Law Commons^™

Extraterritorial Criminal Jurisdiction Under The Antitrust Laws, Herbert J. Hovenkamp

All Faculty Scholarship

The Ninth Circuit may soon consider whether challenges to antitrust activity that occurs abroad must invariably be addressed under the rule of reason, which will make criminal prosecution difficult or impossible.

When antitrust cases involve foreign conduct, the courts customarily appraise its substantive antitrust significance only after deciding whether the Sherman Act reaches the activity. Nevertheless, "jurisdictional" and "substantive" inquiries are not wholly independent. Both reflect two sound propositions: that Congress did not intend American antitrust law to rule the entire commercial world and that Congress knew that domestic economic circumstances often differ from those abroad where mechanical application of …

Sentencing Antitrust Offenders: Reconciling Economic Theory With Legal Theory, Kenneth G. Dau-Schmidt

Articles by Maurer Faculty

This Article evaluates two different economic models of criminal law as applied to the enforcement of antitrust laws. The author argues that economic models which propose antitrust punishment be limited to fines and then to fines that are levied against only business entities, are deficient because they account for only the general deterrent effect of punishment and include a value of criminal benefit for the offender, a value not shared by society. He presents, as an alternative, a model that accounts for benefits afforded by incarceration such as the signaling of what is a criminal offense, changes in the criminal's …

Intracorporate Plurality In Criminal Conspiracy Law, Sarah N. Welling

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

The concept of conspiracy currently plays a significant role in three areas of substantive law: antitrust, civil rights, and criminal law. Although the role of conspiracy in these substantive areas of law differs in many ways, all three require that the conspiracy consist of a plurality of actors. Determining what constitutes a plurality of actors when all the alleged conspirators are agents of a single corporation poses a continuing problem.

This problem raises two distinct questions. The first is whether, when one agent acts alone within the scope of corporate business, the agent and the corporation constitute a plurality. The …