Boletín no. 6 Junio-Julio 2005

7/30/2019 Boletn no. 6 Junio-Julio 2005

1/5

The lawyer in a suspicious world

The policies against the Money Laundering have displaced towards the financialsector, tasks that should be assumed by the States, at high costs that tend to

become the unbalanced assumption by the private sector of an obligation

under the government, what will be justified only if measurable results are

obtained putting in evidence their success. Additionally, they threaten to put

into play the professional secret and invert the secular principle of the good

faith, with which we can end up paying an enormous price, when jeopardizing

secular values of our legal organization.

With this suggestive title it was presented the conference that our founding

partner, doctor Sergio Rodriguez Azuero, dictated within the framework of the

XXIV Latin American Congress of Banking Right, held in Santiago de Chile on

September 29th and 30th.

In the work, starting from the urgent necessity that both the banks and the

lawyers have to collaborate permanently in the fight against crime, as it is

obvious, it becomes nevertheless, serious critic reflections that enrich the

debate aboutthe problem.

First of all, the allocation of a so atypical task full of risks and generator of a

extremely high costs task to the commercial banks, as they are the ones to

identify possible suspicious operations, it constitutes somehow a delegation of

transfer of the primary responsibilities that governments must assume.

On the other hand and in respect to lawyers, the author evidences the

importance that the notion of the professional secret has had in Latin American

systems, where, it is not only set forth as aconstitutional principle in some

cases, but it leads, for instance, to exempt the lawyer from the obligation to


2/5

declare before the judges or to denounce a crime, when its knowledge is

protected by the professional secret.

Of course it is written down how the work of the lawyer, true confessor in

permanent relation with human beings and receiving information, even of a

different quality to that handled by banks, it must maintain the scope of

confidential reserve that is implicit in the professional secret. Therefore, a

Lawyer cannot be forced to denounce suspicions as banks must do, as some

people insinuate it. In fact, the norms on money laundering are creating a

world of mistrust where people do not behave in front of others thinking about

a performance of good faith, but with the permanent suspicion on an

unsuitable conduct that must be discovered.

Finally the lecturer wrote down how the banking sector would have the right to

ask the government a report on the result of the fight against drugs and

terrorism, which these banking practices are part of, because it cannot be,

simply, transferred all the activity, with the costs and risks to the banks, if that

doesnt translate into an effective result that justifies it.

Samsung was fined USD $300 MM for violation of Antitrust Laws

The U.S. Justice Department3 announced that Samsung, a Korean

manufacturer, agreed to pay $300 million in fine, the second largest criminal

antitrust fine in U.S. history.

3 The Judiciary Act of 1789, ch. 20, sec. 35, 1 Stat. 73, 92-93 (1789) created the Office of the Attorney

General. In 1870, Congress passed the Act to Establish the Department of Justice, ch. 150, 16 Stat. 162 (1870)

setting it up as "an executive department of the government of the United States" with the Attorney General as

its head. Officially coming into existence on July 1, 1870, the Department of Justice, pursuant to the 1870

Act, was to handle the legal business of the United States. The Act gave the Department control over all

criminal prosecutions and civil suits in which the United States had an interest. In addition, the Act gave the

Attorney General and the Department control over federal law enforcement. To assist the Attorney General,


3/5

On October 13th, 2005, the Department of Justice informed that the Korean

manufacturer and its U.S. subsidiary have agreed to plead guilty for

participating in an international conspiracy to fix prices in the Dynamic Random

Access Memory (DRAM) market. They also agreed to pay USD $300 million in

penalties, the second largest criminal antitrust fine in U.S. history, and the

largest criminalpenalty since 1999.

A one-count felony charge filed in San Francisco said Samsung conspired with

other manufacturers to fix prices for sales to certain computer manufacturers.

The computer makers directly affected by the price-fixing conspiracy were Dell,

Compaq, Hewlett-Packard, Apple, IBM and Gateway.

Prosecutors said the conspiracy occurred between April 1999 and June 2002.

Price fixing threatens our free market system, stifles innovation, and robs

American consumers of the benefit of competitive pricessaid Attorney General

Alberto R. Gonzales. Todays guilty plea is evidence of the Departments

ongoing commitment to protect consumers from corporations that engage in

illegal conduct.

This case demonstrates the need for vigorous antitrust enforcement in high-

technology markets, which is one of the most important sectors of the

American economy, said Thomas O. Barnett, Acting Assistant Attorney

General in charge of the Departments Antitrust Division. This case also

illustrates the worldwide scope of our criminal investigations and exemplifies

the need to prosecute and deter cartels that target American businesses andconsumers.

the 1870 Act created the Office of the Solicitor General.

The 1870 Act is the foundation upon which the Department of Justice still rests. www.usdoj.gov
http://www.usdoj.gov/http://www.usdoj.gov/


4/5

Samsung is charged for with carrying out the conspiracy by: Participating in

meetings, conversations, and communications in the United States and

elsewhere with competitors to discuss the prices of DRAM to be sold to certain

customers; Agreeing, during those meetings, conversations, and

communications, to charge prices of DRAM at certain levels to be sold to

certain customers; Issuing price quotations in accordance with the agreements

reached; and Exchanging information on sales of DRAM to certain customers

for the purpose of monitoring and enforcing adherence to the agreed-upon

prices4.

Including todays charge, three companies and five individuals have been

charged and fines amounting to more than USD $646 million have resulted

from the Departments ongoing antitrust investigation into price fixing in the

DRAM industry.

DRAM is the most commonly used semiconductor memory product, providing

high-speed storage and retrieval of electronic information for a wide variety of

computer, telecommunication, and consumer electronic products. DRAM is

used in personal computers, laptops, work stations, servers, printers, hard disk

drives, digital cameras and other digital equipment.

Participants in this issue

Sergio Rodrguez Azuero, Daniel Rodrguez Bravo, Julio Cesar Quintero Hernndez,

Camilo Gantiva Hidalgo

[email protected]

www.rodriguezazuero.com

4 www.busrep.co.za
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.rodriguezazuero.com/http://www.rodriguezazuero.com/http://www.busrep.co.za/http://www.busrep.co.za/http://www.rodriguezazuero.com/mailto:[email protected]


5/5

The Editorial Board of Rodrguez-Azuero Asociados S.A. made this bulletin for an informative

and academic value; therefore its content does not constitute legal advice. The publication

of this bulletin is only authorized by quoting the source.

Boletín no. 6 Junio-Julio 2005

Documents

Transcript of Boletín no. 6 Junio-Julio 2005