United States v. Lay’s Empirical Analysis
2008
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 8 (Wilson Tariff Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 80B · 15 U.S.C. § 80B · 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (§ 902 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 981 (§ 1366 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 982 (§ 1366 of the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986) · 21 U.S.C. § 853 (§ 413 of the Controlled Substances Act)
Relies on Jackson v. Virginia · Glasser v. United States · Lowe v. Securities & Exchange Commission · Marshall v. Walker · United States v. Martinez
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In order to [establish that Lay committed investment adviser fraud under these provisions], the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the [Bureau] was Mark Lay’s client with respect to its investment in the ... Active Duration Fund.... A client is an individual or entity which compensates an investment adviser to provide advice directly or through publications or writings about the value of securities or the advisability of investing in, purchasing, or selling securities .... It is for you to determine as a matter of fact whether Mark Lay had an investment adviser-client relationship with the [Bureau] with respect to its investment in the ... Active Duration Fund. There are two possible outcomes of your determination on this issue. First, you could find that the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mark Lay had an investment adviser-client relationship with the [Bureau] with respect to its investment in the ... Active Duration Fund. Second, you could find that the government [has] proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Mark Lay did have an investment adviser-client relationship with the [Bureau] with respect to the [Bureau’s] investment in the ... Active Duration Fund. You could make this finding in one of two ways. The Defendant does not dispute that he was the investment adviser and the [Bureau] was his client with respect to the Long Fund which continued throughout the period of time at issue in the Superseding Indictment. Therefore, you ”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. United States v. Lay“(a) employ devices, schemes, and artifices to defraud, the client, the [Bureau] and thereby the [Active Duration Fund]; (b) engage in transactions, practices and courses of business which operated as a fraud and deceit upon, the client, the [Bureau] and thereby the [Active Duration Fund]; and (c) engage in any act, practice and course of business which was fraudulent, deceptive and manipulative, to wit: exercising leverage in excess of 150% in the [Active Duration Fund], in violation of the [hedge fund agreement], and concealing and failing to disclose to the full extent his exercise of leverage in excess of 150%.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. United States v. Lay“(1) to employ any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud any client or prospective client; (2) to engage in any transaction, practice, or course of business which operates as a fraud or deceit upon any client or prospective client; (4) to engage in any act, practice or course of business which is fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. United States v. Lay
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.