|
|
|
Jury finds ex-San Francisco bank executive guilty of fraud
Legal Network |
2015/03/31 20:01
|
A former executive of a San Francisco-based bank that received federal bailout money has been convicted of fraud.
U.S. Attorney Melinda Haag said Thursday a federal jury in Oakland found 66-year-old Ebrahim Shabudin guilty of conspiring with others within the bank to falsify key bank records as part of a scheme to conceal millions of dollars in losses and falsely inflate the bank's financial statements.
Shabudin was Chief Operating Officer for United Commercial Bank between 2008 and 2009.
United Commercial Bank received $298 million from the Troubled Asset Relief Program, or TARP, in 2008 during the height of the nation's financial crisis. That money was lost when the bank was seized by regulators, shuttered and filed for bankruptcy the following year. Shabudin faces up to 25 years in prison. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Top German court seeks more evidence in far-right ban bid
Legal Network |
2015/03/27 23:32
|
Germany's highest court is asking authorities to provide more evidence that they no longer have paid informants inside the country's main far-right party, signaling a potential hitch in a move to ban the group.
Parliament's upper house, which represents Germany's 16 states, in 2013 applied for a ban of the National Democratic Party. It alleges that the party promotes a racist, xenophobic and anti-Semitic agenda in violation of Germany's constitution.
In 2003, the Federal Constitutional Court rejected a previous attempt to ban the party because paid government informants within the group were partially responsible for evidence against it.
State governments say this application contains no information from informants. However, in a decision published Monday, the court demanded more evidence to back their assertion that they stopped using informants. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arizona sheriff could face civil contempt hearing in court
Legal Network |
2015/01/19 22:30
|
An Arizona sheriff could face a civil contempt hearing in federal court for his office's repeated violations of orders issued in a racial-profiling case.
U.S. District Judge Murray Snow held a telephonic conference Thursday and told Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio's attorneys that the six-term sheriff may face an April 21-24 hearing.
But a top lawyer with the Arizona chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union said Friday that Snow stopped short of officially ordering the hearing. The judge has given both sides until Jan. 23 to file additional paperwork.
At a Dec. 4 hearing, Snow sent strong signals that he intended to pursue contempt cases that could expose Arpaio to fines and perhaps jail time.
Lawyers for the sheriff didn't immediately return calls for comment on the possible civil contempt hearing.
Dan Pochoda, senior counsel for the Arizona ACLU, said Friday that Arpaio's office could face sanctions or fines for not following court orders and "fines to deter future bad acts and fines to compensate anyone permanently harmed" in the racial-profiling cases. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Health overhaul's subsidies at Supreme Court
Legal Network |
2014/10/30 16:46
|
Supreme Court justices have their first chance this week to decide whether they have the appetite for another major fight over President Barack Obama's health care law.
Some of the same players who mounted the first failed effort to kill the law altogether now want the justices to rule that subsidies that help millions of low- and middle-income people afford their premiums under the law are illegal.
The challengers are appealing a unanimous ruling of a three-judge panel of the federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, that upheld Internal Revenue Service regulations that allow health-insurance tax credits under the Affordable Care Act for consumers in all 50 states. The appeal is on the agenda for the justices' private conference on Friday, and word of their action could come as early as Monday.
The fight over subsidies is part of a long-running political and legal campaign to overturn Obama's signature domestic legislation by Republicans and other opponents of the law. Republican candidates have relentlessly attacked Democrats who voted for it, and the partisanship has continued on the federal bench. Every judge who has voted to strike down the subsidies was appointed by a Republican president.
The appeal has arrived at the Supreme Court at a curious time; there is no conflicting appeals court ruling that the justices often say is a virtual requirement for them to take on an issue. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg cited that practice, for example, as a reason she and her colleagues decided not to take on the same-sex marriage issue. And in the gay marriage cases, both sides were urging the court to step in.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Lawyer & Law Firm Websites |
|
|
Legal News RSS Feed
