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 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