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).
*May exclude premium content
By Gary Stein
Early returns are in, and they indicate that the Supreme Court’s decision in the so-called “Bridgegate” case will be an effective tool for pruning the wild overgrowth that has built up around the federal fraud statutes.
By Robert J. Anello and Richard F. Albert
The holding in Blaszczak significantly widens the scope of criminal insider trading. It also creates the anomaly of extending the criminal law beyond the SEC’s civil enforcement authority.
By Harry Sandick and Jacob Tuttle Newman
This article considers certain positions taken by DOJ in cases involving Roger Stone, Michael Flynn and the subpoenas duces tecum issued by the New York District Attorney’s Office in connection with its investigation into the Trump Organization.
By Bradley A. Marcus
Although the criminal prosecution of lawyer misconduct is nothing new, the recent indictment of a plaintiffs’ lawyer in Maryland and sentencing of two plaintiffs’ lawyers in Virginia illustrate the particular danger to attorneys who arguably cross the line during negotiations with potential litigation counterparties.