Whether, in light of Global-Tech, the Second Circuit errs by holding, contrary to at least six other circuits, that willful blindness in a criminal case does not require proof that the defendant took 'deliberate actions' or made 'active efforts' to avoid learning the truth

QUESTION PRESENTED In Global-Tech Appliances, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 754, 769 (2011), the Court held that the doctrine of “willful blindness” embodies “two basic requirements: (1) the defendant must subjectively believe that there is a high probability that a fact exists and (2) the defendant must take deliberate actions to avoid learning of that fact.” The Court emphasized the need for evidence of “deliberate steps” or “active efforts” to avoid knowledge, id. at 768 n.8, 770, 771, holding that mere “deliberate indifference” to a known risk of wrongdoing is not enough. Id. at 766, 770. This case presents an important question that divides the courts of appeals concerning the application of Global—Tech’s willful-blindness standard in federal criminal cases: Whether, in light of Global-Tech, the Second Circuit errs by holding, contrary to at least six other circuits, that willful blindness in a criminal case does not require proof that the defendant took “deliberate actions” or made “active efforts” to avoid learning the truth. i