The Constitutional Consequences of Foreign-Compelled Testimony in Cross-Border Corporate Crimes & A Framework for Remaining Taint-Free, 52 UIC J. Marshall L. Rev. 95 (2018)

Authors

Nataly Yosef

Abstract

Whether it be rigging interest rates for profit gain or contributing to anti-competition schemes, our world is plagued by financial scandal. Today, more and more collusive schemes are being conducted abroad, leaving American authorities with the heavy task of navigating complex cross-border probes. Finding evidence that corroborates fraudsters’ criminal acts is hard enough within U.S. borders. To do the same in foreign territory calls for added considerations. What’s standing in the way? Try: the United States Constitution. This Comment highlights the 2017 case of United States v. Allen, which held that the Fifth Amendment prohibits use of compelled testimony in criminal proceedings, even when a foreign sovereign compels testimony in accordance with foreign law. This Comment proceeds by outlining the arguments presented on appeal, and concludes by proposing prosecutorial strategies to adopt for purposes of avoiding foreign-compelled testimony and cross-border issues of taint.

Recommended Citation

Nataly Yosef, The Constitutional Consequences of Foreign-Compelled Testimony in Cross-Border Corporate Crimes & A Framework for Remaining Taint-Free, 52 UIC J. Marshall L. Rev. 95 (2018)