Homework

CHAPTER 8

BUSINESS CRIME

LECTURE OUTLINE

8-1 What is Business Crime? The Crimes Within a Corporation (See PowerPoint Slides 8-1, 8-2, and 8-3)

8-1a Financial Fraud: Employees Manipulating Earnings Numbers

· Andrew Fastow: Manipulating the numbers to save jobs

8-1b Marketing Missteps: Sales Zeal and Crimes

· Marketing products by making statements that are not permitted or are not true: pharmaceuticals

8-1c Friendly Fire: Employee Theft

· Embezzlement

· See Exhibit 8.1 – "A Roster of Wrongdoing"

8-2 What is Business Crime? The Crimes Against a Corporation (See PowerPoint Slide 8-4)

· Stealing From Competitors

· Acting Illegally to Gain a Competitive Advantage – Antitrust

Example: Archer Daniels Midland and price fixing

· Electronic Eavesdropping

· Federal Violations – Securities, Campaign Laws, Antitrust

8-3 Who is Liable for Business Crime? (See PowerPoint Slide 8-5)

· Corporation is Liable

· Officers and Directors are Liable If:

· They authorized the conduct

· They knew about the conduct and did nothing

· They failed to act reasonably in their supervisory positions

· Employees Can Also Be Liable If They Participated With the Company and Its Management in Illegal Acts

8-4 Federal Laws Targeting Officers and Directors for Criminal Accountability

8-4a White-Collar Crime’s Origins and History (See PowerPoint Slides 8-6 and 8-7)

· Society and the changes that have been made following the scandals

· Boesky-Milken and junk bonds and insider trading: the Insider Trading and Securities Fraud Enforcement Act of 1988 (ITSFEA)

· Savings and loan and change: White-Collar Kingpin Act – Federal Law imposes minimum federal mandatory sentences on corporate officers

· Post-Enron and Sox

· Post-subprime and Financial Reform Bill

8-4b Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX)

· White-Collar Criminal Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002

· Increases penalties

· Creates new crimes for certification of false financial statements

· Increased penalties for obstruction, mail, and wire fraud

· Scrushy first CEO tried, but not convicted

8-4c Honest Services Fraud (See PowerPoint Slide 8-8)

· Amendment to mail and wire fraud laws

· Added as a charge in the post-Enron era

· U.S. Supreme Court has held in an appeal by Jeffrey Skilling (Skilling v. U.S., 561 U.S. 358 (2010)) that honest service fraud requires some kind of bribery or conflict for the corporation to be deprived of the executive’s honest services

8-4d Financial Services Crimes and Reform (See PowerPoint Slide 8-9)

· Followed the subprime crisis

· Financial Services Reform Act, also known as the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act

· The act creates a Bureau of Consumer Financial Services (CFSB)

· Carries civil and criminal penalties

8-4e Other Business Crimes and White-Collar Liability (See PowerPoint Slide 8-10)

· OSHA rules

· Failure to comply with safety laws

8-5 The Penalties for Business Crime

Given for Each Crime (See Exhibit 8.2 and PowerPoint Slides 8-11, 8-12, and 8-13)

8-5a New Penalties and New Processes

8-5b Corporate Integrity Agreements (CIAs) (See PowerPoint Slide 8-14)

· Postpones criminal charges

· Monitors are often on-site as part of the agreement

8-5c Criminal Indictments of Corporations on Common Law Crimes

· Murder or manslaughter for safety deaths

· Workplace safety deaths

8-5d Shame Punishment

· Public disclosure

· Public advertisements

· Increased use of shame punishment: public disclosure of wrongdoing

· Community service

· Officer and executive banishment: the designated felon

· Part of sentence is banishment from a profession

· Not able to serve as officer or board member of a publicly traded company

· Deferred Prosecution Agreements (DPAs) (See PowerPoint Slide 8-15)

8-5e New and Higher Penalties for Corporate Crime

· Concern is that they are directed at “natural” persons and not “corporate” persons

Examples: Fines are small; imprisonment

· Placing penalties as a percentage of company profits is an alternative

· Prison sentences for officers and directors

8-5f Corporate Sentencing Guidelines: An Ounce of Prevention Means a Reduced Sentence (See PowerPoint Slides 8-16, 8-17, and 8-18)

· Federal commission on sentencing put through the Corporate Sentencing Guidelines, which include fines that are a percentage of profit, and are used by all federal courts in determining sentences

· Increased fines for corporations to make them feel the pinch of money

· Developed by U.S. Sentencing Commission

· Sentences for officers increase if the following crime prevention methods are not in place at the corporation and decrease if companies do certain things

· Written crime prevention program

· Officer-level employees assigned responsibility for enforcement

· Screen employees

· Training programs and written materials

· Prevention and detection of crime processes

· Formula of corporate sentencing guidelines

· Uses a culpability multiplier

· Begin with a score of “5” and add or subtract based on factors such as

· Code of conduct

· Ombudsmen

· Hot line

· Mandatory training

· Guidelines reformed by Sarbanes-Oxley mandate

BUSINESS STRATEGY − MUCH MORE THAN COMPLIANCE: Consider these basic principles of the sentencing guidelines.

8-5g Corporate Board Criminal Responsibility (See PowerPoint Slide 8-19)

· Corporate boards could be held liable if the board fails to institute and monitor internal controls

Example: In Re Caremark International, Inc., 698 A.2d 959 (Del. Ch. 1996)

· Can result for lack of follow-up

· Can result from lack of internal controls

· Can result in personal liability for directors

FOR THE MANAGER'S DESK − WHO REALLY ENDS UP GOING TO JAIL FOR CORPORATE CRIME? Notice for students: (1) generally a first crime; (2) generally over 40; and (3) generally not senior management. Note how many professionals and college-educated executives went to jail.

8-6 Elements of Business Crime (See PowerPoint Slide 8-20)

8-6a Mens Rea, Scienter, or Criminal Intent

· State of mind required to commit a crime

· For corporations – prove intention on behalf of directors

· Must also show individual intent to prosecute them

· Can establish by showing their knowledge of actions and failure to object

See PowerPoint Slide 8-21.

CASE BRIEF 8.2

People v. M & H Used Auto Parts & Cars, Inc.

22 A.D.3d 135, 799 N.Y.S.2d 784 (2005)

FACTS: Mordechay Sasy owns M & H Used Auto Parts & Cars, Inc. (defendants), a vehicle dismantling business, located in Queens County, New York. Between January 1999 and January 2000, the New York City Police Department conducted an undercover investigation of vehicle dismantling businesses. An undercover detective posed as a scrap metal processor and purchased 166 “junked” vehicles from M & H.

At trial, the detective testified that, in the course of the investigation, he observed Sasy dismantle vehicles without first draining the fluids, resulting in a discharge of liquids, such as motor oil, antifreeze, and transmission fluid, onto the ground. He stated that he also observed “Speedy Dry”, a material used to soak up oil spills, on the ground. The detective further testified that he observed Sasy and his employees empty gasoline into five-gallon pails and, in the process, spill gasoline on the ground.

On September 27, 2000, the detective and other government officials executed a search warrant authorizing a search of M & H's yard and office. They found an eight by ten-foot puddle of oily soil at the entrance to the yard, and “a lot” of oil and antifreeze covered with Speedy Dry in the yard. In the rear of the yard, located in a pit in the ground was a sump pump that was plugged in with an electrical cord. An uncoiled hose ran from the sump pump into a hole in the rear wall of an adjoining business, through a galvanized pipe mounted along the interior wall of the adjoining business, and out onto 38th Avenue in Queens. The sump pump was not pumping at the time. However, the detective noticed that there was fluid in the hose. The sump pit was about half filled with water that had an oily sheen and smelled like oil, antifreeze, and gasoline, and water appeared to have been pumped out because the interior of the sump pit was still wet. There were four catch basins at the intersection of 38th Avenue and 126th Street, and when it rained, a “small pond” developed on 38th Avenue and ran from M & H toward 126th Street into the catch basins. A videotape depicting the condition of the yard, including the sump pit, purportedly taken on September 27, 2000, was played for the jury.

The supervisor of water and sewer systems for the New York City Department of Environmental Protection in Queens (DEP) testified that in Queens County, storm sewers carry rainwater via underground pipes out into the nearest waterway. Rainwater enters the storm sewer through catch basins located in the street. In the location of M & H, the storm sewers emptied into Flushing Bay.

A sump pump is a point source and, therefore, anyone intending to operate one is required to obtain a State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit. A diligent search of all SPDES permits issued disclosed that in 1999 and 2000, neither Mordechay nor M & H had been issued a SPDES permit.

Sasy testified that from May 1999 through January 2000, he used pans and 55-gallon drums to collect the fluids from the vehicles that he dismantled. He also used carpets in case of leaks and Speedy Dry to absorb any occasional spills. He discarded used carpets and used Speedy Dry with the garbage. Sasy claimed that he used a company named Tri-City Waste Oil to collect waste oils every couple of months and a company named Planet Recovery that collected anti-freeze and oil. Sasy produced copies of certain receipts that he claimed were given by Tri-City and Planet Recovery. According to Sasy, the original Tri-City receipts were removed from M & H during the execution of the search warrant. Sasy conceded that the inventory list for documents seized from M & H, which was signed by Sasy, did not reflect any receipts.

The State had two witnesses who testified that, during the investigation, Sasy stated that Planet Recovery took care of his waste oils and anti-freeze disposal and that he never mentioned a company named Tri-City Waste Oil. Further, a search of M & H's office did not reveal any receipts for the removal of waste oil or antifreeze.

The indictment charged the defendants with seven counts, including knowingly discharging pollutants into the waters of the State of New York from an outlet or point source without a SPDES permit, in violation of Environmental Conservation Law. The jury found the defendants guilty. They appealed.

ISSUE ON APPEAL: Was there sufficient evidence of intent (mens rea) for a conviction?

DECISION: Yes. The court held that there was enough evidence of chemicals on the ground and in the sump pump to establish that he had been dumping fluids from cars onto the ground. In addition, it is common knowledge that sewer water must go somewhere and could end up in lakes, bays, rivers, etc. Accordingly, the judgment should be affirmed.

8-6b Mens Rea, Conscious Avoidance, and Corporate Officers (See PowerPoint Slide 8-22)

· Officers have tried to escape liability through conscious avoidance, "don’t tell me that"

· Cannot avoid liability by ignoring information

8-6c Actus Reus (See PowerPoint Slide 8-23)

· The act of the crime

· Intent alone is not a crime – the act must be committed

Example: The desire to trade on inside information is not a crime until you actually trade on it

· Each crime has the required conduct described

8-7 Examples of Business Crimes (See PowerPoint Slide 8-24)

8-7a Theft and Embezzlement

· Intent to take property

· Actual taking of property for permanent use

· No authorization to take the property

8-7b Obstruction of Justice (See PowerPoint Slide 8-25)

· Intent to impede, obstruct, or influence investigation or administration of justice

· Auditors must retain work papers for five years

· Felony – 10 years

· Frank Quattrone and Andersen convicted

8-7c Computer Crime

· What is computer crime?

8-7d Internet Crime

· The unauthorized access computer crimes

· Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (See PowerPoint Slide 8-26)

· Prohibits unauthorized access of “live” communications

· Question is whether e-mail would be stored communication and not live communications

· Stored Communication Act

· Prohibits the unauthorized interception of electronic communications – generally means stored information

· Does not cover ongoing communication – Tweeting, etc.

· Courts have consistently held that employees give consent to monitoring by their employers

CASE BRIEF 8.3

New Jersey v. Riley

988 A.2d 1252 (N.J. 2009)

FACTS: Sergeant Kenneth Riley used videos of a fellow officer, not for training purposes, but for purposes of getting a fellow officer disciplined. He showed the videos to those within the department who would not have authorization to view them. Riley was indicted for unauthorized use of a computer and unauthorized access and disclosure of computer data. Riley moved to have the indictment dismissed.

ISSUE ON APPEAL: Did Riley’s access and use of computer data constitute the crime of unauthorized use of computers?

DECISION: No. The court held that what Riley did was a violation of workplace policies, but did not fit within the criminal conduct intended to be covered by the statute. The judge was concerned about arbitrary definitions and enforcement and a criminal statute being used for retaliatory purposes.

· Unauthorized use of computer resources (See PowerPoint Slide 8-27)

· Using computers to commit economic espionage

· Covered by Economic Espionage Act (EEA)

· Employees take files from old employer to new employer

· Felony to copy, duplicate, sketch, download, communicate such information

· $500,000 and up to 15 years

· Spamming

· CAN-SPAM – Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing

· FTC has “Do-Not-Call” list, but spam list is in progress

· Industry groups are working on it – Anti-Spam Technical Alliance Register of Known Spam Operations (ROKSO)

· Using computers to commit fraud (See PowerPoint Slide 8-28)

· Counterfeit Access Device and Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CADCFA)

· Covers new technologies such as scanners, handheld computers, laptops, and smartphones

· The crime of cyberbullying (See PowerPoint Slide 8-29)

· Cyberbullying, cyberstalking, and privacy

· Criminal prosecution for these activities is now possible under a wide range of state statutes

· Cyberbullying statutes have to balance First Amendment rights with the need for protection of individuals against harassment

· Statutes now exist for prosecution of cyberstalking – the conduct required must be specifically listed in the statute so that the definitions are clear

· Federal antistalking law has been upheld as constitutional and applies to interstate activities with in-state issues being covered by state laws

· Copyright crimes online – See Chapter 15 (See PowerPoint Slide 8-30)

· Crimes online

· Silk Road example

· Child pornography (Jared Fogle)

8-7e Criminal Fraud (See PowerPoint Slide 8-31)

· Obtaining money, goods, services, or property through false statements and misleading the other party

· Requires intent to defraud

8-7f Commercial Bribery

· Prohibited in most states

· Incentives for those who report corrupt purchasing agents

8-7g Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO) (See PowerPoint Slide 8-32)

· Complex statute designed to curb organized crime activity

· Elements

· Acquiring an interest in any enterprise with income derived from racketeering

· Conducting affairs of company involved in racketeering activity

· Conspiring to do any of the above

· Pattern of racketeering activity

· Commission of two racketeering acts in a tenyear period

· Racketeering acts include murder, kidnapping, gambling, arson, robbery, bribery, counterfeiting, pension embezzlement, mail or wire fraud, obstruction of justice, securities fraud, white slavery, transportation of stolen goods, and violations of the Currency Reporting Act

· Carries civil and criminal penalties with civil recovery including treble damages

· Most RICO suits are based on fraud

· Prosecutors can freeze a business’s assets under a RICO charge

· Many states have their own RICO statutes

· Ongoing proposals in Congress for reform of RICO; although definition of racketeering may change, the treble damages rights will remain

8-7h Business Crime and the USA Patriot Act (See PowerPoint Slide 8-33)

· Money Laundering Control Act was predecessor

· Regulation of money laundering

· Expands controls on money laundering from banks to escrow companies, brokerage firms, travel agents, etc.

· “Know thy customer”

· Required reports on $10,000 cash and above transactions

· Funneling money to terrorist groups: another provision makes it a federal crime for individuals or companies to pay funds to terrorist groups; goal is to prevent funds from flowing into terrorist activities

8-7i Additional Federal Crimes (See PowerPoint Slide 8-34)

· Violations of federal securities statutes

· Violations of the Sherman Act

· Violations of the Internal Revenue Code

· Violations of the Pure Food and Drug Act

· Violations of OSHA

· Violations of Consumer Product Safety laws

8-7j State Crimes

· Cover criminal fraud

· Bribes and kickbacks prohibited

8-8 Procedural Rights for Business Criminals (See PowerPoint Slides 8-35 and 8-36)

8-8a Fourth Amendment Rights for Businesses

· Privacy amendment

· Search warrant procedures controlled by Fourth Amendment

· Must be based on probable cause; i.e., good reason to believe that instruments or evidence of a crime are present at the business location sought to be searched

· Must be issued by a disinterested magistrate

· If searches are done improperly, evidence is inadmissible at trial

· Cover Arizona v. Gant and the requirements for searching a car

8-8b Exceptions to the Warrant Requirement

· Emergencies and risk of loss of evidence

· Records are being destroyed (emergencies) – burning warehouse exception

· The plain view exception

· Can seize items because privacy was not protected – allowed the world access to the items

· Warrants and technology: texts, e-mails, and ISPs

· Who can get access to what and why?

CASE BRIEF 8.4

U.S. v. King

509 F.3d 1338 (11th Cir. 2007)

FACTS: In February 2003, while serving as a civilian contractor, Michael D. King resided in a dormitory at the Prince Sultan Air Base in Saudi Arabia. During his stay in the dormitory, King kept his personal laptop computer in his room and connected it to the base network. All users of the base network signed agreements indicating that they understood their communications over and use of the base network were subject to monitoring.

An enlisted airman was searching the base network for music files when he came across King’s computer on the network. The airman was able to access King’s hard drive because it was a “shared” drive. The airman discovered a pornographic movie and text files “of a pornographic nature.” The airman reported his discovery to a military investigator who in turn referred the matter to a computer specialist. This specialist located King’s computer and hard drive on the base network and verified the presence of pornographic videos and explicit text files on the computer. She also discovered a folder on the hard drive labeled “pedophilia.” Military officials seized King’s computer and also found CDs containing child pornography.

Two years later, the government obtained an indictment charging King with possession of child pornography. After his arrest, the government searched his residence pursuant to a search warrant and found additional CDs and hard drives containing over 30,000 images of child pornography.

King entered a guilty plea and was sentenced to 108 months in prison. King then appealed his conviction on the grounds that there had been an illegal search and seizure of his computer and files.

ISSUE: Was there an illegal search and seizure of King's dormitory and computer?

DECISION: No. The court held that there was no Fourth Amendment violation because the investigators did not search King’s files or computer initially to discover the pornographic materials. They merely had to access the universally accessible files of the military base. King had no expectation of privacy in whatever was posted on the shared drive. The search of his home computer and files in his room was with a warrant that was based on probable cause obtained from public access to the files.

· Privileged documents and the Fourth Amendment (See PowerPoint Slides 8-37 and 8-38)

· Can recover them

· Third party cannot assert Fourth Amendment rights – must be record owners

8-8c Fifth Amendment Rights for Businesses (See PowerPoint Slide 8-39)

· Self-incrimination

· Protection against selfincrimination – “taking the Fifth”

· Given to natural persons – not to corporations

· Corporate officers can assert it to protect themselves but not corporate records

FOR THE MANAGER’S DESK − KNOWING WHEN TO HOLD AND WHEN TO FOLD: WHAT TO DO WHEN YOUR COMPANY IS IN BIG TROUBLE

1. Leave when the indictments and/or arrests occur – don’t hang on.

2. Don’t lie on your résumé.

3. Describe your work at the company and others without names and wait until the interview to disclose whom you worked for.

4. Don’t badmouth your former employer in your interview – this is often taken as a sign of guilt; rather explain how difficult it is to be blindsided, something that most managers can identify with because it happens to the best.

· Miranda rights (See PowerPoint Slide 8-40)

· Given when individual is in “custody”

· “Custody” means inability to leave – not necessarily jail

· Right to attorney; right to silence – notice of evidentiary use of statements

· Due process rights (See Exhibit 8.3 and PowerPoint Slides 8-41, 8-42, 8-43, and 8-44 to show steps)

· Warrant or warrantless arrest begins process: Warrant – you have committed crime and they look for you; warrantless – you are arrested at the scene

12 Part II Business: Its Regulatory Environment

Chapter 8 Business Crime 1

© 2017 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website or school-approved learning management system for classroom use.

© 2017 Cengage Learning®. May not be scanned, copied or duplicated, or posted to a publicly accessible website, in whole or in part, except for use as permitted in a license distributed with a certain product or service or otherwise on a password-protected website or school-approved learning management system for classroom use.

· Initial appearance

· Required within short period (24 hours)

· Charges explained

· Bail terms set; amount; or released on own recognizance

· Preliminary hearing or grand jury

· Hearing – information issued; defendant is present and can crossexamine

· Grand jury – indictment; secret proceedings

· Arraignment

· Plea is entered

· Trial date is set

· Discovery – mandatory disclosure of witnesses and evidence

· Pretrial conference – try to settle some issues if possible

· Omnibus hearing – challenge evidence admissibility

· Trial

8-9 Business Crime and International Business

· Countries now have cross-prosecution agreements and cooperation on investigations

· Allows for discovery of evidence in international transactions

STRATEGY, ETHICS, & THE LAW: CRIMINAL CHARGES FOR TAX SHELTERS?

Lessons learned from KPMG case:

1. Instruct employees on whom counsel for firm represents.

2. Clarify that representation and privilege rules apply to both inside and outside counsel for the firm.

3. Develop a policy on reimbursement for attorneys’ fees for employees.

4. Explain when an employee is entitled to his or her own attorney.

5. Develop processes for negotiating settlements with the government.

6. Create a code of ethics and means for employees to raise concerns about company practices and policies.

7. Revisit compensation systems to see if employees are crossing ethical lines and pushing the envelope to get results.

8. If programs for clients are in the gray area, continue to revisit them to see government changes in policy.

9. Go through a root-cause analysis to see how the situation occurred in the first place (Laura Nash types of questions from Chapter 2).

U.S. v. KPMG, 316 F.Supp.2d 30 (D.D.C. 2004).

SUPPLEMENTAL READINGS (Not Required)

Allison, Bridget, et. al, “Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations,” 35 AM. CR. L. REV. 1103 (1998).

Andreoff, Christopher A., “A Primer on Federal Criminal Procedure,” 72 MICH B. J. 60 (1993).

“'Are We Really Getting Tough on White Collar Crime?' (June 19, 2002), Part 2,” 15 FED. SENT. R. 237, 2003 WL 22016895 (April, 2003).

Constantin, Tiffany Britton, “Editor's Note,” 40 AM. CRIM. L. REV. 217 (Spring, 2003).

Dickerson, Brian and Klodiana Basko, "Confusion in Defining 'Proceeds' Under the Money-Laundering Statute: A Survey of Circuit Opinions," 57 FED. LAW. 23 (June 2010).

Green, Stuart P., “Moral Ambiguity in White Collar Criminal Law,” 18 NOTRE DAME J.L. ETHICS & PUB. POL'Y 501 (2004).

Grindler, Gary W., et al., “Practical Aspects of Representing a Corporation During the Early Stages of a Criminal Investigation,” 29 GEORGIA STATE B. J. 99 (1992).

Harig, Lisa Ann, “Ignorance is Not Bliss,” 42 DUKE L. J. 145 (1992).

Hughes, Alexander, "Drawing Sensible Borders for the Definition of 'Foreign Official' Under the FCPA," 40 AM. J. CRIM. L. 253 (Summer 2013).

Jara, Gabriela, "Following on the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act: The Dynamic Shareholder Derivative Suit," 63 DUKE L.J. 199 (October, 2013).

Katz, Deborah M., “Constitutional Law – Fourth Amendment Protection for Homeless Person’s Closed Containers in an Outdoor Home,” 26 SUFFOLK UNIV. L. REV. 279 (1992).

Kropp, Steven H., “Corporate Governance, Executive Compensation, Corporate Performance, and Worker Rights in Bankruptcy: Some Lessons From Game Theory,” 57 DEPAUL L. REV. 1 (2007).

Levi, Michael, "Combating the Financing of Terrorism: A History and Assessment of the Control of ‘Threat Finance’," 50 BRIT. J. CRIMINOLOGY 650 (July 2010).

Mark, Gideon, "RICO's Extraterritoriality," 50 AM. BUS. L.J. 543 (Fall, 2013).

McNulty, Shaela Ann, “Constitutional Law – Fourth Amendment Protection on the Wane,” 26 SUFFOLK UNIV. L. REV. 248 (1992).

Moohr, Geraldine Scott, “An Enron Lesson: The Modest Role of Criminal Law in Preventing Corporate Crime,” 55 FLA. L. REV. 937 (September, 2003).

Neiberger, Ellis, "Honest Services Fraud: Federal Prosecution of Public Corruption at the State and Local Levels," 84 FLA. B.J. 82 (June 2010).

Orland, Leonard and Charles Cachera, “Corporate Crime and Punishment in France,” 11 CONN. J. OF INT’L L. 111 (1995).

Ostas, Daniel T., “When Fraud Pays: Executive Self-Dealing and the Failure of Self-Restraint,” 44 AM. BUS. L.J. 571 (2007).

Palermo, Thomas N., "Going 'Cocoanuts': Looking at Modern Mortgage Fraud," 57 FED. LAW. 38 (June 2010).

Paulsen, Erik, “Imposing Limits on Prosecutorial Discretion in Corporate Prosecution Agreements,” 82 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1434 (2007).

Romero, Leo, “Procedures for Investigating and Prosecuting White Collar Crime,” 11 U.S.-MEX. L.J. 165 (Spring, 2003).

Silberfarb, Michael D., “Justifying Punishment for White-Collar Crime: A Utilitarian and Retributive Analysis of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act,” 13 B.U. PUB. INT. L.J. 95 (Fall, 2003).

“Some Company Policies and Procedures Relating to the FCPA,” 9 INT’L QUARTERLY 120 (1996).

Swisher, Keith, "Pro-Prosecution Judges: 'Tough on Crime,' Soft on Strategy, Ripe for Disqualification," 52 ARIZ. L. REV. 317 (Summer 2010).

Wen, Shuangge, "The Achilles Heel That Hobbles the Asian Giant: The Legal and Cultural Impediments to Antibribery Initiatives in China," 50 AM. BUS. L.J. 483 (Fall, 2013).

West, George E., II, "A Prosecutor's Duty to Disclose: Beyond Brady," 73 TEX. B.J. 546 (July 2010).

{ "pageset": "S33

{ "pageset": "S11