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.

California, cannabis, and corruption recently squared off in United States v. Kimbrew .  The Ninth Circuit’s holding in United States v. Kimbrew , 2019 WL 6693744 (9th Cir. Dec. 9, 2019) clarified the reach of the federal bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201, which requires the existence of a quid pro quo agreement. A   quid pro quo is the exchange of something in return for something else. As a topical example , President Trump’s impeachment stems from an alleged quid pro quo: the White House purportedly attempted to leverage foreign aid in exchange for the investigation of President Trump’s potential political rival, Joe Biden. In the white collar crime context , a quid pro quo agreement occurs when “the defendant received, or intended to receive, something of value in exchange for an official act.” United States v. Silver , 864 F.3d 102, 111 (2d Cir. 2017). The Kimbrew court held that criminal liability attaches when a government official agrees to do something in an off...

The December 2019 issue of San Francisco Magazine features its annual list of Top Women Attorneys of Northern California based on Super Lawyers’ rankings. Jayne Law Group is proud to announce that founder Julia Jayne has been selected as a member of the Top Women Attorneys list in the Criminal Defense category.  

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...