San Francisco & Bay Area Criminal Defense Lawyers

Insider trading, or “ securities fraud ,” is prohibited by 18 U.S.C. § 1348 and 15 U.S.C. § 10(b) As the Supreme Court explained in Dirks v. SEC , someone engages in insider trading under §10(b) if they breach a fiduciary duty by disclosing material, nonpublic information in exchange for a personal benefit. However, the Second Circuit’s recent holding in United States v. Blaszczak rejected this personal benefit requirement, at least as it relates to § 1348. The result? The range of conduct that triggers criminal liability under § 1348 is far bigger than the range of conduct that triggers liability under § 10(b). Stated another way, Blaszczak makes it easier for federal prosecutors to go after Title 18 securities fraud because - unlike Title 15 securities fraud - they do no need to prove the existence of a personal benefit.

On November 25, 2019, the California Supreme Court overturned a 17-year-old exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. People v. Lopez holds “that the desire to obtain a driver’s identification following a traffic stop does not constitute an independent, categorical exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.” People v. Lopez , No. S238627, 2019 WL 6267367, at *1 (Cal. Nov. 25, 2019). Before Lopez , police were “allowed … to conduct warrantless vehicle searches for personal identification documents at traffic stops when the driver failed to provide … personal identification upon request.” Id . The Court summarized the facts of Lopez as follows: police “responded to an anonymous tip concerning erratic driving.” Police were “(u)nable to locate the vehicle,” so they “asked dispatch to run a computer search of the license plate.” Police “then drove by the address where the car was registered,” but didn’t see a car matching the description. As such, p...

This article was originally published in the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyer's White Collar Crime issue of The Champion, available here . Prosecutions alleging theft of trade secrets have been creeping upward since 2009. White collar practitioners must become fluent in the language of the Economic Espionage Act and be on alert that civil trade secret litigation can easily lead to criminal charges. Defense counsel should expect tailored and well-investigated cases by prosecutors unafraid to delve into highly technical and complex materials. I. Introduction With white collar prosecutions generally on the decline, one area is on the Justice Department's hot button list: theft of trade secrets. The perceived diversion of American innovation fits right in with the administration's interests and political aspirations. The result: the revival of the Economic Espionage Act ("the Act"). The Economic Espionage Act, enacted in 1996, criminalized t...