Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In May 2018, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a new policy to address a growing problem in white-collar criminal and civil enforcement. With increased frequency, law enforcement investigations of financial institutions and multinational corporations involve cooperation and information-sharing among governments, as well as among U.S. federal, state and local agencies. As Steven R. Peikin, co-director of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) Division of Enforcement, observed in a speech in November 2017: “The level of cooperation and coordination among regulators and law enforcement worldwide is on a sharply upward trajectory.” As a result, companies have faced multiple — and often duplicative — penalties in numerous jurisdictions, particularly in the area of anticorruption enforcement.
*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.