Friday, March 13, 2009

Make Sure You Have Your Fees Covered

This article from the WSJ Law Blog is a good reminder for lawyers playing in this and related fields (e.g., money laundering). The article indicates more trouble in paradise because of the possible inability of Sir Allen Stanford to field a defense team because his assets are frozen or at risk. Readers might want to refresh their memory by re-reading Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v. United States, 491 U.S. 617 (1989); and United States v. Monsanto, 491 U.S. 600 (1989). While run of the mill tax crimes usually do not include forfeiture problems, tax crimes that have money laundering aspects are at risk. See 18 USC 981(a)(1)(A). And attorneys should note the proposed extension of concealment money laundering to tax crimes, a proposal I discuss here.

Update 3/15/2009 8:00 am: See this Houston Chronicle article titled "Stanford Still Shopping for Legal Team."

Update 3/16/2009 10:30 am: See this WSJ Law Blog on Government request for Madoff Forfeitures.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Please make sure that your comment is relevant to the blog entry. For those regular commenters on the blog who otherwise do not want to identify by name, readers would find it helpful if you would choose a unique anonymous indentifier other than just Anonymous. This will help readers identify other comments from a trusted source, so to speak.