|
|
|
|
Complex Criminal Litigation - Fourth Edition - 2023 PDF Supplement
Pages:
ISBN:
Published On:
Updated On:
22444
DwnLdItem
PDF Supplement
Do Not Offer
Have a question? Email us about this product!
Available Format
|
Additional Information |
(Current supplement included with purchase of book)
Juris Publishing is pleased to present the 2023 supplement to Complex Criminal Litigation, Fourth Edition. This supplement includes, in addition to updating other cases and materials, a discussion of the following decisions:
United States v. Guerrero, 37 F.4th 1215, 1219 (7th Cir. 2022) (because commingling crime proceeds with clean money “makes money laundering less difficult and may even be necessary to the successful completion of the offense,” the “clean funds” are deemed “involved’ for purposes of the forfeiture statute.”).
United States v. Hills, 27 F.4th 1155, 1173-74 (3d Cir. 2022), in which the court held that a business can be both the “enterprise and victim” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).
Wooden v. United States, 142 S. Ct. 1063 (2022) overruling contrary precedent in the 6th Circuit, and resolving a decades-long circuit split concerning whether separate offenses committed close in time in an uninterrupted course of conduct constitute offenses committed on occasions different from one another for purposes of sentence enhancement under the Armed Career Criminal Act’s “occasions clause”, 18 U.S.C. § 924(e)(1). The Court held that ten separate burglaries committed one after the other during the same episode at storage facility were not committed on occasions different from one another and thus constituted one, not ten offenses for purposes of sentence enhancement under the Act.
United States v. Prasad, 18 F.4th 313, 324 (9th Cir. 2021) (“[W]e have consistently held that ‘proceeds’ means receipts when used in criminal forfeiture provisions that are materially similar to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I), specifically 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2), 18 U.S.C. § 1963(a)(3), and 21 U.S.C. § 853(a)(1).”).
United States v. Thompson, 990 F.3d 680, 691 (9th Cir. 2021) (“Because the forfeiture judgment against Thompson and Fincher amounted to joint and several liability contrary to Honeycutt, we must vacate and remand it.”) cert. denied, 142 S. Ct. 616 (2021). But see United States v. Sexton, 894 F.3d 787, 798-99 (6th Cir. 2018) (holding Honeycutt does not apply to 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) because the statute does not limit the forfeiture to proceeds “the person obtained”);
United States v. Peithman, 917 F.3d 635, 652 (8th Cir. 2019) (same), cert. denied, 140 S. Ct. 340 (2019).
United States v. Nation, 370 F.Supp.3d 1090 (C.D. Cal. 2019), in which the court imposed First Amendment limitations on criminal forfeitures for RICO violations, including government actions against motorcycle gangs seeking forfeiture of the Mongol Nation's membership trademarks and images.
In Timbs v. Indiana, 139 S. Ct. 682, 690 (2019), the Supreme Court held that the Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines Clause is incorporated against the States under the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive fines is fully applicable to the States.
Author info coming soon...
|
|
|
|
|
|
