On June 30, 2021, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) issued the first-ever government-wide priorities for anti-money laundering and countering the financing of terrorism (AML/CFT) policy (the “Priorities”). Issued after consultation with federal and state law enforcement and national security officials, the Priorities identify the most significant AML/CFT threats currently facing the United States.
Then presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's 2015 statement about the possibility of incarcerating employers for alleged “wage theft” was, to many, an alarming prospect. Since that time, this position has become more mainstream among workers’ rights advocates, politicians, and, critically, prosecutors. Today, prosecutors across the country increasingly seek criminal fines and jail time for what were previously seen as non-criminal labor violations better handled by Departments of Labor and other civil regulators.
Bloomberg Law recently published two articles drawing on the Women's White Collar Defense Association (WWCDA) Thought Leadership Subcommittee’s recent WaterCoolerPLUS session entitled “COVID-Era Challenges to Federal Indictments.” Both articles, co-authored with fellow WWCDA members, offer practical insights for practitioners seeking to challenge federal indictments related to COVID-19.
Third Circuit Reaffirms That Willfulness Does Not Require Knowledge That Conduct is Criminal, Rather Than Merely Unlawful
On December 4, 2020, the Third Circuit affirmed the district court’s willfulness jury instruction in a criminal payroll tax case under I.R.C. § 7202, which followed the familiar definition of willfulness found in Cheek v. United States. In United States v. Gilmore, the Third Circuit rejected the defendant’s contention that willfulness requires knowledge that the defendant’s conduct is criminal, affirming that “willfulness in the context of tax crimes merely requires knowledge and violation of a duty.”
Since its China Initiative was announced two years ago, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has expanded its focus from prosecuting individuals suspected of stealing trade secrets and other sensitive information for the Chinese government to prosecuting those who fail to disclose ties to Chinese government agencies and businesses.
Signing Tax Return Without Checking the Box and Failing to File FBARs Constitutes Willfulness as a Matter of Law, Fourth Circuit Holds
On October 20, 2020, the Fourth Circuit upheld the imposition of enhanced civil penalties on husband and wife taxpayers for their willful failure to file Reports of Foreign Bank and Financial Accounts (FBARs), despite any evidence that they were aware of the FBAR-filing requirement.
In the September 2020 edition of the Pennsylvania Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers’ (PACDL) For the Defense magazine, Carolyn Kendall examines the careful balance judges and court administrators must strike between ensuring that judicial proceedings protect the rights of the accused and minimizing the risk of COVID-19 transmission.
FinCEN Releases Second Advisory on COVID-19 Illicit Activity, Including New Red Flags for Common Consumer Fraud Scams
On July 7, 2020, the Department of Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) released its second advisory to financial institutions about detecting and preventing COVID-19 consumer fraud. The guidance provides financial institutions with 18 new red flag indicators to help identify potential imposter and money mule pandemic fraud. FinCEN plans to continue issuing additional advisories about financial crimes related to the pandemic based on evolving trends.
Third Circuit Underscores Importance of Police Policies and Procedures in Precedential Decision on the Inevitable Discovery Rule
On May 15, 2020, the Third Circuit considered whether physical evidence discovered during a vehicle search made after a defendant's involuntary admission that he had drugs in his car should have been suppressed or whether it could be admitted pursuant to the inevitable discovery rule.
Third Circuit Addresses Parameters of Permissible Law Enforcement Investigation Overview Testimony in Precedential Opinion
On May 5, 2020, the Third Circuit addressed the permissible limits and scope of overview testimony provided by a law enforcement officer to summarize the government's case at the beginning of trial. In its first precedential opinion on this issue, the Third Circuit, in United States v. Lacerda, the court held that an officer cannot provide "overview testimony that opines on ultimate issues of guilt, makes assertions of fact outside of the officer's personal knowledge, or delves into aspects of the investigation in which he did not participate."
First, DOJ updated its interpretation of one of the three “fundamental questions” that an evaluating prosecutor should ask. In addition to determining whether the company’s compliance program (1) is well designed and (2) works in practice, prosecutors should also consider (3) whether the program is being applied earnestly and in good faith. The updated guidance explains that this third question requires prosecutors to determine if the program is “adequately resourced and empowered to function effectively.”