DOCSLIB.ORG

U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney's Office Eastern

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney's Office Eastern Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 5 U.S. Department of Justice United States Attorney's Office Eastern District of New York CBD:DSS/AAS 271 Cadman Plaza East F.#2009R02380 Brooklyn, New York 11201 December 11, 2012 BY HAND DELIVERY and ECF The Honorable I. Leo Glasser United States District Court Eastern District of New York 225 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, New York 11201 The Honorable John Gleeson United States District Court Eastern District of New York 225 Cadman Plaza East Brooklyn, New York 11201 Re: United States v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A. and HSBC Holdings plc Criminal Docket No. 12-763 (ILG) Dear Judge Glasser and Judge Gleeson: The government respectfully submits this letter to request that the Court file the above-captioned criminal Information, attached hereto as Exhibit A, with the Clerk of the Court, place this matter into abeyance for a period of sixty months and exclude that time from the period within which trial must commence pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(2). The defendants join in these requests. As set forth in the document attached hereto as Exhibit B, the government and defendants HSBC Bank USA, N.A. and HSBC Holdings plc (collectively “HSBC”) have entered into a deferred prosecution agreement. Should HSBC comply with the terms and provisions of the attached agreement, the Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 6 - 2 - government has agreed to dismiss the Information after sixty months. Respectfully submitted, LORETTA E. LYNCH United States Attorney By: /s/ Alexander A. Solomon Daniel S. Silver Assistant U.S. Attorneys (718) 254-6074/6034 cc: David N. Kelley, Esq. Samuel W. Seymour, Esq. Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3-1 Filed 12/11/12 Page 1 of 13 PageID #: 7 Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3-1 Filed 12/11/12 Page 2 of 13 PageID #: 8 Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3-1 Filed 12/11/12 Page 3 of 13 PageID #: 9 Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3-1 Filed 12/11/12 Page 4 of 13 PageID #: 10 Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3-1 Filed 12/11/12 Page 5 of 13 PageID #: 11 Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3-1 Filed 12/11/12 Page 6 of 13 PageID #: 12 Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3-1 Filed 12/11/12 Page 7 of 13 PageID #: 13 Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3-1 Filed 12/11/12 Page 8 of 13 PageID #: 14 Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3-1 Filed 12/11/12 Page 9 of 13 PageID #: 15 Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3-1 Filed 12/11/12 Page 10 of 13 PageID #: 16 Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3-1 Filed 12/11/12 Page 11 of 13 PageID #: 17 Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3-1 Filed 12/11/12 Page 12 of 13 PageID #: 18 Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3-1 Filed 12/11/12 Page 13 of 13 PageID #: 19 Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3-2 Filed 12/11/12 Page 1 of 34 PageID #: 20 Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3-2 Filed 12/11/12 Page 2 of 34 PageID #: 21 Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3-2 Filed 12/11/12 Page 3 of 34 PageID #: 22 Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3-2 Filed 12/11/12 Page 4 of 34 PageID #: 23 Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3-2 Filed 12/11/12 Page 5 of 34 PageID #: 24 Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3-2 Filed 12/11/12 Page 6 of 34 PageID #: 25 Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3-2 Filed 12/11/12 Page 7 of 34 PageID #: 26 Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3-2 Filed 12/11/12 Page 8 of 34 PageID #: 27 Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3-2 Filed 12/11/12 Page 9 of 34 PageID #: 28 Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3-2 Filed 12/11/12 Page 10 of 34 PageID #: 29 Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3-2 Filed 12/11/12 Page 11 of 34 PageID #: 30 Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3-2 Filed 12/11/12 Page 12 of 34 PageID #: 31 Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3-2 Filed 12/11/12 Page 13 of 34 PageID #: 32 Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3-2 Filed 12/11/12 Page 14 of 34 PageID #: 33 Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3-2 Filed 12/11/12 Page 15 of 34 PageID #: 34 Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3-2 Filed 12/11/12 Page 16 of 34 PageID #: 35 Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3-2 Filed 12/11/12 Page 17 of 34 PageID #: 36 Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3-2 Filed 12/11/12 Page 18 of 34 PageID #: 37 Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3-2 Filed 12/11/12 Page 19 of 34 PageID #: 38 Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3-2 Filed 12/11/12 Page 20 of 34 PageID #: 39 Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3-2 Filed 12/11/12 Page 21 of 34 PageID #: 40 Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3-2 Filed 12/11/12 Page 22 of 34 PageID #: 41 Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3-2 Filed 12/11/12 Page 23 of 34 PageID #: 42 Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3-2 Filed 12/11/12 Page 24 of 34 PageID #: 43 Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3-2 Filed 12/11/12 Page 25 of 34 PageID #: 44 Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3-2 Filed 12/11/12 Page 26 of 34 PageID #: 45 Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3-2 Filed 12/11/12 Page 27 of 34 PageID #: 46 Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3-2 Filed 12/11/12 Page 28 of 34 PageID #: 47 Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3-2 Filed 12/11/12 Page 29 of 34 PageID #: 48 Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3-2 Filed 12/11/12 Page 30 of 34 PageID #: 49 Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3-2 Filed 12/11/12 Page 31 of 34 PageID #: 50 Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3-2 Filed 12/11/12 Page 32 of 34 PageID #: 51 Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3-2 Filed 12/11/12 Page 33 of 34 PageID #: 52 Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3-2 Filed 12/11/12 Page 34 of 34 PageID #: 53 Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 1 of 30 PageID #: 54 ATTACHMENT A STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. The following Statement of Facts is incorporated by reference as part of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement (the “Agreement”) between the United States Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York, and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of West Virginia (collectively, the “Department”) and HSBC Bank USA, N.A. (“HSBC Bank USA”) and HSBC Holdings plc (“HSBC Holdings”); and as part of a separate Deferred Prosecution Agreement between the New York County District Attorney’s Office (“DANY”) and HSBC Holdings. 2. HSBC Bank USA and HSBC Holdings hereby agree and stipulate that the following information is true and accurate. HSBC Bank USA and HSBC Holdings accept and acknowledge that they are responsible for the acts of their respective officers, directors, employees, and agents as set forth below. If this matter were to proceed to trial, the Department would prove beyond a reasonable doubt, by admissible evidence, the facts alleged below and set forth in the criminal Information attached to this Agreement. Bank Structure 3. HSBC Bank USA is a federally chartered banking institution and subsidiary of HSBC North America Holdings, Inc. (“HSBC North America”). HSBC North America is an indirect subsidiary of HSBC Holdings. HSBC Holdings is the ultimate parent company of one of the world’s largest banking and financial services groups with approximately 6,900 offices in over 80 countries (collectively, HSBC Holdings and its subsidiaries are the “HSBC Group”). HSBC Group is comprised of financial institutions throughout the world (“HSBC Group Affiliates”) that are owned by various intermediate holding companies and ultimately, but indirectly, by HSBC Holdings, which is incorporated and headquartered in England. The Department of the Treasury, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (“OCC”) is HSBC Bank USA’s primary regulator. 1 Case 1:12-cr-00763-ILG Document 3-3 Filed 12/11/12 Page 2 of 30 PageID #: 55 Applicable Law 4. Congress enacted the Bank Secrecy Act, Title 31, United States Code, Section 5311 et seq. (the “BSA”), and its implementing regulations to address an increase in criminal money laundering activity through financial institutions. Among other things, the BSA requires domestic banks, insured banks, and other financial institutions to maintain programs designed to detect and report suspicious activity that might be indicative of money laundering, terrorist financing, and other financial crimes, and to maintain certain records and file reports related thereto that are especially useful in criminal, tax, or regulatory investigations or proceedings.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement Business Law in the Public Interest Mark Steward, Maria T
    Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement Business Law in the Public Interest Mark Steward, Maria T. Vullo, Director of Enforcement Superintendent, and Market Oversight, NY Department Financial Conduct Deputy Attorney General Sally Quillian Yates of Financial Services Authority, U.K. Jay Clayton, Chair, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell Attorney General Eric Holder Preet Bharara, U.S. Attorney, Benjamin Lawsky, Southern District Superintendent, NY Department of New York of Financial Services Mary Jo White, Chair, U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission Judge Jed Rakoff, U.S. District Judge, David Green, Director, Southern District of U.K. Serious Fraud Office New York IV PROGRAM ON CORPORATE COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT History and Mission The NYU School of Law Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement (PCCE) is a law and policy program created to promote effective enforcement and compliance. Among other activities, each year PCCE hosts conferences and forums, bringing together some of the most prominent academics, lawyers, and judges in the world for off-the-record, moderated discus- sions of how to structure enforcement policy and compliance in order to effectively deter corporate misconduct. By gathering experts with diverse experi- ence and viewpoints, we undertake the collaborative process of understanding and deterring corporate misconduct; building efficient, effective, and sustain- able compliance programs; and establishing a fair and just process in accomplishing these goals. In addition, PCCE maintains a blog that informs public discourse on these issues and runs educa- tional programs for foreign graduate students, foreign enforcement officials and practitioners, and directors and executives in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Brief of Amici Curiae Current and Former Prosecutors, Department of Justice Officials, and Judges in Support of Petitioner
    No. 20-659 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States LARRY THOMPSON Petitioner, v. POLICE OFFICER PAGIEL CLARK, SHIELD #28472; POLICE OFFICER PAUL MONTEFUSCO, SHIELD #10580 POLICE OFFICER PHILLIP ROMANO, SHIELD #6295 POLICE OFFICER GERARD BOUWMANS, SHIELD #2102, Respondents. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE CURRENT AND FORMER PROSECUTORS, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE OFFICIALS, AND JUDGES IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONER MARY B. MCCORD Counsel of Record AMY L. MARSHAK SETH WAYNE INSTITUTE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL ADVOCACY AND PROTECTION GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER 600 New Jersey Ave., NW Washington, DC 20001 (202) 661-6607 [email protected] LEGAL PRINTERS LLC ! Washington, DC ! 202-747-2400 ! legalprinters.com i TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................... ii INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE .............................1 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ..................................1 ARGUMENT ............................................................3 I. DISMISSAL DECISIONS SHOULD BE INDEPENDENT OF CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING CIVIL LIABILITY ....................6 II. THE MAJORITY RULE POSES AN UNREALISTIC BURDEN ON § 1983 CLAIMS AND CREATES ARBITRARY DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN SIMILARLY SITUATED DEFENDANTS .............................9 A. A Prosecutor’s Decision to Dismiss Is Often Not an Affirmative Indication of Innocence. ...................................................9 B. The Majority Rule Favors Defendants Whose Cases are Terminated by Acquittal or Post-Conviction Remedies ... 13 III. BARRING CIVIL RIGHTS CLAIMS WHERE CRIMINAL CHARGES ARE DISMISSED UNDERMINES FAITH IN THE JUSTICE SYSTEM ................................ 17 CONCLUSION ....................................................... 19 APPENDIX: LIST OF AMICI CURIAE .............. A-1 ii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Page(s) CASES Awabdy v. City of Adelanto, 368 F.3d 1062 (9th Cir. 2004) ................................. 4 Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619 (1993) ............................................... 17 Cordova v.
    [Show full text]
  • District Court Activism in Criminal Justice Reform
    THE “NEW” DISTRICT COURT ACTIVISM IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE REFORM JESSICA A. ROTH* Historically, the debate over the judicial role has centered on the consti- tutional and administrative law decisions of the United States Supreme Court, with an occasional glance at the Federal Courts of Appeals. It has, moreover, been concerned solely with the “in-court” behavior of Article III appellate judges as they carry out their power and duty “to say what the law is” in the context of resolving “cases and controversies.” This Article seeks to deepen the discussion of the appropriate role of Article III judges by broaden- ing it to trial, as well as appellate, judges; and by distinguishing between an Article III judge’s “decisional” activities on the one hand, and the judge’s “hortatory” and other activities on the other. To that end, the Article focuses on a cohort of deeply respected federal district judges-many of whom, al- though not all, experienced Clinton appointees in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York–who, over the last decade, have challenged conven- tional norms of judicial behavior to urge reform of fundamental aspects of the federal criminal justice system. These “new” judicial activists have made their case for reform in the pages of their judicial opinions, often in dicta; in articles and speeches; and through advocacy within and beyond the judicial branch. This Article summarizes this activity, places it in historical context, and assesses its value as well as its risks. I. Introduction......................................... 278 II. A Summary of the “New” District Court Activism .... 283 A.
    [Show full text]
  • Deterring Corporate Crime
    Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement NYU School of Law 40 Washington Square South New York, NY 10012 Deterring Corporate Crime: Effective Principles for Corporate Enforcement April 4-5, 2014 New York University School of Law Lester Pollack Colloquium Room 245 Sullivan Street, 9th Floor Sponsored by the NYU Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement and the American Law Institute II III Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement The NYU Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement promotes research on the effective enforcement of legal rules governing corporate crime and on methods and strategies for enhancing compliance with applicable standards. The program hosts annual conferences and other programs designed to improve our understanding of existing practices and facilitate effective enforcement policy and compliance. The program’s directors are Professors Jennifer Arlen and Geoffrey Miller. IV 1 Deterring Corporate Crime: Conference Program Effective Principles for Corporate Enforcement Sponsored by the NYU Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement Deterring Corporate Crime: and the American Law Institute deterrence. Issues to be considered include the appro- Effective Principles for Conference Goal priate scope and content of corporate criminal liability To be effective, corporate criminal and civil enforcement (including oversight liability imposed on parent firms), must deter wrongdoing by corporations and the employees appropriate mandates to impose through pretrial diversion Corporate Enforcement operating
    [Show full text]
  • Heinonline ( Mon Sep 6 15:28:27 2010
    +(,121/,1( Citation: 46 Hastings L.J. 1095 1994-1995 Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org) Mon Sep 6 15:28:27 2010 -- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License -- The search text of this PDF is generated from uncorrected OCR text. -- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope of your HeinOnline license, please use: https://www.copyright.com/ccc/basicSearch.do? &operation=go&searchType=0 &lastSearch=simple&all=on&titleOrStdNo=0017-8322 The Federalization of Organized Crime: Advantages of Federal Prosecution by JOHN C. JEFFRiEs, JR.,* AND HONORABLE JOHN GLEESON** Introduction Debates about the federalization of crime traditionally have fo- cused on substantive law. New federal crimes are proposed and cre- ated as responses to problems the states cannot handle. They are opposed and lamented as unwarranted intrusions into the states' do- main.1 Advocates on both sides assume that crime definition is the chief determinant of the respective spheres of state and federal law. Today, that assumption is largely false. It is true, of course, that federal and state crimes appear to have different coverage. Federal crimes have distinctive jurisdictional components and a characteristic complexity that set them apart from the simpler and broader pro- nouncements of state law. Considered individually, federal crimes often seem specialized and narrow. Considered collectively, they are not. Even before the recent flurry of situational crime legislation and the passage of the 1994 Crime Bill, federal law reached virtually all robberies,2 most schemes to defraud, 3 many firearms offenses,4 all * Emerson Spies Professor of Law and Horace W.
    [Show full text]
  • Corporate and Individual Liability for Corporate Misconduct After the Yates Memo April 8, 2016 New York University School of Law
    Corporate and Individual Liability for Corporate Misconduct After the Yates Memo April 8, 2016 New York University School of Law Lester Pollack Colloquium Room 245 Sullivan Street (9th Floor) Faculty Directors Jennifer Arlen ’86 Geoffrey P. Miller Executive Director Serina M. Vash The Program on Corporate Compliance and Enforcement (PCCE) is a law and policy program dedicated to developing a richer and deeper understanding of the causes of corporate misconduct and the nature of effective enforcement and compliance. Through practical discourse and legal scholarship, PCCE seeks to help shape optimal enforcement policy, guide firms in developing more effective and robust compliance programs, and enhance education in the field of corporate compliance and enforcement. IV Corporate and Individual Liability for Corporate Misconduct After the Yates Memo Conference Objectives To be effective, corporate criminal and civil enforcement PCCE Conference Rules must deter wrongdoing by corporations and the employees To encourage openness and the sharing of information, our operating within them. To do this, criminal and civil conferences and roundtables are governed by the following liability should ensure that crime does not pay. In the rule: Participants are free to use the information received, case of publicly held firms, criminal and civil liability also but all PCCE events are completely not for attribution. Thus, should incentivize firms to adopt and maintain an effective neither the identity of the person who makes a comment nor corporate compliance program, report misconduct that their affiliation (including whether they are a government might otherwise escape detection, and fully cooperate. or private-sector employee) may be revealed. Enforcement agencies (such as the Department of Justice PCCE does not videotape or otherwise record an event done and individual US Attorney’s Offices) and regulators (such under this rule.
    [Show full text]
  • 14-2759 (L) USA V. Martinez 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF
    14-2759 (L) USA v. Martinez 1 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 2 FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT 3 - - - - - - 4 August Term, 2016 5 (Argued: October 19, 2016 Decided: July 7, 2017) 6 Docket Nos. 14-2759, 15-511, 15-836, 15-1001, 15-3699 7 _________________________________________________________ 8 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 9 Appellee, 10 - v. - 11 RANDALL MARTINEZ, a/k/a Randall, a/k/a Jose Rodriguez, a/k/a Jose 12 Rodriguez-Saez, a/k/a Rando Martinez, a/k/a Randall Martinez-Espinal, HENRY 13 FIORENTINO, JOSE TEJADA, and MARCOS RODRIGUEZ, a/k/a Markito, 14 Defendants-Appellants.* 15 _________________________________________________________ 16 Before: KEARSE, JACOBS, and POOLER, Circuit Judges. 17 Appeals from judgments of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of 18 New York, entered by Sandra L. Townes, Judge, against defendants Randall Martinez and Marcos 19 Rodriguez, and by John Gleeson, Judge, against defendants Henry Fiorentino and Jose Tejada, 20 following the defendants' convictions of conspiracy to commit Hobbs Act robbery, 18 U.S.C. 21 § 1951(a), conspiracy to distribute narcotics, 21 U.S.C. § 846, and other offenses. On appeal, * The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to amend the caption as set forth above. 1 Martinez, who entered pleas of guilty in two prosecutions, challenges, in one case, the adequacy of 2 his plea hearing and the denial of his request for new counsel. The other defendants, convicted 3 following their respective jury trials, principally raise statute-of-limitations and/or evidentiary 4 challenges to their trial proceedings and challenge their sentences.
    [Show full text]
  • In the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
    USCA Case #20-5143 Document #1850892 Filed: 07/09/2020 Page 1 of 69 No. 20-5143 In the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit IN RE MICHAEL T. FLYNN, Petitioner ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA (CRIM. NO. 17-232) (THE HONORABLE EMMET G. SULLIVAN) PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC BY JUDGE EMMET G. SULLIVAN BETH A. WILKINSON KOSTA S. STOJILKOVIC RAKESH N. KILARU WILKINSON WALSH LLP 2001 M Street N.W. Washington, DC 20036 (202) 847-4000 [email protected] Counsel for Judge Sullivan USCA Case #20-5143 Document #1850892 Filed: 07/09/2020 Page 2 of 69 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Table Of Authorities ................................................................................................ ii Introduction And Rule 35(b)(1) Statement ........................................................... 1 Background .............................................................................................................. 2 Reasons For Granting Rehearing ......................................................................... 6 I. The Panel Opinion Conflicts With The Supreme Court’s Decision In Rinaldi v. United States .......................................................................... 6 II. The Panel Opinion Conflicts With This Court’s Mandamus Precedents ...................................................................................................... 8 A. The Panel Opinion Departs From This Court’s Consistent Interpretation Of The “Adequate
    [Show full text]
  • A Retrospective (1990-2014)
    The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York: A Retrospective (1990-2014) The New York County Lawyers Association Committee on the Federal Courts May 2015 Copyright May 2015 New York County Lawyers Association 14 Vesey Street, New York, NY 10007 phone: (212) 267-6646; fax: (212) 406-9252 Additional copies may be obtained on-line at the NYCLA website: www.nycla.org TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 1 A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE COURT (1865-1990)............................................................ 3 Founding: 1865 ........................................................................................................... 3 The Early Era: 1866-1965 ........................................................................................... 3 The Modern Era: 1965-1990 ....................................................................................... 5 1990-2014: A NEW ERA ...................................................................................................... 6 An Increasing Docket .................................................................................................. 6 Two New Courthouses for a New Era ........................................................................ 7 The Vital Role of the Eastern District’s Senior Judges............................................. 10 The Eastern District’s Magistrate Judges: An Indispensable Resource ................... 11 The Bankruptcy
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. District Court Applies Supervisory Authority Over Criminal Proceedings to Review of Deferred Prosecution Agreement
    July 8, 2013 U.S. District Court Applies Supervisory Authority Over Criminal Proceedings to Review of Deferred Prosecution Agreement Over the last several years, deferred prosecution agreements (“DPAs”), in which the government and a corporate defendant agree to defer prosecution on criminal charges for an agreed upon period of time in exchange for some combination of a monetary penalty, an admission of wrongdoing, and remedial measures have become an important – and often controversial – law enforcement tool. If the defendant satisfies its obligations under the DPA, the charges are dismissed by the government at the end of the agreement’s term. Although there were only two such agreements in 2000, there have been 63 since 2010 alone.1 For the most part, DPAs and the rules governing their use have developed without scrutiny by the courts. A recent decision by United States District Judge John Gleeson, of the Eastern District of New York, however, may signal an end to this state of affairs. On July 1, 2013, Judge Gleeson issued an opinion approving a deferred prosecution agreement between the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and HSBC Bank USA, N.A. and HSBC Holdings Plc (“HSBC”). The approval came over six months after the government had filed a criminal information against the defendants and requested approval of the DPA. The court’s decision includes what the court characterized as a “novel” exercise of its supervisory power over criminal proceedings to conduct a substantive review of the terms of the DPA.2 It is difficult to predict whether other courts will follow this approach and conduct similar reviews of DPAs.
    [Show full text]
  • In Re: Michael T. Flynn, Petitioner
    United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued June 12, 2020 Decided June 24, 2020 No. 20-5143 IN RE: MICHAEL T. FLYNN, PETITIONER On Emergency Petition for a Writ of Mandamus Sidney Powell argued the cause for petitioner. With her on the petition for a writ of mandamus were Molly McCann and Jesse R. Binnall. Jeffrey B. Wall, Deputy Solicitor General, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for respondent United States of America. With him on the response to the petition for a writ of mandamus were Noel J. Francisco, Solicitor General, Eric J. Feigin, Deputy Solicitor General, Frederick Liu, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Kenneth C. Kohl, Acting Principal Assistant U.S. Attorney, and Jocelyn Ballantine, Assistant U.S. Attorney. David Yost, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Ohio, Benjamin M. Flowers, Solicitor General, Steve Marshall, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Alabama, Kevin G. Clarkson, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Alaska, Leslie Rutledge, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Arkansas, Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State 2 of Florida, Christopher M. Carr, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Georgia, Jeff Landry, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Louisiana, Lynn Fitch, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Mississippi, Eric Schmitt, Attorney General, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Missouri, Timothy C.
    [Show full text]
  • Advantages of Federal Prosecution John C
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 46 | Issue 4 Article 7 1-1995 The edeF ralization of Oragnized Crime: Advantages of Federal Prosecution John C. Jeffries Jr. John Gleeson Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation John C. Jeffries Jr. and John Gleeson, The Federalization of Oragnized Crime: Advantages of Federal Prosecution, 46 Hastings L.J. 1095 (1995). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol46/iss4/7 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Federalization of Organized Crime: Advantages of Federal Prosecution by JOHN C. JEFFRiEs, JR.,* AND HONORABLE JOHN GLEESON** Introduction Debates about the federalization of crime traditionally have fo- cused on substantive law. New federal crimes are proposed and cre- ated as responses to problems the states cannot handle. They are opposed and lamented as unwarranted intrusions into the states' do- main.1 Advocates on both sides assume that crime definition is the chief determinant of the respective spheres of state and federal law. Today, that assumption is largely false. It is true, of course, that federal and state crimes appear to have different coverage. Federal crimes have distinctive jurisdictional components and a characteristic complexity that set them apart from the simpler and broader pro- nouncements of state law. Considered individually, federal crimes often seem specialized and narrow.
    [Show full text]