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

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

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

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

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

United States Opposition to the 1998 Rome Statute Establishing an International Criminal Court: Is the Court\u27s Jurisdiction Truly Complementary to National Criminal Jurisdictions?

Although the United States supports the creation of a permanent International Criminal Court (ICC), it opposes such a court as set forth in the 1998 Rome Statute because it leaves open the potential for United States military personnel and government officials to be prosecuted for unintended loss of civilian life. Can the United States formulate a legal argument to support its view that inadvertent civilian casualties should not be considered a war crime within the jurisdiction of the ICC? The article argues that it can because the ICC’s jurisdiction under the Rome Statute is not complementary to national prosecutions held in good faith. It also notes that the mens rea requirements for proving a war crime under Article 8 of the Statute are unclear. Lastly, the article points out that the Statute expands traditional notions of command authority by allowing the Court to try and convict military commanders and government leaders for serious breaches of humanitarian law, even if they have little or no direct formal authority over subordinates responsible for these breaches