Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Keeping Government Environmental Investigations Civil
The threat of criminal environmental prosecutions is real. Most federal and state environmental statutes provide for criminal prosecution in appropriate circumstances, often for knowing violations of environmental law, but sometimes even on a negligence or strict liability basis. See, e.g., the Pennsylvania Solid Waste Management Act (strict liability, reckless disregard and knowing violations); the federal the Clean Air Act (CAA) and Clean Water Act (CWA) (negligence and knowing violations); and the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) (knowing violations). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) maintains an Office of Criminal Enforcement, which refers cases to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for criminal prosecution.
The DOJ Environmental Crimes Section (ECS) makes much of the fact that from Oct. 1, 1998 through Sept. 30, 2014, it concluded criminal cases against more than 1,083 individuals and 404 corporate defendants, resulting in a total of 774 years of incarceration and $825 million in criminal fines and restitution. In fiscal year 2014, 271 criminal environmental cases were opened by the DOJ, resulting in 187 defendants being charged. See generally www.justice.gov/enrd/environmental-crimes-section. DOJ ECS also notes its coordination with state enforcement agencies: “In order to conserve resources and improve the efficiency of environmental enforcement efforts, ECS attorneys have often helped assemble environmental crimes task forces ' of federal, state, and local personnel, [which] have successfully identified and handled many environmental crimes cases.” See http://1.usa.gov/1FWU7pI. Conversely, state environmental regulatory agencies maintain civil investigative units that will refer appropriate cases for prosecution to their state Attorneys General or seek to work jointly with the “feds.”
Individuals are not exempt from prosecution. As a matter of policy, “[p]rosecution of a corporation is not a substitute for the prosecution of criminally culpable individuals within or without the corporation.” U.S. Attorney's Manual (USAM) at ' 5-11.114. Of course, federal Sentencing Guidelines contain specific provisions related to environmental crimes, with base offense levels allowing for incarceration. See, e.g., U.S.S.G. ” 2Q1.1-2Q1.3 (eff. Nov. 1, 2014).
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
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
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?