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
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.
A federal district court in Miami, FL, has ruled that former National Basketball Association star Shaquille O'Neal will have to face a lawsuit over his promotion of unregistered securities in the form of cryptocurrency tokens and that he was a "seller" of these unregistered securities.
Blockchain domain names offer decentralized alternatives to traditional DNS-based domain names, promising enhanced security, privacy and censorship resistance. However, these benefits come with significant challenges, particularly for brand owners seeking to protect their trademarks in these new digital spaces.
In recent years, there has been a growing number of dry cleaners claiming to be "organic," "green," or "eco-friendly." While that may be true with respect to some, many dry cleaners continue to use a cleaning method involving the use of a solvent called perchloroethylene, commonly known as perc. And, there seems to be an increasing number of lawsuits stemming from environmental problems associated with historic dry cleaning operations utilizing this chemical.
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?