Imagine you are in-house counsel, working on a transactional document, when you receive a breathless call from a manager at one of your warehouses that a search warrant is being executed on the premises. What do you do?
For companies suspected of wrongdoing, cooperating with DOJ investigations and self-disclosing their misconduct often appears to be their only option to avoid prosecution and reduce large financial penalties. But, these benefits often come at a price, especially to company employees who are caught in the middle.
Elections have consequences, and the election of President Trump has resulted in a significant shift in law enforcement priorities. Corporate enforcement activity is at lows not seen in decades, despite an overall increase in federal criminal cases. This is a product of a change in priorities, both in terms of types of offenses and types of offender. So, for the time being, there will be almost unprecedented opportunity to achieve favorable resolutions for corporate clients.
A defendant who pleads guilty is usually required to waive a host of constitutional and statutory rights, such as the right to a jury trial, the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses, the right to testify and present evidence. However, many defendants are also required to waive their right to appeal in order to receive a favorable plea agreement with the government.
Business has gone global. So too has business-related crime. In the interconnected business environment, white-collar criminal investigations and prosecutions frequently present cross-border issues and affect U.S. foreign relations. Indeed, in some recent high-profile cases, the Trump administration has implied that it sees law enforcement — or the lack of it — as one of the tools in its foreign policy arsenal.
To Release or Not Release Grand Jury Documents? The D.C. Circuit Says No.
The DOJ has signaled its intent to pursue prosecutions for spoofing — which the law defines as "bidding or offering with the intent to cancel the bid or offer before execution" — aggressively. This article begins with a brief discussion of the elements that the government must prove to establish commodities fraud and wire fraud. It then examines recent spoofing prosecutions that raise important questions about the applicability of the traditional fraud statutes to spoofing-related activity. How the federal courts answer these open questions will have significant implications for participants in the commodities markets.
Recent actions by the DOJ suggest that although the DOJ may continue to prosecute certain relators' FCA cases, other relators may find themselves on the other side of a government motion to dismiss.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the majority of an $11 million jury verdict brought by a whistleblower who claimed that his company fired him for raising concerns about possible FCPA violations.
