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 Jonathan B. New and Victoria L. Stork
In May 2018, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a new policy to address a growing problem in white-collar criminal and civil enforcement. With increased…
By Robert J. Anello and Justin Roller
Part One of a Two-Part Article
What was once perceived as a straightforward limitation on the government’s significant enforcement powers has become obscured by statutes and court interpretations that tend to elongate the period for the government to act in ways that often are not transparent to even experienced criminal practitioners.
By Robert J. Stearn, Jr., Cory D. Kandestin and Christopher M. De Lillo
Delaware Bankruptcy Court Protects Communications with Financial Professionals Originating in Delaware
Because state law applies at the time a transaction is negotiated, the parties might assume — reasonably so — that state privilege law will govern communications with their attorneys and financial professionals. But what happens if, years later, a suit is filed in federal court and brings claims under federal law? Does state privilege law still apply?
By Sue Reisinger
Here’s a sure way to lose half your cooperation credit in a federal investigation: Let your in-house counsel advise employees not to cooperate with U.S. prosecutors.