Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Carson - Foreign Official Challenge - Reply Brief

Carson - Foreign Official Challenge - Reply Brief

Ratings: (0)|Views: 126 |Likes:
Published by Mike Koehler

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Mike Koehler on May 03, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

05/03/2011

pdf

text

original

 
 
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

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->