Explore the vast range of titles available.

Over the last decade, federal corporate criminal enforcement policy has undergone a significant transformation. Firms that commit crimes are no longer simply required to pay fines. Instead, prosecutors and firms enter into pretrial diversion agreements (PDAs). Prosecutors regularly use PDAs to impose mandates on firms, creating new duties that alter firms' internal operations or governance structures. DOJ policy favors the use of such mandates for any firm with a deficient compliance program at the time of the crime. This Article evaluates PDA mandates to determine when and how prosecutors should use them to deter corporate crime. We find that the current DOJ policy on mandates is misguided and that mandates should be imposed more selectively. Specifically, mandates are appropriate only if a firm is plagued by policing agency costs—in that the firm's managers did not act to deter or report wrongdoing because they benefited personally from tolerating wrongdoing or from deficient corporate policing. Moreover, only mandates that are properly designed to reduce policing agency costs are appropriate. The policing agency cost justification for mandates that we develop calls into question both the extent to which mandates are used and the type of mandates that are imposed by prosecutors.

Aim: The aim of this study is to explore the relationship between economic crime and cryptocurrencies, particularly with regard to the role that crypto assets can play in the commission of economic crimes and in removing illicitly obtained assets from the authorities' purview. The main hypothesis is that cryptocurrencies can be interpreted not only as a financial innovation, but also as a means of opening up new dimensions in the field of crime. Methodology: The analysis is based on qualitative research methods, drawing on the law enforcement experience of the prosecution office and the findings of a targeted investigation conducted by the Prosecutor General's Office into cryptocurrencies. Findings: The primary finding of the study is that the decentralized, pseudo-anonymous nature of cryptocurrencies can pose significant risks: it can facilitate the spread of economic crime and also affect the structure of economic crimes. The anonymity and easy access characteristic of cryptocurrencies hinder the effective action of law enforcement authorities in detecting and prosecuting perpetrators. Crypto assets are also suitable for withdrawing criminal proceeds from the authorities. Value: The study highlights that, thanks to technological advances and the spread of digitalization, economic criminals now have a wider range of tools at their disposal. White-collar criminals have no particular problem adapting to the changed global circumstances; in fact, they use them to their advantage when committing crimes. The prosecution's experience in applying the law and its investigation into cryptocurrencies can contribute to the development of law enforcement practices.

This book is a holistic, easy-to-follow explanation of the American and British statutes and procedural rules that govern the investigation and prosecution of white-collar crime, along with their key differences. White Collar Criminal Prosecutions in the U.S. and U.K.: A Comparative Treatise for Practitioners is equally useful to those in law enforcement and other lawyers in private practice.

Common formulations of the concept of white privilege propose that white privilege guarantees white people positive results. So, when bad things happen to white people — when the jobs and the industries on which they once relied disappear, when they are denied admission to their preferred university, when they lose a promotion to a nonwhite candidate, when they die from suicide and drug overdoses at unprecedented rates — we are left to believe that white people experiencing these adverse consequences did not have white privilege or that their white privilege did not work for them. That is, we are left to conclude that white privilege is meaningless when white disadvantage is present. Further, given the undeniable fact of widespread white disadvantage, we are left vulnerable to the claim that for many, if not most, white people, white privilege is inconsequential, insignificant, or altogether nonexistent. In reality, the fact of white privilege is much more complicated than this facile, mechanical formulation suggests. This Article proposes that we ought to understand white privilege to be something that can lead to unfavorable results just as capably as it can lead to favorable ones. That is, white privilege is a double-edged sword. Theorizing both edges of white privilege provides a more nuanced rendering of the concept. This complexly rendered formulation may help us understand how white privilege can coexist with white disadvantage. Indeed, it might help us understand how white privilege actively produces white disadvantage. The Article uses the recent arrests and prosecutions of women for using opioids during their pregnancies as an opportunity to engage with and theorize the idea of white privilege. The analysis proceeds in four Parts. Part I explains the origins of the opioid epidemic as well as the government’s response to it, emphasizing that the current drug crisis has hit white people and white communities the hardest and, further, that pregnant women have not been immune from it. Part II explores how the State has responded to substance use during pregnancy. At times, the State has responded with its civil systems, choosing to involve the child welfare system and child protective services; at other times, it has responded with its criminal systems, choosing to arrest and prosecute women for using substances while pregnant. Part III then analyzes the demographics of these arrests and prosecutions. It explains that prosecuting women for substance use during pregnancy began in earnest in the 1980s and 1990s, when the crack cocaine scare gripped the nation. During this time, those who were prosecuted were largely black women. However, the opioid epidemic (and the methamphetamine scare before it) has hit white communities particularly hard. Consequently, the demographics of arrests and prosecutions for substance use during pregnancy have shifted, with white women coming to predominate among those subjected to penal state power. Part IV theorizes the significance of these shifted demographics — investigating what they might mean for the concept of white privilege. A brief Conclusion follows.

\"This book uses empirical research on three international criminal tribunals to understand how law and history are combined in the courtroom\"-- Provided by publisher.

The study examined fantastic corruption, partisanship and selective prosecution in the anti-corruption agenda with a view to establishing the reasons for selective prosecution by successive regimes, the partisanship influences on prosecution of corruption cases and the socio-political implications of partisanship on effective prosecution of corruption cases in Nigeria. Existing studies on anti-corruption have focused on operational challenges, impediment to effective investigation and prosecution, and factors responsible for the insignificant success in the process of fighting corruption by the anti-corruption agencies. There has been little attention on factors that shaped the prosecution process of combating corruption in Nigeria. Idealistic Theory was adopted as its theoretical framework and exploratory research design was employed. The primary data were obtained through in-depth interviews (IDIs). A total of fifteen (15) IDIs were conducted with the officials of the anti-corruption agency (3), academics (6) and media personnel (6). Secondary data were also sourced from textbooks, journals, newspapers and internet resources. Findings showed that successive regimes were involved in selected prosecutions because they wanted to protect their allies, discredit or silence opposition, and acquire legitimacy through an anti-corruption agenda. Factors responsible were personal connection/political affiliation, political motives and lack of judicial independence. Furthermore, selective prosecution of corruption cases and a lack of accountability in the system led to a loss of public support for the government’s anti-corruption agenda. It is concluded that selective prosecution and partisanship significantly undermine the anti-corruption agenda, as evidenced by the low conviction rate of trials and the rarity of proper verdicts. Establishing additional anti-corruption courts is recommended to increase the conviction rate in high-profile cases to improve anti-corruption agenda in Nigeria.