Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In the Courts
Attorneys Do Not Have to Forfeit Their Fees
In a Matter of First Impression, the First Circuit Holds that Attorneys Who Represented a Convicted Money Launderer Could Not Be Required to Forfeit Their Fees, Paid in Advance of Forfeiture, to the Government
In United States v. Saccoccia, Nos. 01-2160, 01-2170, 01-2393, 2003 WL 22075696 (1st Cir. Sept. 8, 2003), attorneys who represented Stephen A. Saccoccia, a convicted drug dealer and money launderer, appealed a district court order directing that they forfeit some of their fees to the government. The grand jury returned an indictment against Saccoccia in November 1991, charging him with one count of conspiracy under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. ' 1963(d) (RICO), along with several counts of laundering proceeds from an illegal drug trafficking operation. The government sought the forfeiture of all business and personal property directly or indirectly derived from Saccoccia's racketeering activities including almost $137,000,000 in currency, and, in the alternative, sought the surrender of all non-tainted property of equivalent value should Saccoccia's tainted property have become unavailable. The district court promptly enjoined the transfer of the forfeitable property designated in the indictment.
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?