Follow Us
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?
This premium content is reserved for
Law Journal Press Subscribers.
Continue reading by getting
started with a subscription.
ITC General Exclusion Orders Targeting All Importers Are On the Rise
By Daniel Muino, Brian Busey and Nomin-Erdene Jagdagdorj
In recent years, the ITC has issued more General Exclusion Orders (GEOs) than in the past. For importers of products potentially implicated by a requested GEO, the GEO can be a major threat even if the importer is not a respondent in the case.
Ticket Resellers’ Campaign Raises Securities Law and Money Laundering Issues
By Chris Castle
Some markets allow for the sale of a future contract for tickets that have not gone on sale as yet (i.e., “speculative ticketing”). The future contract, like an option or a commodities future, allows someone to purchase the right to buy a ticket once the tickets are offered for sale. This seems to implicate securities law issues, broker-dealer regulations and potentially the general solicitation rule.
Rule 10b-5 Liability: The Second Circuit and ‘Rio Tinto’
By Anthony Michael Sabino
Part Three of a Three-Part Article
The first two installments exposited Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders and Lorenzo v. S.E.C., both essential to understanding S.E.C. v. Rio Tinto, the Second Circuit’s most recent holding regarding Rule 10b-5 “scheme” liability. Now we examine how the “Mother Court” of federal securities law has tended to that branch of the mighty judicial oak rooted in that venerable regulation.
By Harry Sandick and Nicole Scully
It has been common knowledge to criminal practitioners for years that a criminal defendant’s sentence for a crime which they have been convicted can be increased based on consideration of conduct that the jury acquitted. This outcome can make a partial acquittal in federal court into a pyrrhic victory.
Copyright © ALM Global, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
