Daniel Kahn

Lecturer on Law

Fall 2019

Areeda 509

617-998-1403

Assistant: Teresa Cyr / 617-496-2392

Biography

Daniel Kahn has been with the Department of Justice, Criminal Division, Fraud Section since 2010 and has been Chief of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) Unit since 2016. Professor Kahn has tried and convicted a number of individuals in FCPA, securities fraud, and other white collar cases, and was the lead prosecutor on ten corporate resolutions. Mr. Kahn earned the Assistant Attorney General’s Award for Exceptional Service for his work on the prosecution of Alstom S.A. and its executives, and the Assistant Attorney General’s Award for Distinguished Service for his part in prosecuting a bribery scheme involving the state-owned and state-controlled telecommunications company in Haiti. In connection with that case, Professor Kahn was co-counsel in the first conviction at trial of a foreign government official for laundering proceeds of FCPA violations. Professor Kahn also served as the Department’s liaison to the ABA Standards Task Force on Monitors.

Prior to joining the Department of Justice, Professor Kahn spent six years at Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, where he worked on six trial teams. Among other cases, Professor Kahn helped secure the retrial and acquittal of a defendant wrongfully convicted of murdering a Bloods kingpin. Professor Kahn then first-chaired a trial against the state of New York and secured the then second-largest ever award under New York’s wrongful conviction statute. Professor Kahn was twice selected by the New York Police Department Executive Development Division to present on the prevention of wrongful convictions. He also assisted the New York Justice Task Force in investigating wrongful convictions.

Professor Kahn graduated summa cum laude from Cornell University and cum laude from Harvard Law School.

Areas of Interest

Daniel S. Kahn, Guilty Until Proven Innocent, The Burden of Proof in Wrongful Conviction Claims Under State Compensation Statutes, 44 U. Mich. J.L. Reform 123 (2010).
Categories:
Criminal Law & Procedure
,
Government & Politics
Sub-Categories:
Criminal Justice & Law Enforcement
,
Criminal Evidence
,
Prison Law & Prisoners' Rights
,
Sentencing & Punishment
,
State & Local Government
,
Government Accountability
Type: Article
Abstract
Despite significant efforts to uncover and prevent wrongful convictions, little attention has been paid to the compensation of wrongfully convicted individuals once they are released from prison. State compensation statutes offer the best path to redress because they do not require the claimant to prove that the state was at fault for the wrongful conviction and because they are not susceptible to the same political influences as other methods of compensation. However, even under compensation statutes, too many meritorious claims are dismissed, settled for far too little, or never brought in the first place. After examining the current statutory framework, this Article analyzes the arguments for and against one potential solution to this problem that so far has not been considered-shifting the burden of proof to the state on the issue of innocence. Currently, the jurisdictions that have enacted statutes require that the claimant prove his or her innocence in order to recover compensation. Shifting the burden to the state to prove that the claimant is guilty would be more efficient because the state has better access to the relevant evidence, it could rely exclusively on the criminal trial transcript, and it is in a better position to bear the costs of litigation and to determine when to settle. Although this solution implicates several concerns, these concerns can be addressed through checks already built into the criminal justice system and by adjustments that can be made to the compensation statutes.
Daniel S. Kahn, The Collapsing Jurisdictional Boundaries of the Antifraud Provisions of the U.S. Securities Laws: The Supreme Court and Congress Ready to Redress Forty Years of Ambiguity, 6 N.Y.U. J.L. & Bus. 365 (2010).
Categories:
Government & Politics
,
Corporate Law & Securities
,
International, Foreign & Comparative Law
Sub-Categories:
Securities Law & Regulation
,
Congress & Legislation
,
Supreme Court of the United States
,
Foreign Relations
Type: Article
Abstract
The antifraud provisions of the U.S. securities laws have remained silent as to their extraterritorial reach since their enactment in the early 1930’s. In the absence of clear Congressional guidance, U.S. courts have struggled to determine when and to what extent there should be subject matter jurisdiction over predominantly foreign claims. Each Circuit that has addressed the issue has adopted some version of the “conduct test” established by the Second Circuit, but no version of this test has been applied consistently or without implicating serious foreign policy concerns. For the first time since the enactment of the securities laws, the Supreme Court has granted certiorari to address this issue. This article addresses the infirmities contained in current versions of the conduct test and concludes that the conduct test should include a reliance requirement that cannot be satisfied through the application of the fraud-on-the-market theory.

Education History

Current Courses

Course Catalog View

Areeda 509

617-998-1403

Assistant: Teresa Cyr / 617-496-2392