A total of 53 executions were carried out in 2006, down from 60 in 2005. Executions over the past three decades peaked at 98 in 1999. Among the many causes given by prosecutors, lawyers and death penalty critics: the passage of more state laws that allow juries to impose life without parole; an overall drop in violent crime; and a reluctance among some authorities to pursue the death penalty because of the high costs of prosecuting a capital case.

On Tuesday, a New Jersey State commission recommended that the state abolish the death penalty completely, replacing it with a life sentence without the possibility of parole. If the commission's report makes its way into law New Jersey will become the first US jurisdiction to ban capital punishment in over 35 years. In December, Florida Governor Jeb Bush suspended all executions in that state after a lethal injection execution there was botched, and a federal judge in California effectively suspended capital punishment there by ruling that that state's lethal injection procedure creates "an undue and unnecessary risk" of cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment of the US Constitution.

The dawning of a new year for many is an opportunity to wipe the slate clean and resolve to do more in the months ahead—lose more weight, be more generous, and, of course, make more money. Unfortunately scammers of all stripes will be seeking their own fortunes in 2007, often by preying on the public's general affinity to get something for nothing.

Fraud appears in many ways and robs innocent victims of billions of dollars every year. Mortgage fraud alone is estimated to have cost $1 billion in 2005 and is expected to be a continuing problem in 2007—a recent analysis shows mortgage loan fraud reports rose 35 percent in the past year. Internet fraud last year cost victims $183 million, much of it through bogus online auctions and the non-delivery of goods.

As the new year emerges with its infinite possibilities, add another resolution to the mix-resolve not to be a victim. Don't fall for scams designed to steal your identity or your money. Be vigilant with your personal data, know what scams are lurking, and be mindful of the golden rule "If it looks too good to be true…," which happens to have its own website: lookstoogoodtobetrue.

Here is a short list of scams to be aware of. It is by no means complete, but offers a glimpse of ways scammers try to take what is yours. More information can be found on our Common Fraud Schemes page and at LooksTooGoodToBeTrue. Meanwhile the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) keeps a running list of emerging Internet scams.

The links below describe different types of fraud and offer tips on how to protect yourself:

Telemarketing Fraud: When you give personal or financial information to unknown callers, you increase your chances of becoming a victim of fraud.

Nigerian Letters or "419" Fraud: A letter, often mailed from Nigeria, offers the recipient the "opportunity" to share in a percentage of millions of dollars.

Identity Fraud: The sources of information about you are so numerous that you cannot prevent the theft of your identity. But you can minimize your risk of loss by following a few simple hints.

"Ponzi" Scheme: A Ponzi scheme is essentially an investment fraud wherein the operator promises high financial returns or dividends not available through traditional investments.

Internet Auction Fraud: Understand as much as possible about how an auction works, what your obligations are as a buyer, and what the seller's obligations are before you bid.

Scams Targeting Senior Citizens: The elderly are targeted for fraud for several reasons: they are more likely to have a "nest egg," they are typically more trusting, and they are less likely to report-or realize-they have been scammed.

Mortgage Fraud: It's one of the fastest growing white-collar crimes in the U.S. We list seven common mortgage loan fraud schemes, including "flipping," when property is purchased, falsely appraised at a higher value, and then quickly sold.

Combating major white-collar crime is one of the FBI's top priorities. You can learn more about our efforts on our White-Collar Crime page. And you can do your part to help us by being vigilant and not falling for promises of quick riches in 2007.

Ban, however, took a different approach, never mentioning the U.N. ban on the death penalty in all its international tribunals, and the right to life enshrined in the U.N. Charter.

"Saddam Hussein was responsible for committing heinous crimes and unspeakable atrocities against Iraqi people and we should never forget victims of his crime," Ban said in response to a reporter's question about Saddam's execution Saturday for crimes against humanity. "The issue of capital punishment is for each and every member state to decide."

His ambiguous answer put a question mark over the U.N.'s stance on the death penalty. It also gave the new chief an early taste of how tricky global issues are, and how every word can make a difference.

The report added that Mr Jobs did not benefit financially from the backdating programme because he returned all the stock options granted to him during the period under investigation.

However, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the US market regulator, which is already investigating the stock options scandal at more than 100 companies, including Apple, told The Times that an executive could be found guilty of backdating without benefiting from the award.

A spokesman for the SEC, who was unable to comment directly on the Apple investigation, said: “An executive does not have to benefit personally from stock options backdating to be found to have violated the rules . . . Past cases show that personal gain is not a precondition to any action by this office.”

The SEC would not confirm whether the company or Mr Jobs was under investigation, but it is understood that investigators from the regulator’s enforcement division next month will begin to look into more than one million pages of evidence gathered by Apple during its internal review of the stock options affair.

The Justice Department is also said to be looking into the backdating of options at Apple. It declined to comment.

The Justice Department has brought suit in U.S. District Court in Chicago against a Seneca, Ill., couple, Royanne and Neal Reddy, and their businesses, Royanne’s Tax Services and Royanne & Company, seeking to bar them permanently from preparing federal tax returns for others. According to the government complaint, the Reddys, operating their businesses in Marseilles and Princeton, Ill., have prepared more than 9,000 returns since 2002.

The complaint states that the IRS examined 70 income tax returns prepared by the Reddys or employees under their direct supervision. It’s further alleged that all of these returns required adjustments, and 64 returns contained improper deductions of as much as $30,000. The complaint alleges that average under-reported tax on these 70 returns was $2,775, and states that the IRS estimates the total cost to the Treasury of the Reddys’ and their employees’ improper income tax return preparation to be more than $13 million.

The government’s suit alleges that the Reddys fraudulently fabricate or inflate business expenses for customers to reduce their reported income. The Reddys also allegedly fabricate income for some customers to get them Earned Income Tax Credits to which they are not entitled. It is further alleged that the Reddys have provided fabricated documents to IRS agents auditing their customers’ returns.

The suit asks the court to order the Reddys to give the government a list with their customers’ names, addresses, e-mail addresses, phone numbers and Social Security numbers.

The State of California has decided not to appeal a December 21st decision of the California 1st District Court of Appeal restoring voting rights to approximately 100,000 inmates serving a year or less for felony convictions in local jails. The case, filed by the League of Women Voters of California and other voter and prisoner right interest groups, challenged a December 2005 interpretation of Art. 2 Sec. 4 of the California Constitution by Secretary of State Bruce McPhearson maintaining that those serving short term sentences for felonies in county jails were not eligible to vote.

The court’s decision relied on Section 17 of the California Penal Code, which defines felonies and misdemeanors. When a person is sent to a local jail, typically for confinement as a condition of probation, they are not actually convicted of a felony, which would allow their voting rights to be stripped.