Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Carrot Replaces Stick: Corporate Crime Enforcement In the Trump Administration
Elections have consequences, and the election of President Trump has resulted in a significant shift in law enforcement priorities. Corporate enforcement activity is at lows not seen in decades, despite an overall increase of almost 40% in federal criminal cases. This is a product of a change in priorities, both in terms of types of offenses and types of offender: more focus on prosecuting individuals instead of entities and more emphasis on drug, violence, and immigration offense rather than business crimes. In a couple of areas where there may be increased business crime enforcement activity reflected in some of the aggregate numbers — Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and crypto currency — the actual cases nonetheless reflect the administration's reordered priorities. So, for the time being, there will be almost unprecedented opportunity to achieve favorable resolutions for corporate clients.
The New Policies By the Numbers
In April 2017, then Acting Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Trevor N. McFadden announced at the ACI Annual FCPA Conference that the Department of Justice (DOJ) was going to be focusing on violent crime, and in September 2018, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a memo saying that the DOJ has "set clear goals … reducing violent crime, homicides, opioid prescription and drug overdose deaths." These are primarily individual offenses, so by shifting resources to these areas, enforcement activity against corporate entities looks to be reduced.
For those corporate crimes DOJ chose to pursue, it also signaled a more conciliatory approach to resolutions. In March 2018, at the ABA White Collar Crime National Institute Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein declared that the DOJ wanted to "avoid imposing penalties that disproportionately punish innocent employees, shareholders, customers and other stakeholders" and promised that the DOJ would try to stop multiple law enforcement agencies from "piling on" corporate fines. Section 1-12.100 of the United States Attorneys' Manual was updated reflecting this approach.
The DOJ was not alone, the Co-Director of Enforcement at the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), Steven Peikin, told the Wall Street Journal in 2017 that "it may be the case that we have to be selective and bring a few cases to send a broader message rather than sweep the entire field." The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), consistent with the DOJ and SEC, released a statement that encouraged corporations to self-report wrongdoing as a way to avoid penalties. Similarly, in 2017 the DOJ revised the DOJ Manual to expand the FCPA Corporate Enforcement Policy encouraging voluntary-disclosure of FCPA-related misconduct. Under the new policy, a company may presume that the DOJ will decline to enforce when the company voluntarily self-discloses its alleged misconduct, fully cooperates with the DOJ, and institutes appropriate and timely remediation. This is becoming the norm, well beyond the FCPA guidance.
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.
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?
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.