Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Last month, we looked at the recent case of Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 131 S. Ct. 2060 (2011), where the Supreme Court endorsed ' and defined ' the concept of “willful blindness” for the first time. There, the Court explained that legal culpability could be shown through a defendant's “willful blindness” to wrongdoing only if he or she: 1) “subjectively believe[d] that there is a high probability that a fact exists”; and 2) “t[ook] deliberate actions to avoid learning of that fact.” 131 S. Ct. 2060, 2070 (2011). The Court's “clarification” of this doctrine, although given in the context of a civil patent dispute, promises to have immediate effects on criminal prosecutions, both for individual and corporate defendants.
Willful Blindness After Global-Tech
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
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.
This article discusses the practical and policy reasons for the use of DPAs and NPAs in white-collar criminal investigations, and considers the NDAA's new reporting provision and its relationship with other efforts to enhance transparency in DOJ decision-making.
When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.
The parameters set forth in the DOJ's memorandum have implications not only for the government's evaluation of compliance programs in the context of criminal charging decisions, but also for how defense counsel structure their conference-room advocacy seeking declinations or lesser sanctions in both criminal and civil investigations.