Loud and Clear: FinCEN Demands a Culture of Compliance
The onslaught of civil and criminal enforcement actions against financial institutions for violating anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing laws has continued its brisk pace in the past few months, with enforcement of the AML provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act and the sanctions regulations administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control showing no signs of slowing down.
Bank Secrecy Act
When companies, especially financial institutions, and not individuals are charged with serious offenses, criticism is now common. Yet such criticism may be particularly unwarranted in the high-profile BSA prosecutions of recent years, where criminal liability rests on an institutional failure to maintain appropriate systems and controls.
In the Courts
An in-depth discussion of a Chinese counterfeiting case.
The Settlement Privilege and the Threat of Legal Action
Aggressive advocacy can often cross the line from legitimate negotiation tactics to extortion. It is laudable to encourage good-faith efforts to settle legitimate claims; however, this policy cannot and should not be used to undermine a defendant's ability to present civilly evidence demonstrating a criminally extortionate demand.
In the Courts
Analysis of a recent situation in which a Supreme Court Review Was Sought in an FCPA instrumentality case
Supreme Court's <i>Troice</i> Has Important Risk Management Implications
On Feb. 26, the U.S. Supreme Court decided <I>Chadbourne & Parke v.Troice</I>, holding that SLUSA does not preclude state law class actions where the plaintiffs allege that they purchased uncovered securities that the defendants said were backed by securities listed on a national exchange ' a misrepresentation.
The Settlement Privilege and the Threat of Legal Action
Part One of this article considers the issue of when a threat to litigate encased by a settlement demand raises the specter of extortion, and the extent to which a potentially extortionate settlement communication should be outside the scope of the privilege.
Gratuities and Honest Services Fraud
As noted in Part One of this article, in <I>Skilling v. United States</I>, the U.S. Supreme Court limited the scope of the honest services fraud statute 18 U.S.C. ' 1346) to "bribery and kickback" schemes, yet did not define what a "bribery" or "kickback" scheme must entail. So the question becomes this: Must a "bribe or kickback" involve a <I>quid pro quo</I>?
