Corporate Defense and Disputes

Important developments in U.S. securities law, white collar criminal defense, regulatory enforcement and other emerging issues impacting financial services institutions, publicly traded companies and private investment funds

Tag Archives: Economic Crime

Third Circuit Decision Could Have Broad Implications For Sentencing In Federal Fraud Cases

Last week, the Third Circuit issued a decision that could have major ramifications for sentencing in federal fraud cases. United States v. Nagle dealt with a fraud perpetrated against the Department of Transportation’s Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (“DBE”) program. The DBE program requires states that receive federal transportation funds to set goals for the awarding of … Continue Reading

U.S. Sentencing Commission Approves Amending Sentencing Guidelines to Reduce Penalties for Economic Crimes

As previously reported on this blog here and here, the United States Sentencing Commission has proposed amendments to the widely criticized federal sentencing guidelines for economic crimes. On April 9, 2015, after hearing extensive public comment on the proposed amendments, the Commission voted to adopt an amended version of the Sentencing Guidelines which will take … Continue Reading

DOJ Opposes Amendments to Economic Crime Sentencing Guidelines

As previously reported on this blog, the U.S. Sentencing Commission has proposed several amendments to the federal sentencing guidelines for economic crimes. The amendments are designed to address criticism that § 2B1.1 of the Guidelines is vague, that it treats defendants who have secondary roles with undue harshness, and that it suggests disproportionately severe sentences … Continue Reading

U.S. Sentencing Commission Proposes Amendments to Widely Criticized Economic Crime Sentencing Guidelines

In recent years, a growing chorus of federal judges and defense attorneys have protested that the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for economic crimes regularly recommend inconsistent and unjust sentences. Critics claim that § 2B1.1 of the Guidelines suffers from a lack of clarity, that it treats defendants who have secondary roles in large schemes with undue … Continue Reading
LexBlog

This website uses third party cookies, over which we have no control. To deactivate the use of third party advertising cookies, you should alter the settings in your browser.

OK