The International Enforcement Law Reporter is a monthly print and online journal covering news and trends in international enforcement law.
Since September 1985, the International Enforcement Law Reporter has analyzed the premier developments in both the substantive and procedural aspects of international enforcement law. Read by practitioners, academics, and politicians, the IELR is a valuable guide to the difficult and dynamic field of international law.
On February 7, 2018, Rabobank N.A. (Rabobank), a California-based subsidiary of Cooperatieve Rabobank U.A., a Dutch multinational banking company, entered a guilty plea to a felony count of Conspiracy to Commit an Offense against the U.S. and to Defraud the U.S. in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 371. It also agreed to forfeit $368,701,259 in money laundering proceeds that the bank permitted to pass through its accounts. In essence, Rabobank admitted that it allowed narcotics traffickers, human traffickers and other criminals to use its banking branches to engage in structuring and money laundering, failed to file, or at least to file timely, Suspicious Activity Reports (SAR’s) for suspicious activities. These unlawful activities continued from at least 2009 until 2012.
On January 30, shortly before delivering his first State of the Union address, President Trump signed an executive order rolling back efforts by his predecessor, Barack Obama, to close Guantanamo Bay, vowing instead to keep it open indefinitely. Trump also indicated that he intends to use the prison to detain future terrorism suspects, which would be the first time in a decade that new prisoners have been brought into the facility. Although President Obama was unable to overcome opposition in order to close the facility for good, his administration was able to transfer a total of 196 of its prisoners overseas. Now 41 detainees remain, only a small minority of who have ever been charged with a crime or completed trial in a military court.
On February 8, 2018, the Conference of Presidents of the European Parliament agreed to establish a Special Committee on financial crime, tax fraud and tax avoidance. The Committee constitutes the 4th committee after TAXE, TAX2, and the Committee on Inquiry PANA. The Committee is designed to respond to the publication of the Paradise Papers by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ).
On Monday, January 29, 2018, the Justice Department announced charges against eight individuals accused of manipulating U.S. commodities markets for financial gain. Seven of the eight individuals were charged with spoofing. Spoofing refers to a manipulative market tactic that involves the placing of hundreds to thousands of “spoof orders” – orders that the spoofer does not intend to trade – in order to incentive market participants to buy, sell, or trade at artificial prices. In doing so, spoofing fools market participants to make their investment decisions based on a false perception of supply and demand.
On February 6, 2018, Senior District Judge (the Chief Magistrate) Emma Arbuthnot denied Julian Assange’s application to withdraw an arrest warrant issued at this court when Assange did not surrender for extradition to Sweden. On February 13, 2018, Judge Arbuthnot considered the public interest arguments and whether it is in the public interest to initiate proceedings against Assange under Section 6 of the Bail Act.
On February 7, 2018, the battle between Chris Brann, a Houston physician and his wife, Marcelle Guimaraes, over the custody of their 8-year-old son Nicolas Brann escalated when federal agents at Miami’s airport arrest the child’s Brazilian grandparents Carlos and Jemima Guimaraes at Miami’s airport after their flight landed from Brazil. Both of them have been charged with conspiracy and international parental kidnapping.
On February 1, 2018, the Ireland’s Supreme Court delivered its decision in the case Minister for Justice and Equality v. O’Connor. The Court refused to extradite an Irish businessman to the United Kingdom upon a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) issued by the London court. At the same time, the Court ruled that the case should be referred to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Luxembourg.