Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In Honeycutt v. United States, the Supreme Court rejected the argument that a federal criminal forfeiture statute permits joint and several liability for criminal asset forfeiture judgments, thereby protecting defendants who were only marginally culpable for a larger offense.
In recent years, the U.S. Supreme Court has demonstrated a renewed willingness to police the boundaries of the law of asset forfeiture in order to make sure that defendants are treated fairly. In Honeycutt v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1626 (2017), the Supreme Court rejected the argument that a federal criminal forfeiture statute permits joint and several liability for criminal asset forfeiture judgments, thereby protecting defendants who were only marginally culpable for a larger offense. One year prior, in Luis v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 1083 (2016), the Supreme Court held that pretrial restraint of legitimate, untainted assets violated the Sixth Amendment, when the government sought to secure the untainted property as substitute assets for eventual forfeiture or restitution. Last year, Justice Clarence Thomas even expressed an interest in the Court taking up the question of whether due process requires the government to prove its entitlement to civil forfeiture by clear and convincing evidence. Leonard v. Texas, 137 S. Ct. 847 (2017) (Thomas, J., concurring).
*May exclude premium content
By Telemachus P. Kasulis
For a moment there, it really looked like it was going to happen. After a long and winding road, insider trading reform had reached the floor of the House of Representatives for a vote. The Insider Trading Prohibition Act (ITPA) had support on both sides of the aisle and on Dec. 5, 2019, the House voted to pass the ITPA. Then the bill went to the Senate and vanished. We should take this opportunity to learn what lessons we can from the successes and failures of the ITPA as a bill with an eye toward fashioning the best possible legislation next time — whenever that may be.
By Nekia Hackworth Jones
The government appears to be fulfilling its commitment to rooting out PPP fraud, even when the amount at issue falls below the $2 million threshold. No matter the size of the loan, a company that obtained PPP funds is not immune from a possible government investigation or audit. Borrowers have already started to submit loan forgiveness applications, and many more will be submitted in the weeks ahead, and both lenders and the government will be scouring these submissions for red flags.
By Rebecca Kirk Fair, Peter Hess and Vendela Fehrm
This article draws on a review of over 300 U.S. court rulings in cases involving surveys, including over 150 Daubert motions, and provides suggestions for getting survey evidence admitted for consideration in court. Our recommendations fall under two broad categories: relevance and reliability.
By Scott Pink and John Dermody
COVID-19 Contact Tracing v. Protecting Personal Privacy
As states roll back stay-at-home orders, contact tracing has quickly emerged as an essential tool to manage the spread of the coronavirus and allow the country to return to work safely. But innovative contact tracing methods raise a host of privacy concerns, forcing a reckoning with how we balance privacy and public health.