The
Sherman Anti-Trust Act was introduced on July 2, 1890
and it states that individuals and corporations restricting
and conspiring to restrict trade among states or with
foreign nations are able to be subject to criminal
sanctions. The majority of Title 15 U.S.C. §
1 violations tend to happen from price fixing schemes
or unfair competition. Other white collar violations
may also come into play. Board
members and/or corporate executives that participate
in antitrust schemes under the theory that the corporation
shields them from prosecution, or depend on the
reliance that the corporation is a foreign entity,
thereby providing some form of protection, should
be mindful of 15 U.S.C. § 8, which states in
relevant part that corporations and associations
existing under or authorized by the laws of either
the United States, the laws of any of the Territories,
the laws of any State, or the laws of any foreign
country, are subject to the provisions of 15 U.S.C.
§ 1 through 37.
To
be convicted of antitrust violations, an Assistant
United States Attorney (AUSA) must present evidence
that when submitted to a jury or judge would prove
beyond a reasonable doubt:
1.
Such said defendant came into a contract or conspired
with others;
2. tried to restrict trade, restrain competition
or fix prices; and
3. that this action considerably affected interstate
or foreign commerce.
How
have the courts defined anti-trust violations?
A. The anti-trust laws offer no objection to mere
size of a corporation, or to continued exertion
of its lawful power, the corporation is entitled
to maintain its size and power that legitimately
goes with it, provided no law has been transgressed
in obtaining it. Nor is it intended to prevent normal
expansion of business. United States v. New York
Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co., 67 F. Supp.
626 (E.D. Ill. 1946).
B. Growth of a corporation into a new field through
a secondary party would not constitute an antitrust
violation, since the intention of the antitrust
act is to advance economic growth and not deteriorate
growth. United States v. Inter-Island Steam Nav.
Co., 87 F. Supp. 1010 (D.C. Hawaii 1950).
C. The purpose of antitrust law is to secure equality
of opportunity and to dissallow abnormal contracts
and combinations, which tend to directly suppress
competition. United States v. Gold, 115 F.2d 236
(2d Cir. 1940).
Possible
Penalties:
A person may be found guilty of a felony, put in
prison up to 3 years and fined up to $350,000.00.
A corporation may also be fined up to $10,000,000.00.
Often
times, the State’s Assistant U.S. Attorney
(AUSA) will secure a Federal Indictment from a Federal
Grand Jury and charge a defendant not only with
antitrust-criminal violations, but also with mail
fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud, securities fraud,
money laundering, or RICO crimes, and conspiracy
to commit the aforementioned crimes. One should
also be aware that since 1987 parole has been abolished
in the Federal System. Expungement (removal of conviction
from public records) is also not available.
|
Previous