Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Supreme Court Revisits Money Laundering
On March 3, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Cuellar v. United States. The decision, expected by the end of June, will interpret the 'intent to conceal' provision of the federal Anti-Money Laundering statutes. Specifically, the question presented is whether hiding illicit crime proceeds absent a design to create the appearance that the proceeds were derived from legitimate wealth violates section 18 U.S.C. ' 1956 (a)(2)(B)(i), which makes it an offense to transport crime proceeds across an international border with the intent to conceal or disguise. Before reaching the Supreme Court, the question was answered Yes by the district court, No by a divided panel of the Fifth Circuit, then Yes by the circuit sitting en banc.
The Facts
The facts presented at trial established that Humberto Fidel Regalado Cuellar was stopped while traveling on Route 277 South toward his home in the border town of Acuna, Mexico. The County Sheriff pulled Cuellar over because his car was traveling 40 mph in a 70 mph zone and had veered onto the shoulder of the road. Cuellar was in possession of $2,275, which the arresting officers testified smelled of marijuana. A canine unit was called to the scene and, while waiting, the officers searched the car with Cuellar's consent. Their search revealed that the car had been altered in a way consistent with other cars used to transport narcotics, and contained animal hair ' a known method used to distract drug-detection dogs. When the dog arrived, it 'alerted' on an area behind the driver's seat, where officers found a hidden compartment that contained more than $80,000 in U.S. currency in all denominations.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.