Search results

To examine a statement issued by Justice Antonin Scalia on November 10, 2014, concurrently with the Supreme Court ' s denial of certiorari in a criminal insider trading case, which raises profound questions about how the courts interpret the federal securities laws and the degree of deference they give to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) in the context of criminal enforcement.

The article discusses the points raised in the justice ' s statement and their potential implications for future securities enforcement cases.

The statement suggests that the traditional deference courts accord the SEC under the landmark decision in Chevron USA Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 US 837 (1984) may be inappropriate and potentially inconsistent with the rule of lenity, which requires that ambiguous criminal laws be interpreted in a defendant ' s favor.

Expert guidance from experienced securities lawyers.

The purpose of this paper is to inform an international audience of the difficulties prosecutors in the USA have encountered in light of a decision of the US Supreme Court limiting the application of the federal anti‐money laundering statute to cases where a criminal enterprise generated profits.

The paper summarizes the law in the USA regarding money laundering prosecutions before the decision in the United States v. Santos, outlines the decision of the Supreme Court, and organizes the post‐Santos case law into categories setting forth the divergent views of what the decision means and how it is to be applied.

The case law in the USA regarding money laundering prosecutions is now quite unsettled. Courts have taken different views as to whether the government must now prove that the funds being laundered by or on behalf of a criminal represent the profits of the criminal enterprise as opposed to its gross receipts.

The case law on this issue continues to develop at a rapid pace. It is necessary to cut off the research on this issue to complete the paper, but the reader should be aware that new cases are being issued in rapid order.

Prosecutors in the USA now face several obstacles in bringing money launderers to justice. Decisions in closed cases may be reopened as defendants argue that their convictions are obtained under an incorrect view of the law. Going forward, prosecutors are uncertain whether the government must prove that a criminal enterprise is profitable before they can obtain a conviction for money laundering.

Prior to Santos, it is assumed that it is an offense to launder the gross receipts of a crime or criminal scheme. Santos cases grave doubt on that assumption, holding that in at least some cases, the laundering offense will apply only where the financial transaction involves the net profits of an offense. This is an object lesson in the confusion that can result from inartful legislative drafting. It also provides a guide to the current state of the law and suggests how prosecutors in the USA are dealing with the problem pending any legislative correction.

The purpose of this paper is to explain the changes to the US federal money laundering and criminal fraud statutes contained in the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 (“FERA”)

The paper explains how FERA extends the definition of “proceeds” under the statute to include gross receipts of illegal activity, how the definition of a financial institution is revised to include a mortgage lending business, and how the federal securities fraud statute is expanded to apply to frauds involving commodity futures and options.

Any prior ambiguity as to the meaning of “proceeds” has now been unequivocally resolved; alleged money launderers will no longer be able to defend themselves by arguing that they committed unprofitable criminal activities. The classification as a “financial institution” matters because a number of federal criminal statutes either only apply to financial institutions or set out different penalties or statutes when a financial institution is affected by a generally applicable crime. Under FERA, henceforth frauds involving options and futures in commodities will violate the securities fraud statute.

The paper presents practical guidance by an experienced white‐collar criminal defense lawyer.

The objective of the paper is to describe how criminal prosecutors in the USA have expanded the reach of federal statutes punishing fraud and extortion to combat the influence of organized criminal groups in certain American labor unions and employee benefit plans from 1980 to 2006.

The paper reviews newspaper accounts and published judicial decisions to explain how prosecutors have used fraud and extortion offenses in novel ways on a case‐by‐case basis to prosecute labor‐management corruption in the USA.

Although the American federal prosecutor's arsenal is limited to statutory crimes, prosecutors are continually evolving new means of addressing corruption on a case‐specific basis in the best tradition of Anglo‐American common law. By diligently persuading trial judges, appellate courts, and the US Congress of the merit of looking at fraud and extortion in new ways, federal prosecutors have carried out the intent of the statutory laws which Congress enacted to deal with corruption in government, business, and labor unions.

The federal criminal offense of “honest service fraud,” which was codified by Congress only following successful criminal prosecutions of public and private corruption, will continue to be used to address corruption on the part of persons holding fiduciary duties toward union members and employee pension and health benefit plan participants as the American retired population increases and the national government assumes greater oversight of employee health care.

The paper encourages the reader, especially those in law enforcement, to think creatively about the scope of existing criminal statutes while reviewing or enforcing their application to all forms of organizational corruption.

This chapter examines jury nullification, through which American juries refuse to convict criminal defendants in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt to express disapproval of specific criminal laws or of their application to particular defendants, through the political theory of Carl Schmitt. It distinguishes liberal components of American jurisprudence, especially the rule of law, from democratic sovereignty, and shows how the two are in deep tension with one another. In light of this tension it argues that jury nullification amounts to democratic sovereignty applied counter to the liberal state in a way that paradoxically upholds individual liberty.

On 25th June, 1997, the US Supreme Court issued an important decision in which it endorsed an expanded theory of insider trading liability under the federal securities laws. In United States v O'Hagan, the Court held, in a 6‐3 decision, that a person who misappropriates confidential information for securities trading purposes, in breach of a duty owed to the source of the information, may be found liable for securities fraud under s. 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the ‘Exchange Act’) and SEC Rule 10b‐5, which prohibit the use of fraud or deception ‘in connection with the purchase or sale of any security’. In endorsing the ‘misappropriation’ theory, the Court resolved a longstanding split among the federal Circuit Courts of Appeal and upheld an important tool in the prosecution of securities fraud. Separately, the Court held that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) did not exceed its rulemaking authority under s. 14(e) of the Exchange Act when it adopted Rule 14e‐3(a), which prohibits trading on the basis of material, non‐public information concerning a tender offer, without requiring the government to show a breach of fiduciary duty.

The purpose of this paper is to circumscribe the various philosophical connections between the classical and the modern notion of corruption from Enlightenment to post-modernity.

The paper analyzed to what extent the classical notion of corruption (Plato, Aristotle and Cicero) still influenced the way philosophers perceived the phenomenon of corruption during the Enlightenment (1625-1832), the transition period (1833-1900) and the post-modernity (1901 onward). Taking those historical periods as reference points, the author will see how literature about historical, social and political conditioning factors of corruption could convey the presence/absence of the classical or the modern notion of corruption.

The paper finds that the classical notion of corruption implies the degeneration of human relationships (Plato and Hegel), the degeneration of the body-and-mind unity (Aristotle, Pascal and Thomas Mann) or the degeneration of collective morality (Cicero, Locke, Rousseau, Hume and Kant). The modern notion of corruption as bribery was mainly introduced by Adam Smith. Nietzsche (and Musil) looked at corruption as degeneration of the will-to-power. The classical notion of corruption put the emphasis on the effects rather than on the cause itself (effects-based thinking). The modern notion of corruption as bribery insists on the cause rather than on the effects (cause-based thinking).

In this paper, the author has taken into account the main representatives of the three historical periods. Future research could also analyze the works of other philosophers and novelists to see to what extent their philosophical and literary works are unveiling the classical or the modern notion of corruption.

The paper presents a philosophical and historical perspective about corruption. It sheds light on the way philosophers (and sometimes novelists) deal with the issue of corruption, whether it is from an effects-based or from a cause-based perspective.

This paper aims to apply the Legitimacy-Based View (LBV) of political risk to the experience of the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC) in the First World War. The paper shows that HSBC’s ability to survive this conflict was due, in part, to its ability to manage political risk by maintaining legitimacy in the eyes of stakeholders in its home market(s), Hong Kong and the UK.

This case study is based on the surviving internal correspondence from this period in the HSBC Group archives in London and other primary sources.

This paper suggests that maintaining legitimacy in the home market is crucial to firm survival and profitability. Managers’ efforts to bolster firm legitimacy should ensure that individuals in all of the relevant government departments continue to regard the multinational enterprise (MNE) as legitimate.

This paper shows that the LBV is a potentially powerful analytical tool, but it also argues that the LBV must be modified so as to incorporate insights from the theoretical literature on ethnic and national identities, particularly the insight that such identities are culturally constructed and malleable.

Warfare tends to increase the degree to which a MNE’s stakeholders feel emotional bonds to their respective nations. HSBC’s experience in the First World War suggests that continued profitability in wartime may depend on the firm’s ability to shed its peacetime “world citizen” identity in favour of one that is more closely aligned with that of its home nation. Preserving political capital in wartime may require the ruthless termination of relationships with clients and employees who are associated with the enemy nation. Another lesson that MNE managers can derive from this paper is that preserving legitimacy in the home country may require the head office to exert more control over overseas managers, than would be the case in peace. A MNE in wartime that is concerned about the loss of legitimacy in the home country should consider adopting an organizational architecture that temporarily reduces subsidiary autonomy.

Buckley (2009) called for the re-integration of business history in International Business research. This paper is part of the ongoing historic turn in International Business and other management disciplines. This paper also argues that International Business scholars need to consider the impact of past wars on contemporary multinationals as we may witness the re-emergence of Great Power rivalries similar to those that led to the First World War. This paper proceeds on the assumption the probabilities of a war between two major capitalist economies are non-trivial and that additional investigation of the impact of major interstate warfare on MNEs is therefore merited. Historical research can help us to think about what a war between capitalist countries would mean for today’s MNEs.