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 Marielle Sanchez
Elections have consequences, and the election of President Trump has resulted in a significant shift in law enforcement priorities. Corporate enforcement activity is at lows not seen in decades, despite an overall increase in federal criminal cases. This is a product of a change in priorities, both in terms of types of offenses and types of offender. So, for the time being, there will be almost unprecedented opportunity to achieve favorable resolutions for corporate clients.
By Harry Sandick and Danielle Quinn
A defendant who pleads guilty is usually required to waive a host of constitutional and statutory rights, such as the right to a jury trial, the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, the right to testify and present evidence. However, many defendants are also required to waive their right to appeal in order to receive a favorable plea agreement with the government.
By Robert J. Anello and Kostya Lantsman
Business has gone global. So too has business-related crime. In the interconnected business environment, white-collar criminal investigations and prosecutions frequently present cross-border issues and affect U.S. foreign relations. Indeed, in some recent high-profile cases, the Trump administration has implied that it sees law enforcement — or the lack of it — as one of the tools in its foreign policy arsenal.
By Surya Kundu
Seventh Circuit Distinguishes Between Truth and Truthiness