Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In the Courts
Business Executive Arrested and Charged with Bribing Venezuelan Officials
Jose Manuel Gonzalez Testino (Gonzalez), charged with conspiring to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and paying bribes to a foreign official in violation of the FCPA, was arrested on Aug. 1, 2018, in the Miami International Airport. Upon his arrest, Gonzalez appeared before a U.S. Magistrate Judge of the Southern District of Florida. Gonzalez, who holds both U.S. and Venezuelan citizenship, is an alleged co-conspirator in a scheme to bribe officials within Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA), the Venezuelan state-owned oil and natural gas company. The criminal complaint, recently unsealed and filed in the Southern District of Texas (U.S. v. Gonzalez, No. 18-1203), alleges that Gonzalez paid at least $629,000 in bribes between 2012 and 2013 to a former PDVSA official. While the PDVSA official is not named in court documents, he is described as the procurement department general manager at a PDVSA subsidiary (Bariven SA), who previously pleaded guilty to conspiring to launder money. In exchange for these funds, numerous energy companies owned by Gonzalez allegedly received PDVSA contracts awarded in U.S. dollars (rather than Venezuelan bolivars, with priority payments over other vendors on those contracts).
Gonzalez's recent arrest is part of a broader U.S. government investigation into PDVSA bribery, which was first publicized in December 2015. According to the Department of Justice, to date, 17 individuals have been charged in the U.S., with 12 pleading guilty.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.