Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Importance of 'Particulars' in Criminal Fraud Cases
The indictment against your client reads in relevant part as follows: "In or about and between January 2019 and February 2020, the defendants, JOHN DOE and JANE DOE, co-owners of Acme Technology Co., made materially false and misleading statements and omissions to investors regarding, among other things, (i) the current and future revenues of Acme; (ii) the sales forecasts for Acme's main product; (iii) the amount of debt on Acme's balance sheet; and (iv) the executive compensation owed to the defendants." Such broadly worded charges, which describe the nature of the crime but do not identify specific misstatements, are common in fraud prosecutions.
How can counsel effectively defend against alleged false and misleading statements when the substance and timing of the statements are described only in general terms? The problem is especially acute because the defense may turn not simply on whether a given statement was false but also on what the speaker knew and believed at the specific time the statement was made.
The most obvious procedural move is to seek a bill of particulars, which, if granted, would require the government to provide such "particulars" as the substance and timing of the statements at issue. But success on a motion for particulars is highly uncertain. Courts frequently deny particulars in fraud prosecutions, holding that an indictment that provides the general categories of false statements, together with discovery or other pre-trial disclosures by the government, is sufficient to satisfy the demands of due process.
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.