The harboring provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act criminalizes the act of “concealing, harboring, or shielding from detection” any alien who is unlawfully present in the United States. This article examines a few federal cases to illustrate the doctrinal contours of harboring — drawing a clear distinction between active concealment and passive accommodation.
The contrast between the Trump Administration’s ostentatious embrace of cryptocurrency and the prior administration’s chilly skepticism has led some to suggest that the multi-billion-dollar industry is at the dawn of an enforcement-devoid free for all. A more recent, lower key announcement, however, indicates that enforcement still has a pulse.
The first months of the Trump administration have undeniably brought change to the white collar enforcement space. On Feb. 10, President Donald Trump issued an executive order directing Attorney General Pam Bondi to pause all existing cases brought under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Since then, the administration has signaled a withdrawal. This change in climate has not gone unnoticed by defense counsel.
When the SEC issues the next annual enforcement report for fiscal year 2025, we expect securities offering actions and investment adviser actions will almost certainly be up, and the “crypto” and “cyber” cases will almost certainly be down. Public statements by the new SEC administration have said as much, but even more telling than public statements are the allocation of limited enforcement resources.
As the first months of the new administration have demonstrated, President Trump fully intends to deliver on the campaign promise to “restart workplace enforcement.” Employers should prepare now to confirm their employees are authorized to work and have robust compliance policies and procedures in place should ICE come knocking.
The internet is generally viewed as inherently interstate in nature, but courts have reached different conclusions as to whether use of the internet by itself satisfies the “interstate commerce” requirement in criminal statutes, or something more is needed.
Understanding the types of challenges shareholders are bringing against AI-affiliated companies is critical to effectively evaluating proposed disclosures and addressing potential areas of exposure.
The Trump administration’s shift in enforcement policy away from foreign corruption and towards the fight against Transnational Criminal Organizations (TCOs) such as drug cartels, may reduce the immediate risk to global businesses of an FCPA prosecution based on alleged extortion payments. However, the same shift raises new threats to those businesses under statutes that prohibit engagement of any kind with terrorist organizations, do not recognize an extortion defense, and may give rise to civil as well as criminal liability.
What does the second Trump administration augur for the False Claims Act? The question remains how, not if, the Trump DOJ will change DOJ’s enforcement policies, whether they will maintain current enforcement policies, and what the impact will be, especially for the FCA.
In recent years, the DOJ has wielded the Anti-Kickback Statute (AKS) to exact steep penalties from corporate actors and individuals alike for the improper exchange of something of value to generate healthcare business funded by a federal program. When coupled with the False Claims Act, the AKS turns into a potent civil enforcement tool that carries many of the same draconian penalties as criminal enforcement, achieved via a less demanding path.
