The Future of Federal Fraud with Mark Allenbaugh
We spend so much time and engergy trying to develop our knowledge and skill to better represent our clients. And keeping abreast of all major developments in the law is paramount to a successful legal practice.
But there’s one thing every lawyer needs, and it does not exist – a crystal ball. If we were clairvoyant we could anticipate favorable changes in the law that we could use to our advantage right now, even before the ruling happens.
The bigger problem, especially in federal court, is that if we enter a plea agreement (which is almost every case), we typically waive our right to challenge changes in the law –even those that would prove a client is innocent of the crime to which he pled!
Therefore, in an effort to aid in your clairvoyant powers on the subject of federal FRAUD cases, we give you Thompson v. United States, a “sleeper case” headed for the Supreme Court.
Reading the tea leaves of prior recent court decisions on fraud crimes, the muck at the bottom of the mug tells us that if the Court continues on their quest to narrow the scope of federal fraud prosecutions, could result in a seismic shift in many cases where the fraud is predicated on the accused making “false statements. “
IN THIS EPISODE:
- Summary of the Thompson case;
- The distinction between “false statements” versus “misleading statements”;
- The need to make a record before, during, and after a plea;
- Consider negotiating a conditional plea that preserves your right to appeal should the Thompson case go our way;
- How long it may take to get a ruling from the court on Thompson;
- Plea implications of Thompson;
- Sentencing implications of Thompson (relevant or acquitted conduct).
FREE DOWNLOAD!
Click here to download Thompson/federal fraud article
AFTERTHOUGHT:
It occurred to me when editing this podcast a very important practice tip now that there is this great body of S.Ct. law limiting fraud and the recent cert. grant on Thompson: We should strongly consider asking for a “Bill of Particulars” in every case, to make the government state, with specificity what the alleged fraudulent conduct was, as if it was an omission or a misleading statement, rather than an outright LIE, then you may have a fighting chance at defeating the charge, and/or mitigating your sentence.
LINKS:
Mark Allenbaugh: www.sentencingstats.com
Check back here soon for an updated link to Mark’s Law 360 article on this topic!
