Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Ninth Circuit Clarifies Scope of Federal Mail Fraud Statute
On Dec. 26, 2012, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in United States v. Phillips, —F.3d.—, 2012 WL 6700220 (2012), in which the defendant, Mark Phillips, had appealed his conviction on four counts of wire fraud, one count of mail fraud, and two counts of money laundering. In its cross-appeal, the Government had argued that that the district court erred in rejecting its application to enter a $100,000 in personam forfeiture judgment against the defendant. The Ninth Circuit's decision is notable in that it clarifies the limited scope of the mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. ' 1341, as well as the applicability of forfeiture even in cases where a defendant has made full restitution to his/her victims.
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.