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
Why So Many Great Lawyers Stink at Business Development and What Law Firms Are Doing About It Image

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?

Bankruptcy Sales: Finding a Diamond In the Rough Image

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 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.

A Lawyer's System for Active Reading Image

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.

Protecting Innovation in the Cyber World from Patent Trolls Image

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.