Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
White-Collar Sentencing: A Loss of All Sense of Proportion
Imagine the following scenario: The CEO of a large public company (with approximately 1 billion shares outstanding, considerably fewer than General Electric, Microsoft or General Motors) pleads guilty to a material misrepresentation in the company's financial reports, which, according to the government, when disclosed caused the company's stock to drop 50 cents per share.
Just 16 months ago, that CEO would be facing, under the federal sentencing guidelines as they then existed, a sentence in the range of 7 to 9 years. A hefty sentence. But nothing remotely like the CEO would face today. As a result of 'emergency guidelines' promulgated last month by the Sentencing Commission, for the identical crime committed after January 25, 2003, the same CEO would face a mandatory life sentence, even after pleading guilty. In contrast, if a top executive killed someone and was convicted of voluntary manslaughter, he or she would receive less than 6 years in jail under the guidelines, and no more than 14 years for second-degree murder.
In short, the Sentencing Commission, the Department of Justice, and Congress, as a result of political grandstanding, have lost all sense of proportion when it comes to sentencing in white-collar matters. Worse, the policies they have created are demonstrably counter-productive because they will lead to more, not fewer, trials; will cause taxpayers to incur enormous expenses for the housing, feeding and care of individuals who do not need these lengthy sentences to be deterred or incapacitated; and will result in the loss to society of individuals who could be contributing, productive citizens earning sums that could be applied towards restitution of victims instead of becoming wards of the government for life.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?