Jimmy Gurule panel discussions at The Role of the Judiciary in Handling Counterterrorism Cases within a Rule of Law Framework Conference in Washington, D.C., November 14-15, 2013

Jimmy Gurule moderated two panel discussions at a conference entitled: “The Role of the Judiciary in Handling Counterterrorism Cases within a Rule of Law Framework.” The conference was held in Washington, D.C. on Nov. 14-15 and sponsored by the U.S. Department of State and U.S. Judicial Conference Committee on International Judicial Relations. The conference was attended by judges from around the world, including Algeria, Bangladesh, Canada, China, France, Indonesia, Israel, Jordan, Kenya, Malaysia, Morocco, The Netherlands, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United States. Counterterrorism: GCTF Seminar on the Judiciary in Handling Counterterrorism Cases within a Rule of Law Framewor

Apocalypse Eternal: The Road and Parable Series as Pilgrimage

Octavia Butler’s Parable of the Sower and Cormac McCarthy’s The Road represent two different views on how humans create meaning in a postapocalyptic world. The authors’ writings utilize the critical dystopia genre, in which the protagonists’ surroundings are bleak but the possibility of redemption remains. As Butler’s Lauren Olamina travels from her burned-down home to a place where she can begin a new community with her religion, Earthseed, as the foundational structure, she brings together a group of diverse and useful people who aid her in her pilgrimage to a better place. The protagonist’s identity as a mentally impaired black woman influences the ways in which she views the world and what it means to be “good” in a world run amok with capitalistic greed, rampant racism, and dangerous weather. Her pilgrimage ends in Acorn, where her actions cast doubt on her praxis of Earthseed, but those around her are positively affected by her religion and presence. McCarthy’s father and son place hope in the coast, making a long trek along the gray wasteland of the apocalypse. As they travel, the father’s pragmatism contrasts with the boy’s idealism, and their interaction with multiple strangers highlight the man’s wish for his son to physically survive, while the child wishes for a strict moral code so he can define both as the “good guys.” Their pilgrimage ends when the father dies, and the son joins with another family on the road. Thus, the man’s pragmatism condemns his son in the end, while the idealism which defines the boy allows him to find a community within a different group

Jimmy Gurule quoted in Reuters Accelus article on JPMorgan Madoff on January 8

Jimmy Gurule quoted in Reuters Accelus article Like JPMorgan, regulators could have done more to stop Madoff, experts say after $2.6 billion settlement by Brett Wolf on January 8, 2014. The JPMorgan deal, like the settlements HSBC and several other banks have faced in recent years for anti-money laundering and sanctions violations, clearly demonstrate the government cannot count on the banks to do the right thing, said Jimmy Gurule, a former enforcement official at the U.S. Treasury

Does Proceeds Really Mean Net Profits ? The Supreme Court\u27s Efforts to Diminish the Utility of the Federal Money Laundering Statute

The Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Santos is severely hampers the fight against drug traffickers, terrorists, mobsters and white collar criminals. It restricts the scope of the money laundering statute, defining the term “proceeds” in it as net profits, not gross receipts from unlawful activity. This imposes an unreasonable and unwarranted burden on prosecutors to prove net criminal profits, money acquired beyond the defendant’s overhead expenses from unlawful activities. The court’s holding also restricts other provisions of the money laundering statute, such as the concealment theory of money laundering, and it creates confusion over whether the Court’s restrictive construction of the term “proceeds” applies to federal criminal and civil forfeiture laws. Lastly, Santos limits the application of the federal money laundering statute to acts that generate illicit profits. This decriminalizes financial transactions with funds obtained from a legitimate source but conducted with the intent to promote terrorism or conceal or disguise funds intended to finance terrorist activities. Congress must take immediate action to amend the money laundering statute in response to this ruling

Cameron v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court in & for Cty. of Clark, 135 Nev. Adv. Op. 28, 445 P.3d 843

Timmie Cameron filed a writ of mandamus challenging the district court’s ruling to increase both his bail from $25,000 to$100,000 and his level of monitoring from mid-level electronic monitoring to house arrest.The Court ruled the district court did not establish a good cause to warrant the bail increase and writ relief was granted

Introduction: The Ancient Roots of Modern Forfeiture Law

Civil forfeiture is one of the most potent weapons available to prosecutors in the “war on drugs” and against traditional organized crime. Unlike criminal forfeiture it is in rem and based on a legal fiction that property used in violation of law must be held responsible for harm that it has caused. The conceptual underpinnings of civil forfeiture are long established and can be traced back to English common law, but they also create the potential for abuse. There is currently federal legislation that considers scaling back the reach of civil forfeiture and recent Supreme Court decisions have also limited its application. Reform of civil forfeiture laws has the risk of diluting its effectiveness. Numerous issues need to be resolved before the enactment of new civil forfeiture legislation and the impact of recent Supreme Court decisions on forfeiture must be fully considered

Cooperating with the Prosecutor: How Many Motions Does it Take to Secure a Sentence That is Less Than the Mandatory Minimum Provided by Statute?

A preview of Melendez v. United States, a 1996 Supreme Court case in which a convicted cocaine dealer appealed his mandatory 10 year sentence under the federal statutes on the grounds that he had cooperated with the prosecutor. While the United States Congress has authorized courts to impose sentences below the mandatory minimum set by the statutes and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines for defendants who provide substantial cooperation with the prosecution, courts can only do so at the request of the prosecutor. At issue in this case, where the prosecutor requested a sentence lower than the Guidelines minimum but not lower than that of the statutes, is if a motion to impose a sentence below the Guidelines minimum also acts as a motion to impose a sentence below statutory minimum. Resolving this dilemma is critical to ensuring that the Guidelines are applied in a fair and even handed manner. It is anticipated that the Supreme Court\u27s decision in this case will bring resolution to the matter

Multiple Punishment for Similar Crimes: Is the Double Jeopardy Clause Violated?

Criminal defendants often are charged and convicted of multiple offenses. And often one offense is a lesser included offense of another, which means that proving one offense proves the other. If the offender is sentenced for both crimes, is the prohibition against double jeopardy violated? That is the question the Supreme Court addresses in this drug trafficking case, a case in which two concurrent life imprisonment sentences were imposed for virtually the same conduct

Jimmy Gurule delivered the keynote address at the Korea Banking Risk Dialogue 2014 in Seoul, South Korea on July 2

Jimmy Gurule delivered the keynote address The U.S. Criminal Prosecution of BNP Paribas and the Implications for Asian Banks at the Korea Banking Risk Dialogue 2014 in Seoul, South Korea

Terrorism, Territorial Sovereignty, and the Forcible Apprehension of International Criminals Abroad

Examines current international law governing use of force extraterritorially; in light of the Alvarez-Machain case in which a Mexican national suspected of murder was forcibly extradited to stand trial in the US