Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Imagine you are a federal prosecutor and the following fact pattern lands on your desk: A college student gains unauthorized access to the e-mail account of a candidate for federal office. The student changes the e-mail account password and then shares the new password on an Internet message board. Within one day, fearing a possible (but not-yet initiated) investigation, he takes steps to delete information from his computer related to his unauthorized access. Based on these facts, what charges would you consider? Identity theft in violation of 18 U.S.C. '1028? Wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. '1343? A charge under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), 18 U.S.C. '1030?
Each of those charges seems like a logical choice, in no small part because they were in fact charged in the case from which the fact-pattern was taken. See, United States v. Kernell, 667 F.3d 746 (6th Cir. 2012). But what about obstruction of justice, given that the alleged deletion of the information occurred before any government investigation or judicial proceeding had been initiated? Just such a charge was brought under 18 U.S.C. '1519, a relatively obscure but potentially powerful statute that has considerably expanded the scope of obstruction of justice. It is seeing increased use, and could prove to be a powerful tool in the federal prosecutor's toolbox. Reflective of its growing attention, as discussed further below, it is the subject of a pending U.S. Supreme Court case that will examine just how broadly this statute may reach.
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.