January 01, 2004
The case of Leocal v. Ashcroft was decided, interpreting 18 U.S.C. § 16(b).
| Name | Type | Mentions | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Leocal | person | 12 | View Entity |
| Ashcroft | person | 27 | View Entity |
DOJ-OGR-00021107.jpg
This document is a page from a legal filing, arguing for a 'categorical approach' to interpreting statutes of limitation, specifically §3283. It cites several Supreme Court precedents, most notably U.S. v. Noveck (1926), to support the argument that an extended statute of limitations for fraud-related offenses only applies when fraud is an essential element of the crime itself, not when it is merely alleged as 'mere surplusage' in an indictment for a different crime like perjury or tax evasion.
Events with shared participants
Discussion 0
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein event