Department of Justice

Subscribe to Department of Justice via RSS

The crimes charged against SBF are simple — old-fashioned fraud through a Ponzi scheme.  His conviction seems inevitable. For the government, the challenging part of this case will be the forfeiture proceedings.  Under the Mandatory Victim Restitution Act (MVRA), federal prosecutors have an affirmative obligation to use their “best efforts” to…

In late October, a New York district court refused to dismiss the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) indictment against defendant Nathaniel Chastain, who was charged with wire fraud and money laundering relating to his using insider knowledge to purchase non-fungible tokens (NFTs) prior to them being featured on OpenSea, an online…

In a scathing opinion, Southern District of New York Judge Ronnie Abrams recently blasted the SEC’s standard demand that defendants settling with the Commission agree never to deny the allegations against them.  Judge Abrams’ decision in SEC v. Moraes reluctantly approved a consent decree containing the usual “no admit, no deny” provision in light of the Second Circuit’s recent decision upholding such provisions in SEC v. Romeril, in which Judge Abrams’ father (the famed First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams) represented the defendant in his unsuccessful petition for certiorari.  But Judge Abram expressed concern that the SEC’s insistence on such provisions violates the “unconstitutional conditions doctrine” and the First Amendment.

Late last month, Deputy Attorney General Lisa O. Monaco delivered a keynote speech at the ABA’s National Institute on White Collar Crime event in Washington, DC.  Her remarks outlined observed trends in white collar crime as well as AG Merrick Garland’s and her priorities and initial action items for combatting corporate crime.  Corporate defense and in-house counsel, take note.

As you might expect during tax season, the Justice Department’s press releases seem particularly focused on tax-related issues these days.  At the start of this month, DOJ sent a stern reminder to the public that non-traditional currency users should not expect to escape federal tax law enforcement.

On April 1,…

All eyes were on the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday as it heard arguments in Salman v. United States (No. 15-628) concerning the “personal benefit” required to establish a claim for insider trading. After an hour punctuated by the Justices’ constant questioning of attorneys for both the defendant and the government, it appears unlikely that the Supreme Court will radically depart from its 1983 decision in Dirks v. SEC, which held that insider trading violates the federal securities laws if an insider makes a gift of nonpublic information to a trading relative or friend.