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 Jacqueline C. Wolff
Lessons Learned from Recent Settlements and Decisions
Health care fraud and False Claims Act cases continue to generate a significant source of funds for the Federal Government. Although, when announcing its focus, the government listed treatment options are not always clear. What these settlements often have in common is that the underlying complaints allege that the services that were rendered and reimbursed lacked medical necessity.
By Robert J. Anello and Justin Roller
Part Two of a Two-Part Article
Though they might seem straightforward on their faces, limitations periods are often elongated by legislation or court interpretation. The authors began looking at some of these exceptions to the stated limitations periods last month in Part One of this article. They continue here with further examples.
By Colleen Snow
Utah Biodiesel Executives in $511 Million Fuel Tax Credit Scheme
By Colleen Snow
Second Circuit Issues Ruling Against DOJ in United States v. Hoskins Appeal