Department of Justice
Exactly one year since the invasion of Ukraine, on February 24th 2023, the White House, in coordination with other G7 leaders (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United Kingdom), announced the newest round of sanctionsagainst key revenue generating sectors for Russia. In efforts to further degrade Russia’s economy and diminish its ability to wage war against Ukraine, the action newly targets over 200 individuals and entities including Russian firms, banks, manufacturers, and officials that helped Russia evade earlier sanctions throughout the war. Including members of the European Union, more than 30 countries representing more than half the world’s economy have already imposed unprecedented sanctions on the Russian economy, making it the most sanctioned nation in the world.
State and federal regulators are opposing a billion-dollar deal between the cryptocurrency exchange Binance.US and the bankrupt cryptocurrency lender Voyager. The regulatory intervention is part of an ongoing struggle between Binance, the ultra-dominant cryptocurrency exchange, and U.S. regulators. Tensions between the two appear to be nearing a boiling point. The dispute also highlights an American regulatory environment that is increasingly hostile toward the cryptocurrency industry writ large, particularly in the wake of the FTX cryptocurrency exchange collapse.
On September 15, 2022, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco issued a memorandum to the Department of Justice (DOJ) titled “Further Revisions to Corporate Criminal Enforcement Policies Following Discussions with Corporate Crime Advisory Group”. This memorandum is otherwise known as the “Second Monaco Memo”, named after the Deputy Attorney General. This is the second memorandum Monaco has issued in the past year, as the first memorandum was issued in October of 2021. The first memorandum announced the establishment of a Corporate Crime Advisory group, its purpose was to guide and review the DOJ’s approach to corporate criminal enforcement. These memorandums are important to both the defense bar and corporate counsel, as they establish rules and guidelines for corporate criminal enforcement.
As the summer came to an end, headlines about thousands of residents losing access to water swept the nation. The news came first out of Jackson, Mississippi. But although the southern city’s complete loss of access to water dominated the new cycle, it was far from the only place dealing with this issue. A few days later, reports of boil water advisories in Baltimore and NYC hit the news cycle. Unfortunately, these are only the latest instances in a long string of issues with access to safe and clean drinking water across the country.
In an effort to deter corporate crime, the Justice Department (DOJ) has implemented a new policy aimed at giving chief compliance officers more authority. Chief Compliance Officers (CCOs) may now need to certify the integrity of their compliance programs and be personally liable if their programs do not “reasonably prevent and deter compliance issues.” According to Brian Michael, a former chief compliance officer (CCO), some industry professionals fear that such a policy would place compliance officers in a position to be personally liable for decisions that they have little say over. There is also worry that implementing such a policy would place CCOs in direct conflict with senior executives. However, Kenneth Polite, assistant attorney general in charge of the DOJ’s criminal division, insists that the new policy will place CCOs in a better position to ensure the integrity of their compliance programs. Polite hopes to force corporations to invest in compliance now rather than pay later.
Michael Manganelli Associate Editor Loyola University Chicago School of Law, JD 2021 In October 2019, The Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced a multi-agency and multi-state coordinated law enforcement action against 35 individuals involved in an alleged $2.1 billion genetic cancer testing scheme. The alleged scheme involved the payment of illegal kickbacks and bribes to medical professionals …
Finance Director for UnitedHealth Group brought qui tam suit against UnitedHealth Group, Inc. alleging that the organization upcoded risk adjustment data resulting in increased payments (more than $1.14 billion) to UnitedHealth Group. The Department of Justice (DOJ) intervened in the case, yet UnitedHealth Group was successful in getting the primary False Claims Act Claims dismissed by arguing that the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) would not have refused to make the adjustment payments had they known of the errors in the risk adjustment. The Escobar materiality standard helps clarify threshold level of risk to Managed Care Providers in attesting to their risk adjustment payments; the falsities must have had an impact on the respective payment.
This summer I had the opportunity to intern with the Office of Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (OIG) in Washington, DC. I thoroughly enjoyed my time with OIG, and I learned a great deal about health care fraud, waste, and abuse. In spending my summer with OIG, I had a glimpse into the powerful regulatory bodies that protect the health care market from abuse. As I move forward with my career in regulatory work, I will take with me the invaluable experiences and skills from my internship.