Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
On March 3, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Cuellar v. United States. The decision, expected by the end of June, will interpret the 'intent to conceal' provision of the federal Anti-Money Laundering statutes. Specifically, the question presented is whether hiding illicit crime proceeds absent a design to create the appearance that the proceeds were derived from legitimate wealth violates section 18 U.S.C. ' 1956 (a)(2)(B)(i), which makes it an offense to transport crime proceeds across an international border with the intent to conceal or disguise. Before reaching the Supreme Court, the question was answered Yes by the district court, No by a divided panel of the Fifth Circuit, then Yes by the circuit sitting en banc.
The Facts
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
Why is it that those who are best skilled at advocating for others are ill-equipped at advocating for their own skills and what to do about it?
There is no efficient market for the sale of bankruptcy assets. Inefficient markets yield a transactional drag, potentially dampening the ability of debtors and trustees to maximize value for creditors. This article identifies ways in which investors may more easily discover bankruptcy asset sales.
The DOJ's Criminal Division issued three declinations since the issuance of the revised CEP a year ago. Review of these cases gives insight into DOJ's implementation of the new policy in practice.
Active reading comprises many daily tasks lawyers engage in, including highlighting, annotating, note taking, comparing and searching texts. It demands more than flipping or turning pages.
With trillions of dollars to keep watch over, the last thing we need is the distraction of costly litigation brought on by patent assertion entities (PAEs or "patent trolls"), companies that don't make any products but instead seek royalties by asserting their patents against those who do make products.