Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Conspiracy to Launder Money in Violation of 18 U.S.C. ' 1956(h) Does Not Require Proof of an Overt Act
In Whitfield v. United States, No. 03-1293 (U.S. Jan. 11, 2005) the Supreme Court held that conspiracy to launder money in violation of 18 U.S.C. ' 1956(h) does not require proof of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Section 1956(h) provides: “Any person who conspires to commit any offense defined in [section 1956] or section 1957 shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.” Section 1956 penalizes the knowing and intentional transfer of proceeds from specified unlawful conduct, while section 1957 penalizes those who knowingly engage in transactions involving criminally derived property exceeding $10,000 in value.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.