Joseph Fazioli and Mauricio A. España of Dechert write: Increased DOJ activity in the economic espionage/trade secrets area would not only advance a Trump Administration policy priority but also be consistent with the broader (and perhaps inexorable) recent trend of increased globalization of U.S. white-collar enforcement.
Jeffrey Alberts and Mark Weiner of Pryor Cashman write: If your client has been subpoenaed to testify by a banking regulator, or discovery has been requested, you must carefully consider the possible use of the evidence sought in a potential future criminal proceeding. While the consequences at the civil level for invoking the privilege may be significant, they generally pale in comparison with possible jail time.
Brian Maas, Caren Decter and Andrew Ungberg of Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz explore the apparent disconnect between the government’s forfeiture powers and the victim’s right to restitution, and provide some tips to help practitioners make the best of a difficult, contradictory system.
Arlo Devlin-Brown and Erin Monju of Covington & Burling write: In the prototypical public corruption case, ‘McDonnell’ defenses will have little impact on judges and still less on juries, who may fail to rally around the official who argues he was selling “only” access to an elected office. Moreover, a myopic focus on the ‘McDonnell’ defense in cases where it will get little traction may obscure more viable and less exploited avenues of legal challenge to the reach of federal corruption laws.
Roger A. Burlingame, Steven G. Kobre and Rachel E. Goldstein of Kobre & Kim write: While the ‘RBS’ decision’s binding effects will be determined by the Supreme Court, unless and until the Supreme Court reevaluates the holding, U.S. lawyers conducting internal investigations should plan accordingly to protect their communications from compelled disclosure.