Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In Part One, we discussed the public concern over unfairness in asset forfeiture and analyzed the Supreme Court case — United States v. Bajakajian — that looked to the Excessive Fines Clause to limit the government’s authority to forfeit property. In Part Two, we consider possible reforms that would allow defendants to challenge forfeitures as disproportionate under a fairer and more appropriate analysis.
In Part One of our article (last month), we discussed the public concern over unfairness in asset forfeiture and analyzed the Supreme Court case — United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998) — that looked to the Excessive Fines Clause to limit the government’s authority to forfeit property. We also explained that in the years since Bajakajian was decided, the decision has been invoked by the Circuit Courts of Appeal only rarely to block the government’s forfeiture claim. Why are there so few successful challenges to forfeiture under Bajakajian?
By Patrick Campbell, Jonathan New and Madison Gaudreau
This article explores legal developments over the past year that may impact compliance officer personal liability.
By John C. Coffee Jr.
It has been nearly 60 years since the SEC first clearly prohibited insider trading. You would think that would be long enough for the doctrinal rules to have become reasonably clear. Think again!
By Xiumei Dong
As Silicon Valley technology companies face increasing government scrutiny, experienced white-collar practitioners are becoming hot commodities among the law firms seeking to represent tech-focused clients.
By Juliet Gunev
Walmart and Brazillian Subsidiary Reach $282 Million Settlement with the DOJ and SEC to Resolve FCPA Investigations