The lawyer in a suspicious world The policies against the Money Laundering have displaced towards the financial

sector, 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 about the 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

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 Department 3 announced that Samsung, a Korean

manufacturer, agreed to pay $300 million in fine, the second largest criminal antitrust fine in U.S. history.

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,

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 criminal penalty 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 prices said 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 hightechnology 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 and consumers.

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

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 prices 4 . 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 abogados@rodriguezazuero.com www.rodriguezazuero.com
4

www.busrep.co.za

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.