Fair notice of the law is a basic principle that separates liberal democracies like the United States from more authoritarian governments. Fair notice is an especially critical due-process check against government’s power to criminally prosecute. Government must not only prove that a person did the unlawful act, but also that he intentionally engaged in wrongful conduct or knew the conduct was illegal—that it, that he had a guilty mind. So why, then, is the Obama Administration and other elected representatives opposing reforms to ensure that federal criminal laws include a clear criminal-intent standard?
The idea being advanced seems far from revolutionary or controversial, which may explain why politicians and interest groups of every ideological stripe support it: Federal laws with criminal provisions must require prosecutors to prove that the accused possessed the mens rea, or culpable mental state, to commit a crime. If a law lacks such language, then a default intent provision will apply, such as showing that the defendant acted “willfully” or “recklessly.” Continue reading
Matthew G. Kaiser, Partner, Kaiser, LeGrand & Dillon PLLC
A court case that should be on the radar screen of all business executives and white-collar criminal-defense attorneys in 2016 is United States v. Clay, in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit heard oral argument on October 2.
The case, about which I authored a Washington Legal Foundation Legal Backgrounder last March, implicates the fundamental question of who decides the meaning of a law—a judge or a jury? The Eleventh Circuit will also implicitly decide whether the government can cast aside more appropriate civil or administrative remedies and prosecute corporate officers operating a business in a complex regulatory environment when their interpretation of a law is objectively reasonable. Continue reading
Larson Frisby, American Bar Association*
Editor’s Note: This is the fifth in a series of six guest commentary posts that will address the six distinct topic areas covered in Washington Legal Foundation’s recently released Timeline: Federal Erosion of Business Civil Liberties. To read the other posts in this series, click here.
For more than a decade, the American Bar Association (ABA) has worked closely with the Washington Legal Foundation and other prominent business and legal groups to reverse or modify federal agency policies that have been eroding the attorney-client privilege and the work product doctrine. As shown by the WLF’s new chart, “Timeline: Federal Erosion of Business Civil Liberties, great progress has been achieved in preserving these important legal protections, but much still needs to be done.
The attorney-client privilege, which protects confidential communications between a client and a lawyer for the purpose of obtaining legal assistance, is a bedrock legal principle of our free society. It enables both individual and corporate clients to communicate with their lawyers in confidence, which is essential to preserving the client’s fundamental right to effective counsel. Continue reading
Matthew G. Kaiser, Partner, Kaiser, LeGrand & Dillon PLLC
Editor’s Note: This is the second in a series of six guest commentary posts that will address the six distinct topic areas covered in Washington Legal Foundation’s recently released Timeline: Federal Erosion of Business Civil Liberties. To read the other posts in this series, click here.
To commit a crime, normally you have to have met two requirements. First, you have to have done something bad. Second, you have to have done the bad thing with a bad intent.
Take mortgage fraud. If you write on your mortgage application that you earn $1,000,000 a year, but you only earn $100,000, you’ve committed mortgage fraud if that’s what you intended to submit and you knew it was false. If, though, you’re using an online application and the “0” key on your keyboard was stuck so an extra zero appeared, you haven’t committed mortgage fraud, you’ve just made a mistake; you have no bad intent. Continue reading
David Debold, Partner, Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
Editor’s Note: This is the first in a series of six guest commentary posts that will address the six distinct topic areas covered in Washington Legal Foundation’s recently released Timeline: Federal Erosion of Business Civil Liberties.
Two developments identified in WLF’s helpful Timeline—the proliferation of new criminal laws affecting businesses, and the evolution of federal sentencing law over time—would be topics of significant interest if either had unfolded without the other. The combination of the two, however, has posed a serious threat to the civil liberties of the American business community. Not only have vastly greater categories of conduct become eligible for criminal prosecution, the stakes in such prosecutions—for businesses, their owners, and their leadership—have increased substantially. As a result, conduct that had long been either lawful or merely the basis for a civil or administrative proceeding can now trigger a criminal investigation and prosecution ending with very substantial fines and lengthy prison terms. Continue reading
Ed. Note: This morning at a press conference (the video on-demand for which can be accessed here), Washington Legal Foundation released the third edition of its Timeline: Federal Erosion of Business Civil Liberties. Joining the author of this post, WLF General Counsel Mark Chenoweth, at the briefing were former Associate Attorney General of the U.S. Jay Stephens and National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers’ Executive Director Norman Reimer. Over the next six days, the WLF Legal Pulse will be featuring commentary by leading white-collar criminal law voices on each of the six topics covered in the Timeline.
Overcriminalization is a term that came into vogue about ten or so years ago as a catch-all phrase to describe several interrelated legal policy problems. Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) has been at the forefront of the debate on overcriminalization, helping to popularize the term and offering thought leadership to policymakers, judges, and other participants in the criminal justice system. One concrete manifestation of this leadership is the new third edition of WLF’s Overcriminalization Timeline, which tracks the federal erosion of business civil liberties. Continue reading
On Friday, October 2, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit will hear oral arguments in a closely followed criminal health-care fraud case, U.S. v. Clay. Earlier this year, Washington Legal Foundation published a Legal Backgrounder on the case and its broader ramifications, Clay v. United States: When Executives Receive Jail Time for Ordinary Business Decisions.
In Clay, federal prosecutors converted a contract dispute between a medical services provider, WellCare Health Plans, and the State of Florida Agency for Healthcare Administration (AHCA) into a criminal action. The company had interpreted a complex state law regarding the repayment of Medicaid premiums to the state in a manner that was contrary to AHCA’s interpretation. AHCA’s interpretation was not memorialized in a state regulation or guidance document. Despite this lack of guidance, federal prosecutors indicted WellCare and its executives for health care fraud. The company entered into a deferred-prosecution agreement, leaving the executives to fend for themselves. Continue reading