Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In Honeycutt v. United States, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that a federal criminal forfeiture statute permits joint and several liability for criminal asset forfeiture judgments, thereby protecting defendants who were only marginally culpable for a larger offense.
In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has demonstrated a renewed willingness to police the boundaries of the law of asset forfeiture in order to make sure that defendants are treated fairly. In Honeycutt v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1626 (2017), the Supreme Court rejected the argument that a federal criminal forfeiture statute permits joint and several liability for criminal asset forfeiture judgments, thereby protecting defendants who were only marginally culpable for a larger offense. One year prior, in Luis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1083 (2016), the Supreme Court held that pretrial restraint of legitimate, untainted assets violated the Sixth Amendment, when the government sought to secure the untainted property as substitute assets for eventual forfeiture or restitution. Last year, Justice Clarence Thomas even expressed an interest in the Court taking up the question of whether due process requires the government to prove its entitlement to civil forfeiture by clear and convincing evidence. Leonard v. Texas, 137 S. Ct. 847 (2017) (Thomas, J., concurring).
By Joseph F. Savage Jr. and Christopher J.C. Herbert
In an environment of aggressive federal prosecution and regulation both businesses and public officials are challenged to identify the permissible line between proper financial transactions — things like campaign contributions and business entertainment — and unlawful payments. And, in what the First Circuit called a “novel theory of Hobbs Act extortion,” public officials now have to struggle with the scope of permissible advocacy — when does advocacy for constituents become extortion?
By Harry Sandick and Tara Norris
Part One of a Two-Part Article
In its recently ended October Term 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court decided several notable criminal law decisions that will have a meaningful impact on white-collar practitioners’ work and, importantly, offer clues regarding the movement of the criminal law in subsequent terms. In this two-part article, we review several of the key decisions and consider their implications, both for practitioners in this area and for Court-watchers interested in future Court decisions.
By Robert J. Anello and Richard F. Albert
SEC Chairman Jay Clayton recently announced a change in how the SEC will consider requests for waivers of certain serious collateral consequences that would otherwise result from settlement of an SEC enforcement action. These collateral consequences, often referred to as “bad actor” or “bad boy” provisions, can vary greatly and may disqualify an entity from conducting certain business or utilizing certain means to offer securities.
By Juliet Gunev
Canadian Clean Fuel Technology Company and Former CEO Pay $4.1 Million to Settle China Related FCPA Case