Follow Us
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The term “speaking indictment” refers to indictments that go beyond the Fed.R.Crim.P. 7(c)(1) requirement of a “plain, concise and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged” — i.e., an indictment that does more than simply track the statutory charging language and state the who, what, when, where and the elements of the crime, the manner and means, and, for Section 371 conspiracies, overt acts. The use of speaking indictments is often justified as providing notice to defendants of allegations the absence of which might otherwise provoke pretrial motions to dismiss or for a bill of particulars. See Department of Justice (DOJ) Criminal Resource Manual at § 214 (“The [indictment] drafter must afford the defendant … a document … that is sufficiently descriptive to permit the defendant to prepare a defense, and to invoke the double jeopardy provision of the Fifth Amendment, if appropriate.”) (emphasis added). Indeed, prosecutors and courts often cite to “speaking indictments” as a reason to deny a defense motion for a bill of particulars. See, e.g., United States v. Schaefer, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51897 *9-12 (N.D.Ind. April 19, 2016).
*May exclude premium content
By Jacqueline C. Wolff
Since the DOJ announced a new policy under which companies that voluntarily disclosed violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act has attempted to encourage companies to voluntarily disclose all manner of criminal misconduct beyond violations of just the FCPA, while general counsels worldwide have been wrestling with the question of whether and when it is in the company’s best interest to so disclose.
SEC to Continue to Punish Wrongdoers and Deter Misconduct
By Jonathan H. Hecht and Emily S. Unger
The Division of Enforcement will likely continue to use “every tool in its toolkit” and expect that public companies and other market participants will think rigorously about their business and appropriately tailor compliance practices and internal controls and policies to match.
By Stefan Atkinson and Yi Yuan
Historically, federal courts generally agreed that scheme liability under SEC Rule 10b-5(a) and (c) requires something more than a misstatement or omission — with misstatements and omissions typically being litigated under Rule 10b-5(b) instead. However, the SCOTUS in Lorenzo v. SEC held that an individual who disseminates a misstatement, without other fraudulent conduct, is potentially liable under the scheme liability provisions of Rule 10b-5. Subsequently, a circuit split has emerged over the scope of Lorenzo’s holding.
ESG ‘Greenwashing’ Litigation On the Rise
By Shoshana Schiller, Alice Douglas and Brenda Gotanda
Increased attention paid to companies’ public promotion of their environmental and sustainability programs is likely to continue in 2023, with further developments in regulation and litigation pertaining to “greenwashing” — a marketing practice which involves unsubstantiated or exaggerated claims about the environmentally friendly or socially-responsible attributes of an organization’s products or services.
Copyright © ALM Global, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
