Chilean Woman Living Australia to Face Extradition for Kidnapping Charges
On June 25, 2021, an Australian federal court judge ruled that a Chilean woman living in Sydney must face extradition for her alleged involvement in kidnappings during Augusto Pinochet’s dictatorship.
Adriana Rivas is wanted for seven counts of aggravated kidnapping. These charges stem from her alleged role as an agent for Pinochet, a Chilean dictator, in the 1970s. Chilean authorities claim that Rivas was involved in the disappearance of Victor Diaz, the secretary-general of Chile’s communist party, along with six of his supporters.
While Rivas denied involvement in any kidnappings, she did admit in a 2013 interview with Australian broadcasters that she was a part of the National Intelligence Directorate or Dina, a secret police force that used extreme violence to silence political opponents.
Background
Chilean authorities claim that Rivas was the assistant to Manual Contreras, the head of Dina. The Directorate was a secret organization that plotted and carried out violent attacks towards dissidents in the 1970s.
The violent attacks left as many as 3,000 people dead or disappeared. And some 40,000 others were held captive in prison or faced torture at the hands of the government.
Throughout the violent campaign attacks, Rivas allegedly carried out those seven kidnappings. The campaign corresponded with Pinochet’s dictatorship, which was from 1973 to 1990.
The Chilean government now claims that Rivas played a significant role in facilitating these violent attacks; however, her Rivas lawyers argue that she was not involved in the attacks and merely had menial tasks.
However, contrary to Rivas’ claims, BBC reports that in she was in an SBS Australian broadcast interview where she admitted that her years in the Dina were “the best of my life.” In the broadcast interview, she told SBS that she lived a luxurious life as she was provided with clothing allowance, stayed in upscale hotels, and traveled in expensive cars.
As for her alleged involvement in torture, she said in the interview that “they had to break the people – it happened all over the world, not only in Chile.”
Extradition
In October 2020, Rivas contested the extradition request, and a Sydney magistrate ruled that she was eligible for extradition. In June 2021, Judge Abraham agreed with the magistrate and said that there was no proof that the lower court “engaged rubber-stamping exercise” concerning her extradition. Judge Abraham also only considered the extradition issue rather than her guilt or innocence.
If convicted, Rivas could face up to five life sentences plus 20 years for the remaining two counts.
Rivas can still appeal that decision before the Federal Circuit Court judges.
Arnold & Porter Lawyer Faces Litigation by Denmark Over Tax Controversy
Recently, Denmark claimed Michael Ben-Jacob, an Arnold & Porter partner, designed a scheme that defrauded the country of around $260 million.[1] The scheme involved setting up sham pension plans to apply for refunds in Denmark and the complaint was filed in the Southern District of New York (S.D.N.Y.).[2] Denmark’s customs and tax authority (SKAT) stated that the plans submitted at least 364 fraudulent applications involving 630 dividends issued by 13 Danish companies. This blog post will discuss in further detail the scheme and briefly touch on the change of legal climate in relation to enablers in fraud schemes.
The Scheme
Michael Ben-Jacob’s clients are mainly high net-worth individuals, family offices, and “closely held” businesses.[3] The activity allegedly started around 2011 and ended in August 2015 after Denmark received a tip from a whistleblower and a foreign government. Ben-Jacob designed a partnership structure that allowed the principles of Argre, a New York-based business, to recruit friends, family members, and colleagues to set up additional plans to submit refund applications.[4] The partnership structure enabled the principals to retain control of the plans that the recruits agreed to set up and take 90% to 95% of the proceeds that these additional plans obtained from Denmark, after payments to others in the scheme.[5] Finally, recruits signed the papers necessary to set up one or more allegedly sham companies and allegedly sham pension plans, and appoint one of the principals as the plans’ authorized representative.[6]
The S.D.N.Y. recently ruled against Michael Ben-Jacob a motion on the revenue rule, “a common law principle that prohibits courts from hearing actions by foreign nations to enforce their foreign tax laws, whether directly or indirectly.”[7] This further adds to the mountainous amount of litigation Ben-Jacob will need to deal with, as Ben-Jacob is already a defendant in 39 actions.[8]
Potential Changes for Enablers
The recent development in this case provides a potential for change for future enablers in fraud schemes. In this case, associate defendants initially claimed privilege over their communications with Ben-Jacob. Now, the defendants “announced that they were asserting a reliance-on-counsel defense, waived the claim of privilege and, in January 2021, began producing communications with Ben-Jacob that they had previously withheld.”[9] As a result, these communications revealed Ben-Jacob’s role in the scheme to defraud SKAT.
SKAT’s allegations against Ben-Jacob’s will definitely put a lot of people on notice. Enablers of fraud can be found in many forms: accountants, attorneys, bankers, and others. Potential liability of Ben-Jacob could lead to further investigations and new interpretations by tax authorities and courts alike as to what kind of responsibilities do enablers have in their role in assisting those in fraud schemes. This topic will be explored in a larger article for the International Enforcement Law Reporter.
[1] Bruce Love, Arnold & Porter Partner Faces More Litigation By Denmark Over Tax Controversy, LAW.COM, https://www.law.com/newyorklawjournal/2021/06/17/arnold-porter-partner-faces-more-litigation-by-denmark-over-tax-controversy/, Jun. 17, 2021 (last visited Jul. 16, 2021).
[2] Id.
[3] Love, supra.
[4] SKAT v. Ben-Jacob, 1:21-cv-05339 **at 3 (S.D.N.Y. Jun. 16, 2021).
[5] Id.
[6] Id.
[7] In re SKAT, 356 F. Supp. 3d 300 (S.D.N.Y. 2019).
[8] 1:21-cv-05339 at 4.
[9] Love, supra.
IELR BLOG: Now Accepting Ads!
If you or your company is looking to promote your business on the IELRBlog, we now accept advertisement requests!
Reasons to advertise on the IELRBlog.com:
- In the last seven days, we have had over 2,780 visitors, and in the previous month, we had 13,500 visitors!
- The blog is continually updated with different articles, which attracts a broad audience
- Our website’s content on international enforcement law attracts viewers from across the globe!
Costs:
- The cost and prices are flexible and will vary
- Contact us at (202)-293-2679 or email ielr@bcr-dc.com for a price estimate
State Department Releases 2021 Trafficking in Persons Report
On July 1, 2021, the U.S. Department of State released the 2021 Trafficking in Persons Report (TIP) that documents the global effort towards combating human trafficking.
In the Report’s opening remarks, Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated that
“Through this Report, we call on governments to join the United States in improving our collective efforts to address human trafficking comprehensively. Doing so requires us to mitigate harmful practices and policies that cause socioeconomic or political vulnerabilities that traffickers often prey on.”
Summarizing Key Points
The TIP is an annual 600-page report broken up into several parts. The Report starts by addressing human trafficking in the context of the Covid-19 Pandemic; next, it addresses human trafficking in a broader view and the Report’s methodology. The Report dives into the data into categories, the global law enforcement data, and the country tier placement regional map. TIP also features preventive efforts and strategies.
Among the notable features of the Report is the country tier placements and regional maps. The three-level tier list includes countries based on their efforts to combat human trafficking. Higher ranked countries indicate that a country is not meeting the standards to eliminate trafficking. Among the higher ranked or Tier 3 countries are Afghanistan, China, Cuba, Iran, Malaysia, Russia, South Sudan, Syria, and Venezuela. The countries in Tier 2 watch list are Guinea, Chad, Ireland, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Vietnam, and Zambia. Tier 2 includes the majority of the Middle Eastern and South American countries and some countries in Asia. Tier 1 consists of the United States of American, and majority of European countries, and a mix of countries across the globe.
Country tiers are accompanied by detailed country narratives that provide a breakdown of their efforts and explain and justify their tier placement.
Analysis and implications
While the Report provides useful data, analysis, and information, it undoubtedly has its shortfalls. Namely, the tier breaks down more likely than not had some political influence when it comes to the placements. Politics cannot divorce itself from bringing an objective report. Though the Report could have some politics intermingled with it, it provides a useful tool for addressing human trafficking.
The Report also failed to address and prioritize the ever-increasing issue of online sex trafficking dominating the internet ever since its creation. While the Report provides a brief paragraph on online sex trafficking, it fails to provide a comprehensive section solely for this issue. The Report does mention it in its country narrative parts but does not go far enough to provide more details.
The July issue of the IELR will have a more comprehensive discussion of this topic
Julian Assange: British High Court Agreed to Hear U.S. Appeal in Assange Extradition
On July 7, 2021, the British High Court announced that it would hear the U.S.’s appeal in the extradition of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange. Previously, in January 2021, the British lower court blocked U.S.’ efforts to extradite Assange, citing flaws in the U.S. federal penal system, particularly its inability to protect offenders with mental illnesses.
The District Court Judge that presided over that January hearing said that Assange is already at an increased risk of suicide and that allowing him to serve his sentence in the U.S. puts him at an even greater risk. “I find that the mental condition of Mr. Assange is such that it would be oppressive to extradite him,” said District Judge Vanessa Baraitser.
U.S.’ Persistent Efforts to Convict Assange
An email sent to New York Times Reporter Charlie Savage from the Crown Prospection Services press office revealed that the High Court accepted three grounds for appeal. Documents also revealed that if Assange were to be extradited and convicted, the U.S. promises not to impose the harsh and confinement conditions and will allow him to service in his native Australia— a move that would be unprecedented for the Justice Department. “The United States has also provided an assurance that the United States will consent to Mr. Assange being transferred to Australia to serve any custodial sentence imposed on him,” documents stated.
U.S. legal battle to extradite the WikiLeaks founder dates back to January 2017. Under the Trump administration, the Justice Department initially sought his arrest then moved to seek extradition in 2019. Many of Assange’s supporters lobbied on his behalf to drop the extradition request but to no avail. Stella Moris, Assange’s fiancée, requested that Biden drop the extradition request against Assange, saying, “End the prosecution, protect free speech and let Julian come home to his family.”
Assange’s Alleged Crimes
If convicted in the U.S., Assange faces 18 counts of breaking espionage laws and computer hacking charges. The charges are in reference to Assange’s alleged involvement in publishing documents dating back to 2010 and 2011 that revealed classified information on the American campaign in Iraq and Afghanistan and the subsequent results.
Since 2019, Assange has been held in the U.K. at the Belmarsh prison. Assange continues to defend his work and does not consider it a crime but merely public interest journalism.
This high-profile case has generated controversy and conversations around the free press and a threat to journalists interested in publishing government secrets.
Analysis
The fact that the U.K. court has denied extradition requests to the U.S. on the grounds that the U.S. penal system is unsafe, cruel, and inhumane should raises alarms about the U.S. penal system and its desperate need for reform.
An unusual element of the U.S. appeal is that the U.S. has given assurances that, if convicted, Assange would be able to transfer to Australia to service his sentence. Normally, a convicted person has to wait several months before he applies to transfer and is successful less than 40% of the time, especially on the initial application. Even when he is successful, it normally takes about two years for an individual to be able to transfer.
The July issues of the IELR will have a more comprehensive discussion of this topic.
U.S. Releases List of Suspected North American Corrupt Officials
On July 1, 2021, the U.S. Department of State released a list of alleged corrupt officials in North American. The list includes 50 plus names of current and former officials in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.
Prominent Figures
In Honduras, among the prominent figures on the list is President Porfirio Lobo and his wife, former First Lady Rosa Elena Bonilla De Lobo. Allegedly, Lobo accepted bribes from drug cartels, and his wife engaged in fraud and misappropriated funds.
Honduran analyst Raul Pineda Alvarado said that it is concerning that certain names were omitted, notably, current Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez, who has allegedly accepted bribes from drug traffickers to aid in his political campaign.
“If this is the way the United States Congress wants to battle corruption in Honduras, it’s like wanting to cure cancer with aspirin,” said Alvarado.
In El Salvador, several individuals range from Cabinet officials to judges were on the list. Among the names is Cabinet chief for President Nayib Bukele, Chief of Staff Carolina Recinos, two former presidents of the Legislative Assembly, Walter Araujo, who is now a Bukele’s New Ideas party leader. Araujo was included because he called for an “insurrection against the Legislative Assembly and repeatedly threatening political candidates.”
In Guatemala, former President Alvaro Colom was named on the list for his alleged involvement in an embezzlement case related to the bus system in Guatemala City. Also on the list is the Supreme Court Justice Manual Duarte Barrera. Barrera and another high court justice, Nester Vasquez, allegedly meddled in judges’ selection process for the high court.
List Implications
Persons included in the list are said to lose their visas and can no longer enter the U.S.
The Head of the Public Accountability Organizations Citizen Action in El Salvador Eduardo Escobar, said that the list gives some credence to the allegations against the public officials and waits to see if the Salvadoran Attorney General takes any legal action against the named individuals.
The list is not yet finalized, according to the White House special envoy for the Northern Triangle Ricardo Zúñiga. He also mentioned that putting a break on visas is not the only sanction that the U.S. is willing to consider.
This list was also published to comply with section 353 of the U.S.-Northern Triangle Enhanced Engagement Act, which states that the U.S. government is to publish a public list of individuals “who have knowingly engaged in acts that undermine democratic processes or institutions, engaged in significant corruption, or obstructed investigations into such acts of corruption in Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador.”
A State Department press statement defined the primary goal of publishing the list: “Our objective with these designations is to support the people of Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador in their efforts to form a democratic, prosperous, and safe region where people can contribute to and benefit from the democratic process, have confidence in public institutions, reduce inequality, and enjoy opportunities to create the futures they desire for themselves and their families.”
Bolivia signs MoU to strengthen compliance/transparency in the fishing industry
On June 29, 2021, the Bolivian government signed a Memo of Understanding (MoU) with the Fisheries Transparency Initiative (FiTI). The collaborative effort is aimed at increasing transparency, compliance, and knowledge in the fishing industry.
The MoU
The joint agreement supports Bolivia’s fishing industry by helping the country develop knowledge on international transparency requirements, identifying responsibilities, and offering recommendations to increase transparency in managing Bolivia’s vessel registry.
Bolivia’s signing the MoU demonstrates its commitment to ocean sustainability and environmental sustainability as a whole. The FiTI press release noted that the oceans are at an increased risk as they face climate change, pollution, and overfishing. “These challenges are not only a major concern for coastal countries, but for humanity as a whole,” the press release continued.
“The collaboration with the Bolivian government is clearly unique, due to the country’s status as a landlocked state. Yet, in its capacity as a flag State, which includes a registry of international fishing vessels, Bolivia assumes important rights as well as obligations towards the sustainable management of fisheries,” the FiTI state in their press release.
In the MoU signing ceremony, the Minister of Justice and Institutional Transparency, Dr. Ivan Lima Magne, said that he is grateful to start the joint effort with FiTI and noted that “Bolivia is committed to the use of its flag under principles of transparency to support sustainable fisheries,” FiTI director also said that Bolivia is the first landlocked and Latin American country to form a partnership with FiTI. Bolivia is also the third country to sign the agreement. The other two countries are Cabo Verde and Senegal.
FiTI
FiTI was founded in 2017 to create greater sustainability in the world’s fisheries by increasing governmental transparency through multi-stakeholder collaboration. The FiTI also lays out a ‘FiTI Standards,’ a framework of expectations for countries to follow regarding transparency for fishery management. The organization was developed with several entities, including civil society and intergovernmental organizations, as well as government representatives from fishing nations, industrial and artisanal fishing entities.
The July issue of the IELR will have a more comprehensive discussion of this topic.
Former Liberian Warlord Convicted in Landmark Swiss Judgment
By Teddy David[1]
On June 18, 2021, the Swiss Federal Criminal Court convicted Liberian warlord Alieu Kosiah, 46, of crimes against humanity committed during the country’s first civil war, fought from 1989 to 1996. The decision has raised issues of a lack of accountability in Liberia itself and the use of universal jurisdiction to prosecute war crimes outside of the jurisdiction in which they were committed.
The Crimes of Kosiah
Swiss authorities arrested Kosiah, then a Swiss resident, in 2014 after seven Liberian victims filed criminal complaints against him, later becoming plaintiffs in the prosecution. Swiss prosecutors then conducted an arduous, five-year investigation that culminated in a March 2019 indictment. Originally slated to begin in April 2020 but delayed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the trial proceeded in two stages, the first in December 2020 and the second from February to March 2021.
The 25 charges concerned crimes committed between 1993 and 1995 in the northwestern Lofa County of Liberia, where Kosiah was then a leader of the United Liberation Movement of Liberia for Democracy (ULIMO). Witnesses graphically testified to summary executions, brutal torture, the displacement of civilians, and forced marches. In the most gruesome charge, witnesses told of an accomplice of Kosiah, called Ugly Boy, who, along with Kosiah and others, cut out and ate the heart of a schoolteacher.
The court found Kosiah guilty on 21 out of 25 charges, including the summary execution of more than a dozen civilians and unarmed soldiers, numerous other murders, rape, pillage, and cannibalism. He was sentenced to 20 years in prison, the most allowed under Swiss law for cases prosecuted under the doctrine of universal jurisdiction, and his long pretrial detention of over six years will be deducted from his sentence. Kosiah will also be expelled from Switzerland for 15 years after his eventual release.
Civil Law and Universal Jurisdiction in Switzerland
The arrest and trial was largely made possible by the direct initiative of several of Kosiah’s Liberian victims, aided by nongovernmental human rights groups. Civil law systems, like that of Switzerland, allow victims to be private plaintiffs in criminal prosecutions, having counsel and attempting to overrule prosecutors when they do not act to effectively protect the victims. Systems of common law – employed in the United States, United Kingdom, and British Commonwealth – do not allow for the same flexibility and thus are less conducive to cases like the one against Kosiah.
The main doctrine that allowed this trial to proceed, though, is that of universal jurisdiction. This principle of international law allows any nation’s courts to prosecute a range of crimes against humanity. These offenses are held to be so egregious that the accused are not just criminals within the jurisdiction in which the crimes were committed, but rather are hostis humani generis – enemies of all humankind. Most countries, including the United States, acknowledge some forms of universal jurisdiction, but the principle is applied especially expansively in many European legal systems.
However, in recent years, Switzerland has not been known as a leader in war crimes prosecutions, despite its notoriety as the birthplace of the Geneva Conventions. Since the nation’s 2011 adoption of a universal jurisdiction statute, human rights organizations have criticized Swiss authorities for providing minimal resources to the extremely resource-intensive investigations of war crimes. In such cases, witnesses almost all live overseas, and the alleged crimes were often committed years, even decades before – as in the case of Kosiah – making fact-finding efforts much more demanding and costly than a typical, domestic investigation.
According to Philip Grant, director of the Swiss-based human rights group TRIAL International, Switzerland lags far behind other European countries known for employing universal jurisdiction. “Without the nongovernment, civil society organizations, these cases would be nowhere,” Grant told the New York Times.
During the trial stage, human rights groups also criticized the Swiss court for the strictly limited transparency of the trial, especially since it was one of the only prosecutions of Liberian war criminals in the twenty-five years since the widespread atrocities were committed. The proceedings were not streamed via video, and U.S.-based Human Rights Watch reported that it was denied access to the second phase of the trial.
Future Accountability
Despite criticism of Swiss authorities, the conviction has still been hailed by human rights leaders as a landmark in accountability for the decades-old atrocities of Liberia’s two civil wars. Alain Werner, director of the Geneva-based legal group Civitas Maxima, described the verdict to the New York Times as “a beautiful victory for [the witnesses’] courage, their resilience, and their quest for justice.”
Related war crimes cases are also underway in Finland – against rebel leader Gibril Massaquoi – and in France – against Kunti Kumara, another former leader of ULIMO. This piecemeal, international approach, however, has only intensified the pressure on Liberia itself to hold its own citizens accountable for their offenses. After decades of inaction in Liberia, President George Weah has made only vague statements of his willingness to systematically pursue war crimes prosecutions within his country. Moving forward, if Liberia itself remains inactive, pressure may mount to initiate more thorough prosecutions in the International Criminal Court or to establish ad hoc war crimes tribunals to bring justice for decades-old crimes.
[1] Teddy is currently a rising senior at Vassar College majoring in history and minoring in French and Francophone Studies.
U.S. and EU Progress on Several International Enforcement issues at Justice & Home Affairs Ministerial Meeting in Lisbon
On June 22, 2021, the Portuguese Presidency of the Council of the European Union hosted the EU-U.S. Ministerial Meeting on Justice and Home Affairs in Lisbon and made progress on count-terrorism, violent extremism, Passenger Name Record (PNR) data exchange. They also discussed developing bilateral and multilateral instruments to combat cybercrime, using artificial intelligence, and developing well-managed and humane migration policies.
Overview
They underscored the need to cooperate against terrorism, including prevention, permanent vigilance, adaptation, and resilience from all relevant actors.
The U.S. and EU underscored their strong concern with the rise of violent extremism. They cited crimes inspired by hate speech, racism and xenophobia both in Europe and the U.S. Violent extremism constitutes a direct threat to democratic societies. It requires renewed attention by law enforcement, judicial authorities, the private sector and civil society. The U.S. and EU pledged to expand their information exchanges on violent extremist groups, especially those with transnational linkages.
The U.S. and EU underscored the importance of the Passenger Name Record (PNR) data exchange to prevent, detect, investigate and prosecute terrorism, combat serious crime, including child exploitation, and protect the safety of citizens.
Digital Aspects and Cybercrimes
The U.S. and EU discussed the need to cooperate to shape a digital future based on their shared democratic values. They acknowledged the potential benefits and risks of suing Artificial Intelligence technologies for law enforcement and the judiciary. They discussed the need to develop and use such technologies in a trustworthy way in conformity with human rights obligations.
They discussed current and upcoming EU efforts on combating illegal content online, including the need to improve the cooperation between the authorities and online platforms to detect ongoing criminal activity. The U.S. and EU pledged to continue cooperating to most effectively exercise their lawful authorities to combat serious crime both online and offline.
The two sides will focus on combating ransomware, including through law enforcement action, raising public awareness on how to protect networks, the risks of paying criminals responsible, and encouraging those states that have not cooperated to arrest and extradite or effectively prosecute criminals on their territory.
Concerning bilateral and multilateral instruments to combat cybercrime, the U.S. and EU reinforced their commitment to negotiate as soon as possible an Eu-U.S. agreement facilitating access to e-evidence to cooperate in criminal matters. They welcomed the recent approval by the Committee of State Parties to the Budapest Convention of the draft text of the Second Additional Protocol of the Budapest Convention, which is the main instrument for international cooperation on cybercrime. They observed the framework of negotiations on a possible future United Nations international legal instrument on cybercrime and committed to continue to closely coordinate their respective positions.
Migration and Travel
The two sides underscored the importance of well-managed and humane migration and discussed their respective efforts to develop comprehensive and enduring migration and asylum policies. Humanitarian protection should be available to qualifying persons. Unmeritorious claims must be detected quickly, including through information sharing and modern identity management techniques. Unmeritorious claims must be prevented from overwhelming migration systems or public confidence in them.
The agenda requires cooperation with third countries of origin, transit and destination. These jurisdiction also have a responsibility to discourage people from enlisting smugglers and traffickers and endangering the lives of migrants who take dangerous, irregular journeys. Both sides reaffirmed their interest in expanding the transatlantic dialogue on migration and mobility, focusing on sharing lessons learned, exploring complementary pathways to migration, addressing the root causes of migration, improving the return and readmission of irregular migrants and enhancing cooperation in and combatting migrant smuggling.
The U.S. and EU continued to endorse safe and secure mobility and the exchange of information on their respective measures towards the gradual resumption of non-essential international travel. Both sides pledged to restart secure travel between the U.S. and EU as soon as possible, based on the principles of mutual cooperation, efficient operation of the international travel system and scientific evidence.
Analysis
The initial meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Ministers of the two sides during the Biden Administration went quite well. Clearly, the priority of the Biden Administration for bilateral and multilateral cooperation contrasted with the America 1st unilateral approach of the Trump Administration. The visit of President to the NATO meeting and the EU itself as well as his removal of tariffs and support for the minimum global taxation and other initiatives of the OECD and EU were well received.
The threats of terrorism, organized crime, extremist and hate groups, cybercrime, and illegal migration are common to both sides.
The current issue of the IELR will have a more in depth discussion of the implications of the meeting.
- « Previous Page
- 1
- …
- 10
- 11
- 12
- 13
- 14
- …
- 51
- Next Page »
Join Zoom Meeting
americanbar.zoom.us/j/…
Meeting ID: 977 9733 8444
Passcode: 264266
Find your local number: https://lnkd.in/d2aAsEz
Guest Speakers
Antenor Madruga and Ana Belotto, both of Feldens Madruga, in Brazil, will join us to discuss “US-Brazilian Joint Criminal Settlements: Trends and Implications for Stakeholders”
The panelists will discuss recent joint settlements between the U.S. , Brazil and other countries, including the Amec Foster Wheeler settlements (June 25 in the US and July 2 in the UK), Rolls-Royce, and others. They will discuss the trends and implications for stakeholders of joint settlements and other developments in international criminal cooperation.
Antenor Madruga has a PhD in international Law, is the founding partner at the FeldensMadruga law firm in Brazil. He is recognized as a leading Brazilian lawyer in complex litigations and negotiations involving government criminal and administrative proceedings, particularly in multijurisdictional cases.
Ana Belotto coordinates the Compliance practice at FeldensMadruga with a special focus on AML and anti-corruption matters. Has participated in the negotiation of complex multijurisdictional leniency agreements involving criminal, civil and administrative matters. She is a member of the New York Bar and is a registered Solicitor at the Law Society of England and Wales
Other Agenda Items
The Committee will also discuss other developments in the field and Committee business, such as the proposed resolution on joint settlements, and its recent webinar on “Abusing Interpol’s Resources to Persecute Expatriate Dissidents” on July 14.