Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Considerations When Entering Into a Tolling Agreement
Statutes of limitations are an important check on prosecutorial power. Defense counsel in complex white-collar investigations are often asked to waive these important protections by entering into tolling agreements, stopping the clock on the statute of limitations at issue.
Whether such an agreement is actually in a target or subject's best interest presents a difficult question. Among other things, defense counsel must weigh the scope and duration of the proposed agreement, the likelihood that the government will bring charges in the absence of a stipulated standstill, and the possibility that a valid statute of limitations defense to any subsequent charges might exist. In recent months, COVID-19 has also impacted the calculus, since the pandemic has impeded the government's ability to conduct investigations and thus materially lengthened the amount of time necessary to secure an indictment.
Statutes of Limitations
The phrase "statute of limitations" refers to the time period in which formal criminal charges must be brought after a crime has been committed. Under Title 18, United States Code, §3282, the applicable statute of limitations for most federal crimes is five years. The Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) established a 10-year statute of limitations for bank and wire fraud, among other offenses, so long as the government alleges and can demonstrate that the defendant's action "affected a financial institution."
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 Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.