Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Carson - DOJ's Objections to Defendants' Proposed Foreign Official Jury Instructions

Carson - DOJ's Objections to Defendants' Proposed Foreign Official Jury Instructions

Ratings: (0)|Views: 30 |Likes:
Published by Mike Koehler

More info:

Categories:Types, Business/Law
Published by: Mike Koehler on Jul 27, 2011
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/27/2011

pdf

text

original

 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728ANDRÉ BIROTTE JR.United States AttorneyDENNISE D. WILLETTAssistant United States AttorneyChief, Santa Ana Branch OfficeDOUGLAS F. McCORMICK (180415)Assistant United States Attorney411 West Fourth Street, Suite 8000Santa Ana, California 92701Telephone: (714) 338-3541Facsimile: (714) 338-3523E-mail: doug.mccormick@usdoj.govKATHLEEN McGOVERN, Acting ChiefCHARLES G. LA BELLA, Deputy ChiefJEFFREY A. GOLDBERG, Senior Trial AttorneyANDREW GENTIN, Trial AttorneyFraud SectionCriminal Division, U.S. Department of Justice1400 New York Avenue, N.W.Washington, DC 20005Telephone: (202) 353-3551Facsimile: (202) 514-0152E-mail: andrew.gentin@usdoj.govAttorneys for PlaintiffUnited States of AmericaUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIASOUTHERN DIVISIONUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,Plaintiff,v.STUART CARSON, et al.,Defendants.)))))))))))NO. SA CR 09-00077-JVSGOVERNMENT’S OBJECTIONS TODEFENDANTS’ PROPOSED FOREIGNCORRUPT PRACTICES ACT JURYINSTRUCTIONS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTSAND AUTHORITIES; EXHIBITSHearing: August 12, 2011, 1:30 p.m.Plaintiff United States of America, by and through itsattorneys of record, the United States Department of Justice,Criminal Division, Fraud Section, and the United States Attorneyfor the Central District of California (collectively, “the
Case 8:09-cr-00077-JVS Document 426 Filed 07/25/11 Page 1 of 30 Page ID #:8614
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728government”), hereby files its objections to the defendants’proposed Foreign Corrupt Practices Act jury instructions (DE #383& DE #384), which include a proposed charge regarding the term“instrumentality.” The government’s objections are based uponthe attached memorandum of points and authorities, the attachedexhibits, the files and records in this matter, as well as anyevidence or argument presented at any hearing on this matter.DATED:July 25, 2011Respectfully submitted,ANDRÉ BIROTTE JR.United States AttorneyDENNISE D. WILLETTAssistant United States AttorneyChief, Santa Ana Branch OfficeDOUGLAS F. McCORMICKAssistant United States AttorneyDeputy Chief, Santa Ana OfficeKATHLEEN McGOVERN, Acting ChiefCHARLES G. LA BELLA, Deputy ChiefJEFFREY A. GOLDBERG, Sr. Trial AttorneyANDREW GENTIN, Trial AttorneyFraud Section, Criminal DivisionUnited States Department of Justice
/s/ 
 DOUGLAS F. McCORMICKAssistant United States AttorneyAttorneys for PlaintiffUnited States of America2
Case 8:09-cr-00077-JVS Document 426 Filed 07/25/11 Page 2 of 30 Page ID #:8615
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
TABLE OF CONTENTSPAGE
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................iiiMEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES.............1I.INTRODUCTION.......................1II.BACKGROUND........................2III.ARGUMENT.........................3A.This Court Should Reject the Defendants’ ProposedInstrumentalityJury Instruction.........31.The Defendants Fail to Adequately ExplainWhy the Jury Will Be Unable to Apply thisCourts Multi-Factor Test...........32.The Defendants’ Proposal That the GovernmentBe Required to Prove Four SpecificInstrumentality “Elements” (And NumerousSub-Elements) Contradicts this Court’s PriorRuling and Is Overly Restrictive........53.The Defendants’ Inclusion of a “Part of theForeign Government Itself” Requirement IsUnnecessary and Likely to Cause Confusion...74.The Defendants“Mere SubsidiaryInstruction Should Be Rejected.........85.The Defendants Improperly Attempt to Carveout an Exception for Entities That “Operateon a Normal Commercial Basis in the RelevantMarket...................10B.Many Aspects of the Defendants’ Proposed ScienterInstructions Do Not Accurately Reflect the Law..111.Corruptly.................112.Willfully.................113.Knowledge.................12C.This Court Should Adopt the Government’s ProposedElements of an FCPA Offense, and Reject theDefendantsSubstantive Revisions.........141.The Governments Proposed Instruction....142.None of the Elements Should Be Merged....16i
Case 8:09-cr-00077-JVS Document 426 Filed 07/25/11 Page 3 of 30 Page ID #:8616

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->