Read without ads and support Scribd by becoming a Scribd Premium Reader.
See Premium Plans
 
 
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’ REPLY IN SUPPORTOF AMENDED MOTION TODISMISS COUNTS ONE THROUGHTEN OF THE INDICTMENT
HearingDate: May 9, 2011Time: 3:00 p.m.Courtroom: 10CTrial Date: October 4, 2011The Honorable James V. Selna
 
Case 8:09-cr-00077-JVS Document 354 Filed 05/02/11 Page 1 of 29 Page ID #:6080
 
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PageI. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................1
 
II. ARGUMENT........................................................................................................2
 
A.
 
Defendants’ Motion Is Not Premature.......................................................2
 
B.
 
Whether “Instrumentality” Generically Can Include SOEs IsIrrelevant; The Issue Before The Court Is The FCPA’s MeaningOf The Term...............................................................................................4
 
1.
 
The Term “Instrumentality” Does Not Have “AnAccepted Legal Definition,” And The Term As Used InThe FCPA Does Not Mean “An Entity Through Which AGovernment Achieves An End Or Purpose”...................................5
 
2.
 
The Government’s Proposed “Factors” Do Not Cure TheVagueness Of Its Proposed Definition Of Instrumentality..............9
 
3.
 
The Government’s Reliance On A Handful Of Distinguishable Court Decisions And On Prior GuiltyPleas Is Misplaced..........................................................................11
 
C.
 
The Government’s Remaining Arguments Regarding TheMeaning Of “Instrumentality” Fail..........................................................12
 
1.
 
There Is No Support For The Proposition That “ForeignOfficial” Or “Instrumentality” Should Be ConstruedBroadly...........................................................................................12
 
2.
 
Giving Meaning To All Parts Of The Statute SupportsDefendants’ Interpretation, Not The Government’s......................12
 
3.
 
The Fact That Other Statutes Expressly Define“Instrumentality” To Include SOEs Supports Defendants, Not The Government.....................................................................13
 
4.
 
The
Charming Betsy
Doctrine Is Of No Help To TheGovernment....................................................................................14
 
 
Case 8:09-cr-00077-JVS Document 354 Filed 05/02/11 Page 2 of 29 Page ID #:6081
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
 Pageii123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627285.
 
The FCPA’s Legislative History Supports Defendants’Interpretation..................................................................................17
 
D.
 
The Rule of Lenity Mandates Dismissal of Counts OneThrough Ten.............................................................................................19
 
E.
 
If The Term “Instrumentality” In The FCPA Is Construed ToEncompass SOEs, The Statute Is Unconstitutionally Vague AsApplied To Defendants............................................................................19
 
III. CONCLUSION..................................................................................................20
 
 
Case 8:09-cr-00077-JVS Document 354 Filed 05/02/11 Page 3 of 29 Page ID #:6082
Search
Search History:
Searching...
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
  • p.

    • More From This User

    48 p.
    SEC v. Ashland Oil
    Mike Koehler
    16 Reads
    18 p.
    Ralph Lauren Corp. Non-Prosecution Agreement
    Mike Koehler
    314 Reads
    25 p.
    U.S. v. Pierucci (Indictment)
    Mike Koehler
    602 Reads
    12 p.
    U.S. v. Rothschild (Information)
    Mike Koehler
    297 Reads
    7 p.
    U.S. v. Rothschild (Plea Agreement)
    Mike Koehler
    292 Reads
    76 p.
    TJGEM Complaint
    Mike Koehler
    132 Reads
    18 p.
    U.S. v. Parker Drilling (DPA)
    Mike Koehler
    158 Reads
    15 p.
    U.S. v. Parker Drilling (Information)
    Mike Koehler
    150 Reads
    19 p.
    U.S. v. Uhl (Plea Agreement)
    Mike Koehler
    231 Reads
    3 p.
    U.S. v. Dubois (DOJ Motion for Downward Departure)
    Mike Koehler
    393 Reads
    21 p.
    DuBois Plea Agreement
    Mike Koehler
    181 Reads
    7 p.
    U.S. v. DuBois (Motion to Seal)
    Mike Koehler
    383 Reads
    12 p.
    U.S. v. Uhl (Information)
    Mike Koehler
    412 Reads
    14 p.
    U.S. v. DuBois (Information)
    Mike Koehler
    196 Reads
    22 p.
    U.S. v. Jensen (Indictment)
    Mike Koehler
    274 Reads
    21 p.
    U.S. v. Kowalewski (Indictment)
    Mike Koehler
    322 Reads
    1 p.
    The Story of George McLean
    Mike Koehler
    187 Reads
    20 p.
    SEC v. Straub (Defendants' Motion for Interlocutory Appeal)
    Mike Koehler
    280 Reads
    29 p.
    SEC v. Jackson/Ruehlen (Joint Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint)
    Mike Koehler
    252 Reads
    23 p.
    SEC v. Steffan (Opinion and Order Granting Motion to Dismiss)
    Mike Koehler
    456 Reads
    13 p.
    Statement of Facts - Griffiths Energy Enforcement Action (Canada)
    Mike Koehler
    154 Reads
    22 p.
    SEC v. Straub (Decision on Motion to Dismiss)
    Mike Koehler
    1246 Reads
    88 p.
    U.S. v. Duperval (Duperval Appellate Brief)
    Mike Koehler
    338 Reads
    15 p.
    U.S. v. Siriwan (DOJ Response)
    Mike Koehler
    221 Reads
    58 p.
    SEC v. Jackson/Ruehlen Amended Complaint
    Mike Koehler
    379 Reads
    Notes
    Load more