Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 03 MARCH 2014

White Collar Roundup - March 2014

In Kaley v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court held that criminal defendants are not entitled to challenge an asset freeze by relitigating a grand jury's determination that probable cause exists to believe they committed the crimes charged.

United StatesCriminal Law
No Right to Attack Asset Freeze by Challenging Probable Cause

In Kaley v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court held that criminal defendants are not entitled to challenge an asset freeze by relitigating a grand jury's determination that probable cause exists to believe they committed the crimes charged. The defendants, Kerri and Brian Kaley, were charged with engaging in a scheme to steal prescription medical devices and resell them for profit. After the indictment, the prosecutors obtained a restraining order freezing the Kaleys' assets. The Kaleys asked the district court to lift the asset freeze so that they could pay their attorneys. The Kaleys did not dispute that the assets restrained were traceable to their conduct; instead, they argued that the indictment against them was "baseless." The district court upheld the restraining order, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the Kaleys were not entitled to challenge the

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from