Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In recent years, we have seen the Department of Justice (DOJ) expand its international focus, as it looks to punish foreign nationals, often for conduct that occurred almost entirely outside of the territorial borders of the United States, such as in the Libor and FX benchmark cases. See, United States v. Allen, 864 F.3d 63, 90 (2d Cir. 2018) (reversing conviction where compelled testimony in the United Kingdom was used against the defendants, both UK nationals, who were "hale[d] … into the courts of the United States to fend for their liberty"); United States v. Hayes, 118 F. Supp. 3d 620, 628-29 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (prosecution of Swiss and UK nationals in U.S. courts where crime involved U.S. wire communications).
DOJ's eagerness to look outside of the United States in its investigations, however, has not been matched by judicial enthusiasm concerning the extraterritorial application of U.S. law. On the contrary, we have seen a string of Supreme Court decisions over the past decade that limit the reach of U.S. law. See, e.g., RJR Nabisco v. European Community, 136 S. Ct. 2090, 2110-11 (2016) (limiting the international reach of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act); Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, 133 S. Ct. 1659, 1669 (2013) (limiting the international reach of the Alien Tort Claims Act); Morrison v. Nat'l Australia Bank Ltd., 561 U.S. 247, 273 (2010) (holding that section 10(b) only reaches misconduct in connection with the purchase or sale of a security listed on an American stock exchange, or a purchase or sale in the United States).
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.