Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Federal statutes provide for forfeiture of real property used in conjunction with a variety of criminal activity. Although the primary focus of federal civil forfeiture statutes has been on drug-related offenses, the reach of these statutes now extends to a variety of other crimes. A recent Southern District case, however, raises an issue not explicitly resolved by the forfeiture statutes: when is the property of a corporate owner subject to forfeiture?
479 Tamarind Drive
In United States v. 479 Tamarind Drive (NYLJ 10/21/05, p. 24, col. 1), the federal government sought forfeiture of real property allegedly purchased to launder proceeds of a health care fraud conspiracy. The perpetrators of the alleged fraud — husband and wife — were both indicted; wife was convicted while husband fled to Canada to avoid arrest. When the government sought forfeiture of the property, several claimants contested the forfeiture: the husband, two corporations that asserted ownership interests, and two shareholders in the corporate claimants.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
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
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.
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.
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.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?