Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Can the guilty plea allocution of a corporation be admitted against an individual defendant in a criminal trial to prove the existence of a conspiracy? A recent evidentiary ruling in the Southern District of New York suggests it can, provided that “signatories” to the corporate plea agreement are available for cross-examination. This article reviews the history of the admission of individual co-conspirator plea allocutions in criminal cases and discuss why the admission of a corporate guilty plea, despite the opportunity to cross-examine a corporate employee who signed the plea agreement, does not provide the type of cross-examination guaranteed by the Confrontation Clause. As a result, the Confrontation Clause should operate as a per se bar on the admission of corporate plea allocutions in the trials of individual defendants.
By Joseph F. Savage Jr. and Christopher J.C. Herbert
In an environment of aggressive federal prosecution and regulation both businesses and public officials are challenged to identify the permissible line between proper financial transactions — things like campaign contributions and business entertainment — and unlawful payments. And, in what the First Circuit called a “novel theory of Hobbs Act extortion,” public officials now have to struggle with the scope of permissible advocacy — when does advocacy for constituents become extortion?
By Harry Sandick and Tara Norris
Part One of a Two-Part Article
In its recently ended October Term 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court decided several notable criminal law decisions that will have a meaningful impact on white-collar practitioners’ work and, importantly, offer clues regarding the movement of the criminal law in subsequent terms. In this two-part article, we review several of the key decisions and consider their implications, both for practitioners in this area and for Court-watchers interested in future Court decisions.
By Robert J. Anello and Richard F. Albert
SEC Chairman Jay Clayton recently announced a change in how the SEC will consider requests for waivers of certain serious collateral consequences that would otherwise result from settlement of an SEC enforcement action. These collateral consequences, often referred to as “bad actor” or “bad boy” provisions, can vary greatly and may disqualify an entity from conducting certain business or utilizing certain means to offer securities.
By Juliet Gunev
Canadian Clean Fuel Technology Company and Former CEO Pay $4.1 Million to Settle China Related FCPA Case