Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Questions Surround Expanded Government Authority to Seize Russian Assets

By Robert J. Anello and Richard F. Albert 
July 01, 2022

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.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • 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

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
The DOJ's Corporate Enforcement Policy: One Year Later Image

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.

The Bankruptcy Hotline Image

Recent cases of importance to your practice.

How AI Has Affected PR Image

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.

Use of Deferred Prosecution Agreements In White Collar Investigations Image

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.

The DOJ's New Parameters for Evaluating Corporate Compliance Programs Image

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.