Generally, the 6-year statute of limitations prescribed by 26 U.S.C. § 6531(2) for tax evasion
offenses under 26 U.S.C. § 7201 runs in cases involving a
filed, but false, return -- one that underreports income -- from
the date the return was filed with the IRS. But the tax evasion
statute comprises two types of evasion offenses: evasion of the
determination of the correct tax due and evasion of the payment of
taxes. In the former case, which goes to the IRS's assessment
function, the filing date of the false return triggers the statute
But what of an evasion of payment case, where the allegations
focus on steps taken by a taxpayer to evade paying the IRS that
which is acknowledged to be owed, and which implicates the
IRS's collection activity? Recently, in United States v.
Irby, 703 F.3d 280 (5th Cir. 2012), the Fifth Circuit joined
every other court of appeal in holding that in such cases the
statute of limitations runs from the later of two event: either the
return's filing date or the date of the last act of evasion.
Well after Irby filed the subject return, he was alleged to have
used nominee accounts to hide assets from the IRS. The court held
that the later use of the nominee accounts delayed the start of the
6-year limitations period, and made his prosecution timely.
The increasing focus on enforcement of the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), Canadian Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act and UK Bribery Act, as well as similar anti-corruption laws around the globe, has made conducting pre-acquisition anti-corruption due diligence an essential element of any cross-border merger or acquisition, especially if the target does business in a jurisdiction where local officials may expect to be compensated for simply doing their job.
The cost of insider trading just got more expensive for those who get caught. In a February 18, 2014 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, a split appeals court panel found that an individual held liable for civil insider trading while working at an investment fund can ..
The United States Solicitor General has recommended that the Supreme Court deny certiorari in United States ex rel. Nathan v. Takeda Pharmaceuticals N.A. Inc., et al. (No. 12-1349), a False Claims Act ("FCA") case involving the question whether a relator must identify specific false claims submitted for payment in order to plead fraud with sufficient particularity under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).
The increased globalization of the private investment industry
has given rise to an enhanced focus by U.S. prosecutors and
regulators on rooting out corrupt business activities in private
equity firms and hedge funds.
In Kaley v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court held that criminal defendants are not entitled to challenge an asset freeze by relitigating a grand jury's determination that probable cause exists to believe they committed the crimes charged.