Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In late April 2022, riding a wave of bipartisan political support, the Biden administration and House of Representatives proposed expanding the executive branch's authority to freeze, seize, and forfeit to the people of Ukraine assets of individuals perceived to be aligned with the Russian government. These proposals seek to punish the Russian government's contemptable invasion of Ukraine, which has resulted in catastrophic levels of destruction and horrendous numbers of civilian casualties — including some caused by potential war crimes, a global refugee crisis, and a potential global food crisis. By going after the assets of those who, historically, have benefited from political allegiance to the regime of Vladimir Putin, political leaders hope to pressure Putin to reconsider his egregious actions. The goal is laudable, but pursuing it by expanding the reach of asset forfeiture — a domain that has been subject to justifiable criticism in recent years — and by expressly tying forfeitability to historic political support of a nation-state, raises some serious procedural and substantive questions.
The proposals also include adding a new offense, making it unlawful for any person to knowingly possess proceeds directly obtained from corrupt dealings with the Russian government. Beyond the continuing refrain of overcriminalization — seeking to solve each new problem by adding yet another ill-defined federal crime to the books — this offense has the troubling aspect of criminalizing political affiliation. In law school, aspiring lawyers are taught the two basic types of crimes: malum in se (wrong by nature) and malum prohibitum (wrong by virtue of a government prohibition). The proposed asset seizure draws us down a dangerous path to what may come to be known as malum politica — wrong by politics. Congress and the Biden administration need carefully to consider whether making political affiliation a crime in this instance would set a dangerous precedent for the future. Legal advocates need to be alert to legislation or enforcement that threatens to undermine due process protections.
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
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
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.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.