Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
A Broadening Consensus to Narrow Asset Forfeiture
Editor's note: In July 2012, the federal government moved to seize commercially leased property located in San Jose, CA, because it was being used by a medical-€“marijuana-producing tenant operating in compliance with California law. The federal government did not recognize as valid California's authorization of medical marijuana sales, as it still has on the books its own legislation listing marijuana as a schedule-I drug — the most dangerous kind. The Government brought a civil in-rem forfeiture action pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7), which authorizes the Government, in the case of property that is being used to violate the federal Controlled Substances Act, to seize such “real property, including any right, title, and interest (including any leasehold interest) in the whole of any lot or tract of land and any appurtenances or improvements, which is used, or intended to be used, in any manner or part, to commit, or to facilitate the commission of, a violation of this subchapter punishable by more than one year's imprisonment.”
After several years of litigation involving multiple parties —€” the U.S. Government, the landlord, the tenant and the City of Oakland —€” the Government dropped the case. But the well-publicized case illustrated an alarming risk for commercial property owners: In certain circumstances, if a tenant uses leased property in furtherance of a crime, the property itself may become subject to civil forfeiture, even before a conviction for the alleged crime has been obtained, and even if the landlord was not involved in the crime. An innocent owner can defend against the forfeiture, but to do so it must show by a preponderance of the evidence that it did not know of the unlawful conduct giving rise to the forfeiture action or, upon learning of the conduct, did all that it reasonably could to terminate the unlawful use of the property. 18 U.S.C § 983(d).
The stakes are high, so it's important to keep informed of the trends in the realm of asset forfeiture, especially now that the current federal administration has announced its intention seek more asset forfeitures going forward.
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?