Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Until recently, the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA or the Act) was a curious historical and legal artifact with little contemporary relevance. Passed in 1938 in order to prevent a "fifth column" of Nazi supporters from secretly advocating on behalf of Hitler's Germany, Congress enacted FARA in order to require "agents of foreign principals who might engage in subversive acts or spreading foreign propaganda" to register with the Department of Justice. Viereck v. United States, 318 U.S. 236, 241 (1943). For decades, the statute laid dormant, with only seven criminal FARA cases initiated between 1966 and 2015. See, Office of the Inspector General, Department of Justice, Audit Division 16-24, Audit of the National Security Division's enforcement and Administration of the Foreign Agents Registration Act, at 8 (September 2016). In recent years, however, mostly due to the well-publicized prosecution of Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, FARA has become more of a focus for federal prosecutors. As a result, white-collar attorneys have been consulted more often about whether particular conduct requires registration under the Act.
Lawyers and clients alike have been surprised by FARA's breadth and reach, apparently requiring registration in a host of contexts in which there is no real "agency" relationship between the registrant and the so-called "foreign principal." Given the stigma sometimes associated with registration as an agent of a foreign principal and the logistical burden of registering, many clients would prefer to avoid engaging in certain conduct if that conduct would require FARA registration.
FARA and its implementing regulations are broadly written, with vague and undefined terms complicating the analysis of whether registration is required. With limited FARA litigation, there are very few judicial decisions that clarify the distinction between conduct that requires registration and conduct that is outside the Act's reach. The Department of Justice, however, offers some useful guidance. First, DOJ publishes FARA FAQs on its website. Second, DOJ will respond to written requests for advice about whether registration is required in a given case, and, from time to time, it will publish its responses as advisory opinions on its website in redacted form, organized by particular subject area (such as FARA's various exemptions). While these advisory opinions are useful, they contain little factual detail and sometimes seem to offer inconsistent advice based on similar factual narratives.
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
In a profession where confidentiality is paramount, failing to address AI security concerns could have disastrous consequences. It is vital that law firms and those in related industries ask the right questions about AI security to protect their clients and their reputation.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, some tenants were able to negotiate termination agreements with their landlords. But even though a landlord may agree to terminate a lease to regain control of a defaulting tenant's space without costly and lengthy litigation, typically a defaulting tenant that otherwise has no contractual right to terminate its lease will be in a much weaker bargaining position with respect to the conditions for termination.
The International Trade Commission is empowered to block the importation into the United States of products that infringe U.S. intellectual property rights, In the past, the ITC generally instituted investigations without questioning the importation allegations in the complaint, however in several recent cases, the ITC declined to institute an investigation as to certain proposed respondents due to inadequate pleading of importation.
Practical strategies to explore doing business with friends and social contacts in a way that respects relationships and maximizes opportunities.
As the relationship between in-house and outside counsel continues to evolve, lawyers must continue to foster a client-first mindset, offer business-focused solutions, and embrace technology that helps deliver work faster and more efficiently.