12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
NICOLA T. HANNA, SBN 130694, nhanna@gibsondunn.comGIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP3161 Michelson Drive, Suite 1200Irvine, CA 92612Telephone: (949) 451-3800Facsimile: (949) 451-4220Attorneys for Defendant STUART CARSONKIMBERLY A. DUNNE, SBN 142721, kdunne@sidley.comSIDLEY AUSTIN LLP555 W. Fifth Street, Suite 4000Los Angeles, CA 90013-1010Telephone: (213) 896-6000Facsimile: (213) 896-6600Attorneys for Defendant HONG CARSONTHOMAS H. BIENERT, JR., SBN 135311, tbienert@bmkattorneys.comBIENERT, MILLER & KATZMAN, PLC903 Calle Amanecer, Suite 350San Clemente, CA 92673Telephone: (949) 369-3700Facsimile: (949) 369-3701Attorneys for Defendant PAUL COSGROVEDAVID W. WIECHERT, SBN 94607, dwiechert@aol.comLAW OFFICES OF DAVID W. WIECHERT115 Avenida Miramar San Clemente, CA 92672Telephone: (949) 361-2822Facsimile: (949) 496-6753Attorneys for Defendant DAVID EDMONDSUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASOUTHERN DIVISIONUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,Plaintiff,v.STUART CARSON, et al.,Defendants.CASE NO. SA CR 09-00077-JVS
DEFENDANTS’ NOTICE OFMOTION AND MOTION TODISMISS COUNTS ONE THROUGHTEN OF THE INDICTMENT;MEMORANDUM OF POINTS ANDAUTHORITIES IN SUPPORTTHEREOF
HearingDate: March 21, 2011Time: 8:00 a.m.Estimated Hearing Length: 90 min.
Case 8:09-cr-00077-JVS Document 304 Filed 02/21/11 Page 1 of 61 Page ID #:2773
112345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728Courtroom: 10CTrial Date: October 4, 2011The Honorable James V. Selna
Case 8:09-cr-00077-JVS Document 304 Filed 02/21/11 Page 2 of 61 Page ID #:2774
1
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR COUNSEL OF RECORD:PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT on March 21, 2011, at 8:00 a.m., or as soonthereafter as the matter may be heard, in the courtroom of the Honorable James V.Selna, United States District Judge, located at 411 West Fourth Street, Santa Ana,California, Defendants Stuart Carson, Hong “Rose” Carson, Paul Cosgrove, and DavidEdmonds (collectively “Defendants”) will and hereby do move this Court for an order dismissing Counts One through Ten of the Indictment.The basis for Defendants’ Motion is that Counts Two through Ten – thesubstantive FCPA counts – fail to state an offense. First, as a matter of statutoryinterpretation, the employees of the state-owned companies identified in the Indictment –
i.e.
, the supposed recipients of the alleged bribes – fall beyond the scope of theFCPA’s definition of “foreign official.” Second, to the extent that there is anyambiguity in the statute, it must be resolved in Defendants’ favor through applicationof the well-established rule of lenity. Third, in the alternative, to the extent that theFCPA can be construed to proscribe payments made or promised to employees of state-owned companies, the statute is unconstitutionally vague as applied toDefendants. For these reasons, Counts Two through Ten fail to state an offense andshould be dismissed. Because Count One – the conspiracy count, which alleges aconspiracy to violate the FCPA and the Travel Act – alleges that Defendants conspiredto violate the FCPA by bribing these non-foreign officials, that count also must bedismissed because the grand jury may not have indicted Defendants for conspiracy inthe absence of the (legally defective) FCPA allegations./////////
Case 8:09-cr-00077-JVS Document 304 Filed 02/21/11 Page 3 of 61 Page ID #:2775
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
Recommended
More From This User
Notes
Load more
