Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In the Courts
Sentencing for Two Bankers in Zürcher Kantonalbank of Switzerland Case
Earlier this year, in August 2018, the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that the United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York had reached an agreement with Swiss financial institution, Zürcher Kantonalbank (ZKB), to enter into a three-year deferred prosecution agreement (DPA). The DPA related to ZKB's role in assisting their clients to evade federal tax obligations between 2002 and 2013 (totaling over $39 million), including to file false returns and hide money in offshore accounts. As part of that settlement, ZKB was required to pay a $98.5 million penalty.
Throughout the course of the investigation, two Swiss ZKB bankers — Stephan Fellman and Christof Reist — also admitted their role in the tax evasion scheme, although initially the bank encouraged these individuals not to cooperate with the government's inquiries following their indictments in December 2012. Fellman and Reist ultimately agreed to assist the U.S. Attorney's Office more than two and a half years later, beginning in mid-2015. At the time the settlement was announced in August, the two defendants pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor for willfully failing to file returns, supply information, or pay taxes. A third involved ZKB banker, Otto Hüppi, remains at large.
On Nov. 30, 2018, citing “minimal” participation, a Manhattan federal judge sentenced Fellman and Reist each to one year of probation. These sentences, while accepted by the prosecutor, is lower than that set forth in the U.S. Federal Sentencing Guidelines, as both could have received a maximum of one year in prison. Both Fellman and Reist are expected to return to Switzerland — where they are residents — while serving out their probation.
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.