Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
What was once perceived as a straightforward limitation on the government’s significant enforcement powers has become obscured by statutes and court interpretations that tend to elongate the period for the government to act in ways that often are not transparent to even experienced criminal practitioners.
Statutes of limitations establish time limits for the government to prosecute crimes. The clock usually starts ticking as soon as an offense is complete. These statutory deadlines have been a cornerstone of American criminal law since the time of the Founders. Their purpose, as the U.S. Supreme Court has explained, is “to protect individuals from having to defend themselves against charges when the basic facts may have become obscured by the passage of time and to minimize the danger of official punishment because of acts in the fardistant past.” Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112, 11415 (1970). Statutes of limitations thus provide an important check on prosecutorial delay and unfairness.
*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.