Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
TEXAS
Co-owner of Valcomar Inc. Sentenced to 24-month Prison Term
On Oct. 20, before Judge Kathleen Cardone of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas in El Paso, Valcomar Inc. (Valcomar) co-owner Gilberto Baez-Garcia was sentenced to a 24-month prison term, along with a five-year term of supervised release, and approximately $3.6 million in both restitution and forfeiture. The sentence was for Baez-Garcia's role in a $3.6 million scheme to defraud the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank), the independent federal agency that assists foreign buyers with financing for the purchase of U.S. exports.
Baez-Garcia's sentencing followed his earlier guilty plea, on May 11 of this year, to charges of conspiracy to launder money, conspiracy to commit bank fraud and wire fraud, and bank fraud. Baez-Garcia's plea was tied to his actions as the co-owner of Valcomar, an El Paso, TX-based export company that claimed to export U.S. goods to Mexico. According to the government, Baez-Garcia admitted that he, along with another exporter, had created false documentation to fraudulently secure a loan from Ex-Im Bank, along with helping others to obtain similarly fraudulent loans. The U.S. government's combined loss on the fraudulent loans was more than $3 million.
TEXAS
Co-owner of Valcomar Inc. Sentenced to 24-month Prison Term
On Oct. 20, before Judge
Baez-Garcia's sentencing followed his earlier guilty plea, on May 11 of this year, to charges of conspiracy to launder money, conspiracy to commit bank fraud and wire fraud, and bank fraud. Baez-Garcia's plea was tied to his actions as the co-owner of Valcomar, an El Paso, TX-based export company that claimed to export U.S. goods to Mexico. According to the government, Baez-Garcia admitted that he, along with another exporter, had created false documentation to fraudulently secure a loan from Ex-Im Bank, along with helping others to obtain similarly fraudulent loans. The U.S. government's combined loss on the fraudulent loans was more than $3 million.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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 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.
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.
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.
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.