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: When Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced in July that the federal government planned to again emphasize the pursuit of civil asset forfeitures, it raised issues for many, including the spouses and family members of those who are charged with committing federal crimes. Why? Because if the federal (or state) government decides to pursue a criminal case against someone, it can often seize the alleged culprit's property, even before conviction. For example, the federal government is authorized under 21 U.S.C. § 881(a)(7) to seize assets used to violate the federal Controlled Substances Act, including real estate.
When someone discovers that a spouse has been taking part in criminal activities, divorce proceedings may follow, and an innocent spouse can argue that they were not aware of the activities, so jointly owned property should not be forfeited. However, what would be treated as marital property may not actually be jointly owned: Witness the case of United States v. 148 Maunalanikai Place, 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60057 (D. Haw. 2008), in which a wife was charged with using her home to further a drug and money-laundering operation and the government seized it. There, the court agreed with the federal government that the husband divorcing this woman lacked standing to protest the government's seizure of real property owned in his wife's name because Hawaiian law defines the marital estate as that property owned by either party on the date of the conclusion of the evidentiary part of the trial. See Malek v. Malek, 7 Haw. App. 377 (1989). As the property seizure took place prior to the close of evidence in the divorce matter, the husband had no cognizable claim at all to the forfeited property.
The stakes are high, so it's important to keep informed of the trends in the realm of asset forfeiture.
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.
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.
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.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?