Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In Part One, we discussed the public concern over unfairness in asset forfeiture and analyzed the Supreme Court case — United States v. Bajakajian — that looked to the Excessive Fines Clause to limit the government’s authority to forfeit property. In Part Two, we consider possible reforms that would allow defendants to challenge forfeitures as disproportionate under a fairer and more appropriate analysis.
In Part One of our article (last month), we discussed the public concern over unfairness in asset forfeiture and analyzed the Supreme Court case — United States v. Bajakajian, 524 U.S. 321 (1998) — that looked to the Excessive Fines Clause to limit the government’s authority to forfeit property. We also explained that in the years since Bajakajian was decided, the decision has been invoked by the Circuit Courts of Appeal only rarely to block the government’s forfeiture claim. Why are there so few successful challenges to forfeiture under Bajakajian?
*May exclude premium content
By Robert J. Anello and Richard F. Albert
By undoing some of the higher profile policy changes of the prior administration that many perceived as business-friendly, the current administration has served notice on the business and financial community of a return to practices characteristic of a more aggressive enforcement regime.
By Veeral Gosalia
Major crisis events, such as political uprisings or financial downturns, are typically followed by an increase in fraud in the business sector and heightened risk to corporate IP and other sensitive information. Anecdotally, this seems to be proving out again in the recent and ongoing fallout from the pandemic. Even before this Great Resignation movement, corporations across the globe were reporting increases in suspicious activity, data leakage, IP theft and other data risks stemming from departing employees and remote workers.
By Nola B. Heller and Samson Enzer
This article discusses the potential criminal and civil penalties that companies can face if their employees engage in insider trading in digital assets, and suggests several measures that exchanges can take to reduce their exposure from such risks.
By David Saunders and Julian L. André
The past 12 months have seen a steady drumbeat of action by federal law enforcement and regulatory agencies of which in-house counsel should take note. Whether new guidance, regulation, investigations, or enforcement activity, the message is clear: The federal government is paying close attention to how companies are handling and protecting their data — especially consumer and sensitive data.