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 Alastair Johnson
The use of SMS verification codes as a security measure has recently been exposed as a mere stop-gap solution because of the ability of hackers to fraudulently take over phone numbers. Biometrics meanwhile is proving to be one of the best new technologies to combat fraud and identity theft.
By Eric M. Meiring
Corporate counsel should be aware of the following 10 common mistakes that practitioners make when representing clients in criminal antitrust matters.
By William F. Johnson
This article reviews the history of the admission of individual co-conspirator plea allocutions in criminal cases and discuss why the admission of a corporate guilty plea, despite the opportunity to cross-examine a corporate employee who signed the plea agreement, does not provide the type of cross-examination guaranteed by the Confrontation Clause.
By Colleen Snow
Changes to Yates Memo Announced