Sanctions and Anti-Terrorism

 Hausler v. Republic of Cuba, 770 F.3d 207 (2d Cir. 2014), and Hausler v. Republic of Cuba, 08-20197 (S.D. Fla.). In an interpleader action, a judgment creditor of the Republic of Cuba sought to enforce the judgment against dollar-denominated EFTs blocked pursuant to OFAC sanctions regulations. Mr. Caruso represented a Spanish bank that made claims to the same blocked EFTs. Deciding a question of first impression, the Second Circuit reversed the district court and ruled in favor of Mr. Caruso’s client. The case presented the questions whether the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act (“TRIA”) preempts Article 4-A of the Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”), whether TRIA is unconstitutional under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and whether TRIA has an impermissible retroactive effect. The New York Law Journal reported the decision on its front page. A related proceeding in the Southern District of Florida involved subject matter jurisdiction under the FSIA and standing to challenge the judgment as void for lack of such jurisdiction.

 Vera v. Republic of Cuba/Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, 946 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2019); 867 F.3d 310 (2d Cir. 2017). These cases raised some of the same issues raised in Hausler, and also raised the questions whether certain federal and Florida judgments against the Republic of Cuba are void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the FSIA, whether a subpoena (seeking worldwide discovery of Cuba-related assets) is void for the same reasons, whether service of a subpoena on the New York branch of a foreign bank confers personal jurisdiction over the foreign bank sufficient to compel worldwide discovery consistent with the Due Process Clause and the New York Banking Law, and whether the court should deny enforcement of the subpoena under the doctrine of international comity. The Second Circuit reversed the district court and ruled in favor of Mr. Caruso’s client. The Court held the judgments void and unenforceable, for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the FSIA. The New York Law Journal reported the 2017 decision on its front page.

 Bank of New York v. Norilsk Nickel, 14 A.D.3d 140, 789 N.Y.S.2d 95 (1st Dep't 2004), appeal dismissed, 8 N.Y.3d 918 (2007). This case established the early, leading precedent on the issue of title to interrupted (in this case, blocked) EFTs. Norilsk Nickel was an interpleader action involving EFTs blocked pursuant to OFAC sanctions against the former Yugoslavia and later attached pursuant to private civil process. The case raised the question of title to the EFTs, whether the OFAC sanctions regulations preempted UCC Article 4-A and whether UCC Article 4-A was unconstitutional under the Supremacy Clause. The New York Law Journal reported the decision as its Decision of the Day. On appeal after remand, the Appellate Division awarded the full amount of damages sought, including attorneys’ fees. Bank of New York v. Norilsk Nickel, 26 A.D.3d 201, 810 N.Y.S.2d 32 (1st Dep't 2006).

 Funk v. Belneftekhim, 861 F.3d 354 (2d Cir. 2017). Mr. Caruso defends Belneftekhim, the state-owned oil and chemicals company of the Republic of Belarus, against which OFAC has imposed sanctions. The plaintiffs allege claims for money damages for the company’s alleged aiding and abetting of human rights violations, which the company denies. In 2017, in the Second Circuit, Mr. Caruso won reinstatement of the company’s defense of foreign-sovereign immunity. The New York Law Journal reported the decision on its front page. In late 2023, Mr. Caruso’s client obtained an anti-suit injunction against the continued prosecution of the case.  The plaintiffs made a motion for sanctions, in the form of a default judgment, which the district court denied.  The plaintiffs then dismissed the action and appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.  The appeal, as well as Mr. Caruso’s motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction, is now fully briefed, and will be argued orally in early 2026.

 In re: Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 714 F.3d 659 (2d Cir. 2013). Mr. Caruso represented an individual defendant in consolidated actions arising out of the 9/11 attacks, and won dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction. The case also involved issues arising under the Anti-terrorism Act, the Alien Tort Statute, RICO and other federal statutes. The New York Law Journal reported the decision on its front page.

Sanctions and Anti-Terrorism

 Anonymous. Mr. Caruso represented a German bank in a New York state grand jury investigation into transactions with Iranian entities and related alleged false statements, leading to closure of the investigation.

 Anonymous. Mr. Caruso conducted an internal investigation at another German bank, examining the bank’s compliance with U.S. sanctions against Iran, and making a report and compliance recommendations to the bank’s board of directors.

 Anonymous. Mr. Caruso advised an Eastern European manufacturer of pipes, used in the petroleum industry, in connection with U.S. sanctions and transactions with Iranian entities.

 Anonymous. Mr. Caruso represented the former CEO of a publicly traded company in an investigation involving trans-shipment of goods to Iran in alleged violation of federal export-control laws and false statements made in a voluntary disclosure to a government agency, leading to closure of the investigation.

Securities Fraud, Money Laundering, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and Other Crimes

 United States v. Milton (S.D.N.Y.). Mr. Caruso was a member of a trial team defending charges of securities fraud and wire fraud, and litigating a wide range of issues involving evidence and jury instructions. The case received extensive media coverage.

 United States v. Bakhshi (D.N.J.). Mr. Caruso was a member of a team defending a British national against charges of securities fraud, wire fraud and conspiracy, leading to a highly unusual disposition by plea to a misdemeanor with felony charges dropped, and the dismissal of a related bankruptcy proceeding.

 United States v. Petrossi (U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the Third Circuit). Mr. Caruso represented an individual on appeals from judgments of conviction for securities fraud, wire fraud and related conspiracies.

 United States v. Wisnicki (S.D.N.Y.). Mr. Caruso was a member of a team defending a New York lawyer charged with conspiracy to commit health care fraud, money laundering and obstruction of justice. He also represented that lawyer in civil actions brought by the lawyer’s former clients for breach of fiduciary duty and fraud.

 United States v. Lieber (D. Mass.). In this case, brought under the Trump Administration’s “China Initiative,” Mr. Caruso was a member of a defense team litigating post-verdict motions involving the literal-truth defense to charges of false statement, the validity of certain Treasury regulations, which require reports of foreign bank accounts, known as “FBARs,” and issues arising under the Sentencing Guidelines, such as downward departure based on physical (medical) conditions and grouping of counts, leading to a non-custodial sentence. The case received extensive media coverage.

 Anonymous. Mr. Caruso represented a Kenya-based manufacturing company regarding compliance with the FCPA, a related internal investigation and the client’s business with a U.S.-based entity.

 Anonymous. Mr. Caruso represented another Kenya-based entity in an investigation into allegations of bribery, and related disclosures to U.S. authorities, leading to closure of the investigation.

 Anonymous. Mr. Caruso represented an executive of an airline, based in Western Europe, in a grand jury investigation under the FCPA, involving activities in Mexico and other Latin American countries, leading to closure of the investigation.

 Anonymous. Mr. Caruso represented an individual in a matter involving the FCPA, the Travel Act, money laundering and forfeiture of accounts in offshore banks, arising in Venezuela.

 Anonymous. Mr. Caruso represented an individual investigated in the United States, Italy and Switzerland for money laundering and related offenses. The matter involved extradition, and issues of speedy trial and double jeopardy.

Securities Fraud, Money Laundering, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and Other Crimes

 Anonymous. Mr. Caruso conducted an internal investigation into allegations of foreign commercial bribery by employees of a U.S. private equity fund in Asia. The matter also involved advice regarding foreign-country investigations and indictments for securities fraud and bribery, tax disputes and extradition.

 Anonymous. Mr. Caruso represented an Eastern European bank in a proceeding brought by FinCEN involving the Iraq Oil-for-Food Program, allegations of money laundering and the constitutionality of the USA PATRIOT Act.

 Anonymous. Mr. Caruso conducted an internal investigation into transactions by a New York state-regulated bank in alleged violation of tax, customs and currency laws of Argentina, and represented the bank in connection with a related federal criminal investigation.

Cyberstalking

 Anonymous. Mr. Caruso was a member of a team defending charges of criminal cyberstalking in New York state court, leading to a negotiated disposition, which left the client with no criminal record.

 Coakley v. Berger, 2022 WL 9688683 (Sup. Ct. New York County Oct. 14, 2022), 2023 WL 2941439 (Sup. Ct. New York County April 13, 2023), and related litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. This case involves a non-disclosure agreement (“NDA”) and a business dispute that devolved into litigation, cyberstalking and threats against Mr. Caruso’s clients. In New York, Mr. Caruso successfully argued that the stalker had commenced litigation “primarily to harass or maliciously injure.” The court then entered a six-figure judgment against the stalker (to reimburse the clients for Mr. Caruso’s attorneys’ fees), and an order redacting the stalker’s Complaint to achieve compliance with the NDA. In the related California action, Mr. Caruso seeks injunctions and money damages based on full faith and credit for the New York judgment.

Other Commercial and Banking

Grupo Salinas Telecom.  Mr. Caruso represents Grupo Salinas Telecom, the largest telecommunications company in Mexico, in two actions in the Commercial Division of Supreme Court, New York County.  The issues involve cross-border judgment recognition and enforcement, contempt, piercing the corporate veil, choice of law, claims of discovery violations and sanctions, a court-appointed receivership (including the validity and effect of a New York receivership in Mexico), the transfer of the attorney-client privilege to a court-appointed receiver, a New York court’s personal jurisdiction over persons in Mexico, and the tort, recognized in New York, of tortious interference with judgment enforcement.  As of September 2025, Mr. Caruso also represents GST in connection with three appeals before the Appellate Division, First Department, one of which resulted in the vacatur of a $1.172 million contempt penalty.  See AT&T Mobility Holdings B.V. v. Grupo Salinas Telecom, S.A. de C.V., 234 N.Y.S.3d 101 (1st Dep’t 2025).

Anonymous.  Mr. Caruso represents a plaintiff in a civil action charging a violation of a relatively new federal statute, 15 U.S.C. § 6851, which establishes a private right of action against a defendant who committed what is colloquially known as “revenge porn.”  That action also involves claims for malicious prosecution and fraudulent transfers.  That action proceeds in several forums around the country, in which Mr. Caruso’s client won the right to proceed anonymously.  This matter also involved the grant of a pre-judgment attachment against real property and judgment enforcement proceedings.

Matter of Trump Ferry Point.  In the aftermath of the events of January 6, 2021, the Mayor of the City of New York terminated a license, held by an affiliate of the Trump Organization, to operate a golf course at Ferry Point in Bronx County, New York, one of the few true “links” golf courses in the United States, and therefore a unique property.  Mr. Caruso represented the Trump Organization affiliate.  After months of litigation, including briefing and oral argument, Mr. Caruso won a complete victory, annulling the City’s administrative determination and reinstating the license.  The City did not appeal.  It is believed that this is the only litigation victory that arose out of the events of January 16, 2021.    

Morpheus Capital Advisors LLC v. UBS AG, 23 N.Y.3d 528 (2014). The plaintiff commenced litigation seeking a "success fee" for a transaction between UBS and the Swiss National Bank arising out of the Great Recession of 2008-09. Deciding a question of first impression, and ruling in favor of Mr. Caruso’s client, the highest Court of the State of New York adopted a dichotomy between two types of exclusive brokerage contracts – a contract for an “exclusive right to sell” and a contract for an “exclusive agency.” The Court also extended this dichotomy, historically applicable to real estate services, to investment banking services. New York Law 360 reported the decision. In the lower courts, the case also involved the legal effect of the Swiss government’s interventions to halt the financial crisis, the question whether a regulated entity can breach a private contract when that entity cooperates with the government, the doctrine of frustration of purpose and related issues.

Other Banking and Commercial

 CAML Ghana Ltd. v. Westchester Resources Ltd. (S.D.N.Y.). Mr. Caruso represented foreign companies in a dispute involving the exploration and development of a goldfield in Ghana. The case involved pre-litigation advice, and litigation in New York seeking to confirm awards of the London Court of International Arbitration pursuant to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the New York Convention), to obtain an anti-suit injunction against certain litigation underway in Ghana and later, to enforce a certain stipulation. See 2015 WL 405647 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 30, 2015). The issues included personal jurisdiction, forum non conveniens, issue preclusion and the non-arbitrability of fraud claims.

 Goldman v. BP Plc, No. 3:06-cv-260, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 97286 (D. Alas. Sept. 18, 2007), and In re BP Prudhoe Bay Royalty Trust, No. 4775 (Del. Chan. 2009). Mr. Caruso defended litigation, and conducted an investigation, on behalf of the Bank of New York Mellon ("BNYM"), as trustee for the holders of certain publicly traded securities ("units"), into claims arising out of shutdowns of the trans-Alaska oil pipeline system at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska. Mr. Caruso negotiated a settlement, which called for BP to pay the unitholders more than 99 cents on the dollar and to reimburse BNYM in full for its costs, including attorneys’ fees. Mr. Caruso argued a motion to approve the settlement, which, over the objection of a former unitholder, the Delaware Chancery Court granted in a ruling from the bench.

 Deutsche Bank AG v. Vitro Envases Norteamérica, S.A. de C.V. ("VENA"), et al., (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2010). Mr. Caruso represented Deutsche Bank in litigation against VENA, a Mexican company listed on the New York Stock Exchange. The case involved defaults on derivative swap transactions totaling more than $29 million. The issues included illegality and unconscionability under the Commodity Exchange Act, choice of law, issues of Mexican law and New York public policy. Mr. Caruso argued Deutsche Bank's motion for summary judgment, which the court granted.

 Application of Gianoli-Aldunate, 3 F.3d 54 (2d Cir. 1993). This case established an early, leading precedent in the field of discovery for use in foreign proceedings. The discovery led to injunctions that froze assets held in trusts in Jersey, Guernsey and the Cayman Islands, and related civil proceedings on the merits in the U.S. and Chile. This case was the first in the country to allow discovery in the U.S. without regard to whether the evidence would have been discoverable under the law of the foreign country. That decision started a trend, which culminated in Intel Corp. v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc., 542 U.S. 241 (2004), in which the Supreme Court agreed with, and cited, Gianoli. See id. at 254 n.7, 260.

 Downs v. Yuen, 298 A.D.2d 177, 748 N.Y.S.2d 131 (1st Dep't 2002). This was the first case in New York granting recognition to a Hong Kong judgment rendered after Hong Kong reverted to China. The case also involved parallel proceedings in Hong Kong, New York and New Jersey, a multi-jurisdiction asset search, fraudulent conveyances and issues of collateral estoppel.

 In re New Cap Ins. Ltd., (S.D.N.Y.). Mr. Caruso won an appeal from an order of the Bankruptcy Court. The case involved parallel proceedings in Australia, Pennsylvania and New York, issues of international judgment recognition, anti-suit injunctions and the question whether the McCarran-Ferguson Act allows state insurance law to reverse-preempt certain sections of the Bankruptcy Code.

 In re Austrian and German Holocaust Litigation, 250 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2001). Mr. Caruso was lead counsel to Dresdner Bank AG in defense of class actions arising out of World War II and the Holocaust. The litigation resulted in the formation of an unprecedented private/government foundation for compensation of victims and related purposes.

 In re South African Apartheid Litigation, (S.D.N.Y.). Mr. Caruso represented a Swiss company in class actions alleging violations of international law and aiding and abetting the Apartheid regime in South Africa.

 Anonymous. Mr. Caruso has handled matters involving foreign expropriation decrees in Germany, Iran, Iraq and Turkey, as well as matters involving treaty interpretation and proceedings before claims tribunals.

Smart Plastics, LLC v. Robert S. Abrams, Ill. Ct. App. Docket No. 1-25-0919

Funk v. Belneftekhim, Docket Numbers 24-262; 24-632; 24-633 (2d Cir.)

AT&T Mobility Holdings B.V. v. Grupo Salinas Telecom, S.A. de C.V., Docket Nos. 2025-02280; 2025-02298 (to be argued in October 2025)

AT&T Mobility Holdings B.V. v. Grupo Salinas Telecom, S.A. de C.V., 234 N.Y.S.3d 101 (1st Dep’t 2025)

AT&T Mobility Holdings B.V. v. Grupo Salinas Telecom, S.A. de C.V., 235 A.D.3d 401 (1st Dep’t 2025)

Herndon v. Upton, 985 F.3d 443 (5th Cir. 2021)

United States v. Jones, 847 F. App’x 28 (2d Cir. 2021)

United States v. Buchanan, 813 F. App’x 683 (2d Cir. 2020)

United States v. Brown, 814 F. App’x 626 (2d Cir. 2020)

United States v. Russell, 800 F. App’x 35 (2d Cir. March 3, 2020)

Vera v. Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, 946 F.3d 120 (2d Cir. 2019)

United States v. Petrossi, 796 F. App’x 770 (3d Cir. Dec. 12, 2019)

United States v. Petrossi, 786 F. App’x 286 (2d Cir. Sept. 10, 2019)

United States v. Boyd, 759 F. App’x 49 (2d Cir. Jan. 3, 2019)

United States v. Herndon, 733 F. App’x 1008 (11th Cir. Aug. 10, 2018)

Hausler v. Repulbic of Cuba, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 22197 (11th Cir. Aug. 9, 2018) (staying appeal pending decision in Vera appeal in Second Circuit, cited above)

Vera v. Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria, 729 F. App’x 106 (2d Cir. June 28, 2018)

Funk v. Belneftekhim, 739 F. App’x 674 (2d Cir. June 26, 2018)

Vera v. Republic of Cuba, 867 F.3d 310 (2d Cir. 2017)

Funk v. Belneftekhim, 861 F.3d 354 (2d Cir. 2017)

Vera v. Republic of Cuba, 651 F. App’x 22 (2d Cir. June 3, 2016)

United States v. Tingman, 642 F. App’x 12 (2d Cir. March 14, 2016) (appointed after affirmance), rehearing denied (2d Cir. Aug. 23, 2016)

Vera v. Republic of Cuba, 802 F.3d 242 (2d Cir. 2015)

Morpheus Capital Advisors LLC v. UBS AG, 23 N.Y.3d 528 (2014)

Hausler v. Republic of Cuba, 770 F.3d 207 (2d Cir. 2014)

In re: Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001, 714 F.3d 659 (2d Cir. 2013)

Morpheus Capital Advisors LLC v. UBS AG, 105 A.D.3d 145, 962 N.Y.S.2d 82 (1st Dep’t 2013)

MatlinPatterson ATA Holdings LLC v. Federal Express Corp., 87 A.D.3d 836, 929 N.Y.S.2d 571 (1st Dep’t 2011)

Pegasus Aviation I, Inc. v. Varig Logistica S.A., 69 A.D.3d 483, 894 N.Y.S.2d 30 (1st Dep't 2010)

Sokol Holdings, Inc. v. BMB Munai, Inc., 542 F.3d 354 (2d Cir. 2008)

Volo LLC v. Varig Logistica, S.A., 51 A.D.3d 554, 859 N.Y.S.2d 127 (1st Dep't 2008)

Bank of New York v. Norilsk Nickel, 26 A.D.3d 201, 810 N.Y.S.2d 32 (1st Dep't 2006)

Correspondent Services Corp. v. First Equities Corp. of Fla., 442 F.3d 767 (2d Cir. 2006)

Bank of New York v. Norilsk Nickel, 14 A.D.3d 140, 789 N.Y.S.2d 95 (1st Dep't 2004)

In re New Cap Insurance Ltd., (S.D.N.Y. July 22, 2004) (appeal from Bankruptcy Court) (unreported decision)

Correspondent Services Corp. v. First Equities Corp. of Fla., 338 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2003)

Downs v. Yuen, 298 A.D.2d 177, 748 N.Y.S.2d 131 (1st Dep't 2002)

In re Austrian and German Holocaust Litig., 250 F.3d 156 (2d Cir. 2001)

DeGanay v. DeGanay, 269 A.D.2d 157, 701 N.Y.S.2d 434 (1st Dep't 2000)

DeGanay v. DeGanay, 261 A.D.2d 175, 689 N.Y.S.2d 501 (1st Dep't 1999)

Daily News, L.P. v. Rockwell Int'l Corp., 256 A.D.2d 13, 680 N.Y.S.2d 510 (1st Dep't 1998)

Anonymous v. Anonymous, 254 A.D.2d 1, 679 N.Y.S.2d 3 (1st Dep't 1998)

Koehler v. Bank of Bermuda Ltd., 101 F.3d 863 (2d Cir. 1996) (counsel for amicus curiae)

Ruesch Int'l, Inc. v. MacCormack, 222 A.D.2d 343, 635 N.Y.S.2d 226 (1st Dep't 1995)

Matter of Levin v. Nationar, 221 A.D.2d 260, 634 N.Y.S.2d 73 (1st Dep't 1995)

United States v. Galazo, 41 F.3d 1500 (2d Cir. 1994)

United States v. Fermin, 32 F.3d 674 (2d Cir. 1994)

LaChance v. Reno, 13 F.3d 586 (2d Cir. 1994)

Application of Gianoli-Aldunate, 3 F.3d 54 (2d Cir. 1993)

United States v. Haddock, 992 F.2d 320 (2d Cir. 1993)

Matter of Pidot v. State Tax Comm'n, 69 N.Y.2d 837 (1987)

Matter of Pidot v. State Tax Comm'n, 118 A.D.2d 915, 499 N.Y.S.2d 482 (3d Dep't 1986)

Matter of Forbes, Inc. v. Dep't of Finance of City of New York, 66 N.Y.2d 243 (1985)

United States v. Harris, (2d Cir. 1985) (unreported decision)

United States v. Dabish, 708 F.2d 240 (6th Cir. 1983)

United States v. Sprowles, 698 F.2d 1215 (5th Cir. 1983)

United States v. Varella, 692 F.2d 1352 (11th Cir. 1983)

Johnson v. Williford, 682 F.2d 868 (9th Cir. 1982)

United States v. McNeil, 679 F.2d 890 (4th Cir. 1982)

DiPortanova v. New York News, Inc., 80 A.D.2d 820, 440 N.Y.S.2d 535 (1st Dep't 1981)

New York News, Inc. v. Galligan, 78 A.D.2d 821, 434 N.Y.S.2d 891 (1st Dep't 1980)

 Criminal Justice Act Panel, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; representing, by court appointment, indigent criminal defendants on appeal, 2014-2021

 Criminal Justice Act Panel, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York; representing, by court appointment, indigent criminal defendants in district court, 1985-1996

 Mediator, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, 1992-2013

 Columbia University School of Law

 Alumni Trustee Nominating Committee, Member, 2017-Present

 Board of Visitors, Member, 2012-Present

 Law School Association, Member, 2005-2009

 Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Professional and Judicial Ethics Committee, Member, 2005-2008

 Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Member, Board of Directors, 1995-2004

 New York City Charter Revision Commission, Member, 1999

 New York City Gambling Control Commission, Chairman, 1997-1999

 New York City Mayor's Appointments Committee, Member, 1998-2001

 The Royal Commission on Criminal Justice for England and Wales, Consultant, 1991-1993

 “Which Jurisdiction? Choosing Where to Litigate, A Jurisdictional Overview of the World’s Court Systems,” White & Case, February 2019 (Mr. Caruso contributed the materials regarding U.S. courts.)

 “Litigation Nuts and Bolts Series: Commencing Litigation,” White & Case, various locations and dates

 “Litigation Nuts and Bolts Series: Appellate Practice,” White & Case, various locations and dates

 “Litigation Nuts and Bolts Series: How To Write Briefs,” White & Case, various locations and dates

 Speaker/Panel Member, Africa Legal Network, Anti-Bribery Conference, Nairobi, November 2017

 Moderator, “The E.U. Court of Justice,” White & Case, New York, November 2017

 “Tackling Sanctions Violations That Arise Mid-Transaction,” Advanced Forum on Economic Sanctions and Financial Crime, London, November 2015

 “How Long Is The Arm of U.S. Law?” New York Conference of Financial Examiners, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, October 2015

 “How Long Is The Arm of U.S. Law?” Economic Week Conference, Munich, May 2015 (focusing on the FCPA)

 “U.S. Sanctions Against Cuba, Iran and Russia,” Economic Week Conference, Munich, May 2015

 “U.S. Financial and Trade Sanctions,” 28th Forum on Fraud, Asset Tracing & Recovery, Geneva, March 2015 (focusing on basics of U.S. sanctions and recovery of assets upon unblocking)

 “U.S. Economic and Trade Sanctions,” American-German Chamber of Commerce, Eighth Annual Transatlantic Business Conference, Frankfurt, November 2014

 “The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act: Still A Centerpiece For Enforcement,” Compliance, Corruption and Cybercrime Conference, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, New York, October 2014

 “U.S. Sanctions,” part of “Money Laundering and Sanctions Violations in the E.U. and U.S.,” White Collar Crime and Regulatory Trends in the E.U. and the U.S., ABA Criminal Justice Section, Amsterdam, May 2014

 Panel Member, “Whistleblowers: Who They Are, What Motivates Them and How Best to Respond,” White & Case, New York, March 2014

 “The Deep Pocket – How Financial Institutions Are Implicated as Accessories to Fraud,” 23rd Forum, Fraud, Asset Tracing and Recovery, Miami, October 2012

 “U.S. Sanctions Against Iran: What They Mean for Foreign Banks and Companies,” Moscow, June 2012

 “Dodd-Frank Whistleblowers – The New Rules,” New York, September and December 2010

 "Electronic Funds Transfers – Disruption for Banks," 26 International Financial Law Review 53 (2007)

 Co-moderator, "Cross-Border Issues in Litigation and Bankruptcy," Federal Bar Council, U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, September 2005

 Co-author, "Blocked Wire Transfers: Can Funds Be Attached? Who Has Title?" 1 Journal of Payment Systems Law 156 (2005)

 "Gathering Evidence in the United States For Use in Foreign Proceedings," numerous revisions and presentations

 "The USA PATRIOT Act," Securities Institute, London, April 2003

 Co-author, "Auditor Independence US-Style," 55 Fraud Intelligence 5 (March 2003)

 Co-author, “The American Way – New SEC Rules on Audit Committees,” 55 Fraud Intelligence 13 (April 2003)

 "Getting Information and Provisional Remedies in the U.S.," Fraud Summit 2003, London, June 2003

 “Double Jeopardy and Government Appeals in Criminal Cases,” 12 Columbia J.L. and Soc. Probs. 295 (1975), cited in Rudstein, Double Jeopardy, A Reference Guide to the U.S. Constitution 234 (2005)

State of New York

Supreme Court of the U.S.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of New York

U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of New York

U.S. District Court of the Northern District of New York

JD, Columbia University School of Law, 1977

BA, Rutgers College, magna cum laude, 1974