Our offices are being searched by law enforcement officers. Do
not obstruct the search. The officers have a legal right to certain
items and documents related to the warrant.
We are complying with the warrant. You should be cooperative
and assist law enforcement in locating relevant files. However,
please do not "consent" to any search or sign any
documents on behalf of the company.
For example, if an officer asks where documents are located,
feel free to show her. On the other hand, if the officer asks you
how the documents were created or what they mean, you are under no
obligation to answer. Merely show the officer the documents without
Please refrain from using social media (Twitter, Facebook,
etc.) to disseminate any information about law enforcement's
presence at our Company.
Any questions from the press should be immediately referred to
[ ]. Do not make any statement other than "Please call [ ]
about this matter."
Law enforcement officers may ask you to answer their questions.
It is your choice whether to submit to an interview. You are under
no legal obligation to do so; but if you choose to respond, the
Company's lawyers have a right and have requested to be present
at any interview with a company employee.
If you do grant an interview to the investigating officers,
anything you say can be used against you in a criminal prosecution
or in a civil enforcement proceeding. If you decide to be
interviewed please inform the agents of the company's request
for its lawyers to be present.
In its first public Policy Statement regarding the treatment of cooperation in investigations, the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board provided guidance on how it will consider a firm’s or associated person’s "extraordinary cooperation".
After a two-week trial before United States District Court Judge Edward Chen of the Northern District of California, David Nosal was convicted of three counts of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in United States v. Walsh ruled that the defendant could not use the proceeds from the sale of his house to fund his criminal defense because he used tainted funds to obtain the home.
In Commonwealth v. Nies, No. 5793-2012 (Pa. Ct. Com. Pl, Apr. 18, 2013), the Honorable John A. Boccabella of the Berks County Court of Common Pleas applied a somewhat rare exception to the requirement that those who do not submit to a blood test in connection with a DUI investigation are subject to enhanced sentencing requirements.