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 Jacqueline C. Wolff
Something Old, Something New, Something Borrowed, Something Blue
this second edition contains some new “hypotheticals” — facts of actual cases the DOJ finds important enough to focus on — and, in keeping true to its name, has included additional resources and links for chief compliance officers looking to design and audit their companies’ anticorruption compliance programs.
By Robert J. Anello and Richard F. Albert
United States v. Napout
The U.S. government’s lead role in the prosecution of corruption within the Zurich-based FIFA may be a paradigmatic example of U.S. law enforcement acting as the world’s policeman. If corruption is based on foreign executives violating their duties of loyalty to foreign private entities, how does that translate into a violation of U.S. criminal law? Does it matter that the conduct in which the foreign executive engaged — commercial bribery — may not be illegal under the law of the executive’s home country?
By Elkan Abramowitz and Jonathan S. Sack
This article discusses cases that have begun to address whether “official act” is an element in a private honest services fraud prosecution.
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.