Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In recent years, practitioners have observed a tension between criminal enforcement of the broadly written terms of the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and the modern Supreme Court’s notions of statutory interpretation and due process in the criminal law context. A certiorari petition filed in late August in Sanchez et al. v. United States, No. 19-288, asks the Supreme Court to address this tension, as embodied in the judge-made per se rule. The rule, a longstanding feature of antitrust doctrine, provides that certain categories of agreements among competitors are barred without further inquiry regarding whether, in fact, they unreasonably restrained trade. The question presented in Sanchez is “whether the operation of the per se rule in criminal antitrust cases violates the constitutional prohibition — grounded in the Fifth and Sixth Amendments — against instructing juries that certain facts presumptively establish an element of a crime.”
*May exclude premium content
By Ross Benson and Robert N. Driscoll
Given the rapid expansion of interest and participation in cryptocurrency transactions, it’s not a matter of whether you have an interest in crypto, think it’s all a bizarre techno-bubble, the eventual replacement for fiat currency, or somewhere in between. The fact of the matter is your clients, and future clients, are more likely than ever to have a connection to this market, and a brief review of the headlines can make this prospect seem terrifying.
By Jacqueline C. Wolff and Michael Herrmann
The prevalent view is that telehealth will remain an integral part of our healthcare system post-PHE and may even continue to expand. And that means criminal and civil enforcement focused on fraud committed using, or furthered by the use of, telehealth will be expanding as well, particularly when one looks at the dollars that a regulator can bring in for fraud or noncompliance.
By Carolyn H. Kendall and Abraham J. Rein
Hillary Clinton's 2015 statement about the possibility of incarceration for employment-related failures was, to many, an alarming prospect. Since that time, this movement has grown, and has recently gained momentum. Today, prosecutors across the country increasingly seek criminal fines and jail time for what were previously seen as non-criminal labor violations.
By Elkan Abramowitz and Jonathan S. Sack
This article describes pending federal prosecutions, which level corruption charges against high-level officials, considers how the theories of prosecution in these cases might be viewed in light of court decisions in other public corruption cases, and concludes with some observations about the outer limits of federal public corruption prosecutions.