Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
A Court Again Quashes 'Doctrinal Novelty' By Prosecutors
We've been down this road before: Congress enacts broad anti-fraud provisions and “creative” prosecutors, aided and abetted by compliant judges, invent crimes until told to stop. Stretching by prosecutors, and later contraction by some courts, has played out across a number of corruption related statutes, with courts ultimately requiring prosecutors to prove misconduct. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court decided in United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of California (1999), that before the government may establish a violation of the federal bribery statute, it must prove a quid pro quo. Similarly, in United States v. McCormack (1991), the Court decided, contrary to the DOJ's view, that campaign contributions are only violations of the anti-fraud statute if there is a specific quid pro quo.
Again in McNally v. United States (1987), the Supreme Court struck down the expansive “honest services mail fraud doctrine.” Later, in Skilling v. United States (2010), it again limited the amorphous fraud provisions of the mail fraud statute to cases where the Government can prove a quid pro quo.
The effort to limit prosecution to clear misconduct ' rather than allowing prosecutors to condemn any behavior they find distasteful ' continued last month when the Supreme Court held that the anti-shredding provision of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act does not criminalize the throwing of fish overboard. The refrain is the same: “[I]t is appropriate, before we choose the harsher alternative [advocated by the DOJ], to require that Congress should have spoken in language that is clear and definite.” Yates v. United States (2015).
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.