Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The federal government has wielded the money laundering statutes, 18 U.S.C. ” 1956 and 1957, to great effect in various cases due to their breathtaking sweep, jury appeal, and severe sentencing enhancement under the federal Sentencing Guidelines. The Supreme Court's recent ruling in United States v. Santos, 128 S.Ct. 2020 (June 2, 2008), may undermine the feds' use of this weapon, particularly in cases in which the profit to the defendant from any given transaction is unclear. Although Santos raises many legal and practical issues to be litigated over time, an immediately compelling aspect is that it creates opportunities for defendants already convicted and sentenced under ' 1956, including those who have exhausted their appeals.
The Santos Opinion
Efrain Santos collaterally attacked his money laundering conviction under the “promotion” prong of ' 1956, which prohibits financial transactions that “promote” a specified unlawful activity (SUA). To prove ' 1956 or ' 1957 charges, the government must show that the charged transaction involved the “proceeds” of an SUA, and that the defendant knew that the property involved in the transaction represents such “proceeds.” In Santos, the SUA was running an illegal lottery. The charged financial transactions included Santos' payments to employees, runners, winners, and collectors. A four-vote plurality opinion penned by Justice Scalia found that, as a matter of statutory interpretation and employing the rule of lenity, “proceeds” under ' 1956(a)(1) refers only to the net profits of criminal activity, not gross receipts. “What counts is whether the receipts from the charged unlawful act exceeded the costs fairly attributable to it.” Because there was no evidence at trial that the charged transactions could be traced to profits of the illegal lottery, the Court affirmed the decision below vacating the convictions.
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
Defining commercial real estate asset class is essentially a property explaining how it identifies — not necessarily what its original intention was or what others think it ought to be. This article discusses, from a general issue-spot and contextual analysis perspective, how lawyers ought to think about specialized leasing formats and the regulatory backdrops that may inform what the documentation needs to contain for compliance purposes.
As courts and discovery experts debate whether hyperlinked content should be treated the same as traditional attachments, legal practitioners are grappling with the technical and legal complexities of collecting, analyzing and reviewing these documents in real-world cases.
How to Convey Your Merits In a Way That Earns Trust, Clients and Distinctions Just as no two individuals have the exact same face, no two lawyers practice in their respective fields or serve clients in the exact same way. Think of this as a "Unique Value Proposition." Internal consideration about what you uniquely bring to your clients, colleagues, firm and industry can provide untold benefits for your law practice.
The ever-evolving digital marketing landscape, coupled with the industry-wide adoption of programmatic advertising, poses a significant threat to the effectiveness and integrity of digital advertising campaigns. This article explores various risks to digital advertising from pixel stuffing and ad stacking to domain spoofing and bots. It will also explore what should be done to ensure ad fraud protection and improve effectiveness.
This article offers practical insights and best practices to navigate the path from roadmap to rainmaking, ensuring your business development efforts are not just sporadic bursts of activity, but an integrated part of your daily success.