the rank of hand. He's killed. Number one is the wife, she's dead. Go to two ...
[50]
YARN | Yeah, but cui Bono? Who benefits? | The Departed (2006) | 紗
The Departed (2006) clip with quote Yeah, but cui Bono? Who benefits? Yarn is the best search for video clips by quote. Find the exact moment in a TV show, ...Missing: films | Show results with:films
[51]
"The Lincoln Lawyer" Cui Bono (TV Episode 2023) - IMDb
Rating 7.7/10 (960) Cui Bono: Directed by Shana Stein. With Manuel Garcia-Rulfo, Becki Newton, Angus Sampson, Jazz Raycole. As Lisa's trial begins, a mysterious letter left on ...
[52]
Algorithm Nation | Jacob Weisberg | The New York Review of Books
Oct 23, 2025 · In MAGA world, social media is judged by a simple standard: Cui bono? When he thought that TikTok was a tool the Chinese government might ...Missing: discourse | Show results with:discourse
[53]
[PDF] Handbook on Identifying and Countering Disinformation
... action, especially by those who stand to benefit (the “cui bono?” maxim), and for this reason conspiracy theories have considerable but unwarranted appeal ...
[54]
[PDF] Filter bubble | Internet Policy Review
Nov 29, 2019 · ... cui bono: who benefits from the 'filter bubble' meme? Mainstream media have operationalised it to suggest that only their orderly and ...<|control11|><|separator|>