Conspiracy

From Wikinfo

Jump to: navigation, search


As a legal term, a conspiracy is an agreement of two or more people to commit a crime, or to accomplish a legal end through illegal actions. American criminal law often requires one of the conspirators to take an overt step to accomplish the illegal act before the law will consider that a crime has been committed. The legal elements necessary to establish a civil conspiracy are substantially the same as for establishing a criminal conspiracy. One exception is that in a civil conspiracy, an overt act to accomplish the wrongful goal may not be required.

In common, non-legal usage, "conspiring” is the act of working in secret to obtain some goal, usually understood with negative connotations. Etymologically, the term comes from Latin con- "with, together", and spirare "to breathe".

Contents

Conspiracy in law

When used as a Legal term, conspiracy has historically been defined in America as an agreement of two or more people to commit a crime, or to accomplish a legal end through illegal actions.

For example, planning to rob a bank (an illegal act) in order to raise money for charity (a legal end) remains a criminal conspiracy because the parties agreed to use illegal means to accomplish the end goal. The commonly used phrase: "The ends don't justify the means" reflects the same legal reasoning. Society demands its members to accomplish honorable goals by honorable means.

Historically, the death of Julius Caesar is condemned as a conspiracy because he was attacked and stabbed to death by a group of Roman senators who agreed to murder him. It is no defense to a conspiracy charge that the group called themselves the "Liberators" (Liberatores) and justified their action on the grounds that they committed tyrannicide, not murder, thereby preserving the Republic of Rome from Caesar's alleged monarchical ambitions. Under the law of conspiracy, the ends (preserving the Republic) did not justify the means (agreeing to assassinate Caesar).

A conspiracy does not need to have been planned in secret in order to meet the definition of the crime. Of course, there is a high premium on conspirators making their plans in secret, otherwise their illegal agreement could be prohibited by court injunction or the members of the conspiracy could be sued for damages suffered by those injured by their illegal agreement. Finally, if the planning for the illegal agreement is uncovered, the conspirators could be prosecuted.

One legal dictionary, law.Com, provides this useful example on the application of conspiracy law to an everyday sales transaction tainted by corruption. It shows how the law can handle both the criminal and the civil need for justice.

[A] scheme by a group of salesmen to sell used automobiles as new, could be prosecuted as a crime of fraud and conspiracy, and also allow a purchaser of an auto to sue for damages [in civil court] for the fraud and conspiracy.

Finally, and on a more technical legal matter, conspiracy law usually does not require proof of the specific intent by the defendants to injure any specic person in order to establish an illegal agreement. Instead, usually the law only requires the conspirators have the agreed to engage in a certain illegal act. This is sometimes described as a "general intent" to violate the law.

In United States v. Shabani 513 U.S. 10 (1994) the United States Supreme Court ruled: U.S. Congress intended to adopt the common law definition of conspiracy, which does not make the doing of any act other than the act of conspiring a condition of liability" at least in so far as to establish a violation of a narcotics conspiracy under 21 U.S.C. � 846. Therefore, the Government need not prove the commission of any overt acts in furtherance of those narcotics conspiracies prohibited by 21 U.S.C. � 846. The Shabani case illustrates that it is a matter of legislative perogative whether to require an overt step, or not to require an overt step in any conspiracy statute. The court compares the the need to prove an overt step to be criminally liable under the conspiracy provision of the Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, while there is no such requirement under 21 U.S.C. � 846.

The Supreme Court pointed out that common law did not require proof of an overt step, and the need to prove it for a federal conspiracy conviction requires Congress to specifically require proof of an overt step to accomplish the conspiracy. It is a legislative choice on a statute by statute basis.

California criminal law is somewhat representative of other juridictions. A punishable conspiracy exists when at least two people form an agreement to commit a crime, and at least one of them does some act in furtherance to committing the crime. Each person is punishable in the same manner and to the same extent as is provided for the punishment of the crime itself. [1]

One example of this is The Han Twins Murder Conspiracy case, where one twin sister attempted to hire two youths to have her twin sister killed.

One important feature of a conspiracy charge is that it relieves prosecutors of the need to prove the particular roles of conspirators. If two persons plot to kill another (and this can be proven), and the victim is indeed killed as a result of the actions of either conspirator, it is not necessary to prove with specificity which of the conspirators actually pulled the trigger. (Otherwise, both conspirators could conceivably handle the gun--leaving two sets of fingerprints--and then demand acquittals for both, based on the fact that the prosecutor would be unable to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, which of the two conspirators was the triggerman). In order to achieve a conviction on charges of conspiracy, is sufficient to prove that a) the conspirators did indeed conspire to commit the crime, and b) the crime was committed by an individual involved in the conspiracy. Proof of which individual it was is usually not necessary.

It is also an option for prosecutors, when bringing conspiracy charges, to decline to indict all members of the conspiracy (though their existence may be mentioned in an indictment). Such unindicted co-conspirators are commonly found when the identities or whereabouts of members of a conspiracy are unknown; or when the prosecution is only concerned with a particular individual among the conspirators. This is common when the target of the indictment is an elected official or an organized crime leader; and the co-conspirators are persons of little or no public importance. More famously, President Richard Nixon was named as an unindicted co-conspirator by the Watergate special prosecutor, in an event leading up to his eventual resignation.

The conspiracy to assassinate Julius Caesar

A number of high ranking Romans conspired to, and did, assassinate Julius Caesar on March 15, 44 B.C. The following passage is part of an eyewitness account of this conspiracy written by Nicolaus of Damascus, a few years after the assassination:

The conspirators never met openly, but they assembled a few at a time in each others' homes. There were many discussions and proposals, as might be expected, while they investigated how and where to execute their design. Some suggested that they should make the attempt as he was going along the Sacred Way, which was one of his favorite walks. Another idea was for it to be done at the elections during which he had to cross a bridge to appoint the magistrates in the Campus Martius; they should draw lots for some to push him from the bridge and for others to run up and kill him. A third plan was to wait for a coming gladiatorial show. The advantage of that would be that, because of the show, no suspicion would be aroused if arms were seen prepared for the attempt. But the majority opinion favored killing him while he sat in the Senate, where he would be by himself since non-Senators would not be admitted, and where the many conspirators could hide their daggers beneath their togas. This plan won the day.
The Roman Senate traditionally met in the Curia Hostilia, which had been recently repaired from the fires that destroyed it years before, but the Senate had abandoned it for the new house under construction. Thus Caesar summoned the Senate to meet in the Theatrum Pompeium on the Ides of March (March 15) 44 BC. As the Senate convened, Caesar was attacked and stabbed to death by a group of senators who called themselves the Liberators (Liberatores); the Liberators justified their action on the grounds that they committed tyrannicide, not murder, and were preserving the Republic from Caesar's alleged monarchical ambitions. Among the assassins were Gaius Trebonius, Decimus Junius Brutus, Marcus Junius Brutus, and Gaius Cassius Longinus.

Civil conspiracy in modern business litigation

Business litigation involves another important branch of conspiracy law. A substantial number of conspiracy cases that go to trial involve a civil conspiracy lawsuit against two or more corporations. Often joined in the lawsuit as defendants are officers of other defendants and out side accountants, attorneys, and other similar fiduciaries.

Civil conspiracy law often takes the form of antitrust lawsuits usually litigated in federal court where the plaintiff filing the lawsuit seeks treble damages for its losses. A common type of antitrust complaint alleges a civil conspiracy among competitors to fix prices at above market level. The federal Sherman Antitrust Act prohibits such "price fixing" and provides both civil and criminal penalties.

Those who directly overpay to the conspiratorial group may bring a lawsuit for an amount three times the actual damage done by the overcharges.

There are a variety of other situations where agreements among businesses and their agents to violate the law will force them into federal court to defend a complaint alleging a conspiracy to violate antitrust prohibitions against group boycotts and conspiracies to monopolize. For example a conspiracy to set a low predatory price with the intent to drive a small competitor out of business would likely be actionable in federal court.

Conspiracies in violation of the federal securities laws such as the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 form another area where intense civil and criminal lawsuits occur over the existence or non-existence of the alleged conspiracy. Both the Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Department of Justice bring legal actions for conspiracies to violate the securities laws. For example,a regional bank called PNC Financial Services Group Inc. through a subsidiary agreed, in June 2003, to pay $115 million in civil fines and restitution to settle the SEC's allegations of securities fraud. The subsidiary was accused of conspiracy to violate securities laws by transferring $762 million in troubled loans and investments to off-balance-sheet entities in 2001.

In that case, the Justice Department deferred prosecution of PNC, citing its cooperation in a related investigation.

A civil lawsuit pursuing an illegal conspiracy operates under the same basic legal concepts used in the criminal law: The law forbids an agreement to violate a law.

Often the modern civil law of conspiracy is described in "plain language" jury instructions. The standard California jury instruction for conspiracy is governed by Rule 855 of the California Rules of Court, The new California jury instructions are designated as the “official instructions for use in the state of California.” It is not mandatory for the California judges to use them; but it is strongly encouraged. Some of the "plain language" California civil instructions about conspiracy read as follows with fictional names placed in the blanks in the jury instruction form:

California "Plain Language" jury instructions

A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a wrongful act.
Such an agreement may be made orally or in writing or implied by the conduct of the parties.
Plaintiff Smith, Inc., claims that it was harmed by Defendant Jones Corp. for refusing to sell widgets to Plaintiff Smith, Inc. with intent to unreasonably injure competition, and that Defendant Brown & Associates is also liable for the harm because it was part of the conspiracy with Jones Corp. to unreasonably injure competition under the California antitrust laws.

The facts of each case can vary widely as to exact nature of the underlying scheme. In the above example, a common fact pattern could be that widgets are necessary equipment needed for Smith, Inc. to manufacture its product, and Brown & Associates is a competitor of Smith,Inc.

How the conspirators entice one another into the scheme also varies with each case. One fact pattern for the above example would be Brown & Associates promises Jones, Corp. (the supplier of widgets) to give Jones part of the additional profits that Brown hopes to make make if Smith, Inc goes out of business because it lacks the necessary widgets.

As developed over the centuries,the law of conspiracy is a widely used legal tool, and recognized for its adaptable application to complex criminal schemes.

Other uses

Outside the realm of law, it is common for person(s) with some grievance to promote conspiracy theories—claims that some other group is involved in a conspiracy to promote some nefarious (and usually self-serving) end. Often times, the alleged conspirators are not identified with any specificity, and may include ethnic groups (e.g., Jews), or socioeconomic classes (e.g., the rich). Many such theories are advanced with scant evidence (or none at all); in many cases what evidence is advanced is circumstantial in nature. In extreme cases, evidence contrary to the conspiracy theory is assumed to have been planted by the conspirators.

For instances of specific conspiracy theories, see:

See also

External links

This disambiguation page lists articles associated with the same title. If an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article.


References

Retrieved from "http://www.wikinfo.org/index.php/Conspiracy"