Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The U.S. government's lead role in the prosecution of corruption within the Zurich, Switzerland-based Fédération Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) may be a paradigmatic example of U.S. law enforcement acting as the world's policeman, reaching out around the globe to prosecute wrongdoing with little apparent connection to the land of baseball, hot dogs and apple pie. Didn't the Supreme Court remind everyone just a few years ago that U.S. statutes are presumed only to apply domestically? If corruption is based on foreign executives violating their duties of loyalty to foreign private entities, how does that translate into a violation of U.S. criminal law? Does it matter that the conduct in which the foreign executive engaged — commercial bribery — may not be illegal under the law of the executive's home country?
The Second Circuit answers these questions in its recent decision in United States v. Napout, 963 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2020), affirming the convictions of Juan Angel Napout, the former president of Paraguay's national soccer federation, and Jose Maria Marin, the former head of the Brazilian national soccer federation. In doing so, the decision joins a long line of authority illustrating that as long as the scheme entails some use of the U.S. banking system, the Department of Justice can venture broadly indeed to prosecute foreign nationals under U.S. criminal law for conduct that appears predominantly foreign in locus and effect, with little regard for whether that conduct would violate the criminal laws of their home country.
After public allegations that senior FIFA officials demanded bribes in connection with the 2010 bidding process to be the host country for the 2018 and 2022 World Cup tournament, FIFA commissioned an internal investigation led by former Southern District of New York U.S. Attorney Michael Garcia. Garcia later resigned in protest after FIFA leadership released a summary he claimed to be inaccurate, rather than his 430-page investigation report.
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
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.
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
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.
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.