The Corporate Crime Reporter reports having taken a survey of white-collar criminal defense attorneys concerning whether we favor preserving corporate criminal liability.  According to the results of the survey, 20% would eliminate it altogether.  Of the 80% who believe it should be retained, apparently many suggested that corporate criminal liability should be "restricted or narrowed."

A cynic might observe that the 20% number consists of in-house counsel and the 80% number outside counsel who, while they rightly want to see more sanity in the process, don't want to lose the business.

The Eleventh Circuit recently held that federal law governing forfeiture of substitute assets, 21 U.S.C. § 853(p), preempts the homestead exemption in the Florida Constitution.  United States v. Fleet, No. 06-12454 (11th Cir. Sept. 5, 2007).  After the money-laundering defendant was ordered, post-conviction, to forfeit $259,000 in cash he did not have, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982, the feds went after his Florida home, which he jointly owned with his wife.

There is a legislative statute of limitations tolling mechanism, 18 U.S.C. § 3292, potentially available to the US government when it seeks evidence from other governments, that some of us were not even aware of until Judge Scheindlin's recent decision in United States v. Kozeny, 493 F. Supp. 2d 693 (S.D.N.Y. June 21, 2007) (revised slightly on reconsideration but leaving the original reasoning intact, at 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 52758 (July 16, 2007)).