 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
1
.
US RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO STRIKE
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
UNITED STATES DEFENDANT MITSUBISHI COURT CONSPIRACY MOTION GRAPHITE ELECTRODES DISTRICT COURT PRICES SUPPORT UCAR STRIKE ABETTING CARTEL SALES CHARGED CONSPIRACY CUSTOMERS FIXED PRICES INDICTMENT ALLEGES GOVERNMENT CONSPIRATORS EASTERN DISTRICT PENNSYLVANIA FACILITATING SUBPARAGRAPHS SELLING GRAPHITE ELECTRODES MEMORANDUM ALLEGATIONS CONCEALMENT |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) Criminal No. 00-033
)
v. ) Judge Marvin Katz
)
MITSUBISHI CORPORATION, ) Violations: 15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (a)
)
Defendant. ) Filed: 05/23/00
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION
TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STRIKE
ROBERT E. CONNOLLY
JOSEPH MUOIO
WENDY BOSTWICK NORMAN
ROGER L. CURRIER
Attorneys, Philadelphia Office
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
The Curtis Center, Suite 650W
170 S. Independence Mall West
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Tel. No.: (215) 597-7401
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. The Indictment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
II. Factual Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
A. Description of the Defendant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
B. The Conspiracy and Mitsubishi's Role . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SNIPPETS:
|
|
2
.
US RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO EXCLUDE US EXHIBITS 2 AND 3
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
CONSPIRACY GOVERNMENT EXHIBITS DEFENDANT MITSUBISHI CRIME MANUFACTURERS EXCLUDE AIDING ABETTING MEETINGS JAPANESE UNITED STATES COUNSEL EASTERN DISTRICT MOTION CONTENTION PREDATES FORMATION COMMISSION INTENT PLAN ENCOURAGING CIR BARNETT COURT ADVICE PERPETRATION LAW MOREOVER |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) Criminal No. 00-033
)
v. ) Judge Marvin Katz
)
MITSUBISHI CORPORATION ) Violations: 15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. §2(a)
)
Defendant. ) Filed 01-31-01
GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE GOVERNMENT EXHIBITS 2 AND 3
Defendant has moved for the exclusion of Government Exhibits 2 and 3 based on the
contention it has made repeatedly in several memoranda that any evidence predating the inception
of the conspiracy it is charged with aiding and abetting is irrelevant. These documents relate to
Mitsubishi meetings with Japanese and European manufactures prior to the date the conspiracy
was formed. As set forth in previous Government memoranda, Defendant is charged with aiding
and abetting in part due to its actions encouraging and facilitating the formation of the
Such evidence necessarily predates the charged conspiracy, and in itself is sufficient to establish
Defendant's guilt. See United States v. Galiffa, 734 F.2d 306, 309 (7 Cir. 1984)
th .
There is no requirement that the Defendant's acts occur at any particular time in relation
to the commission of the substantive crime. United States v. Barnett, 667 F.2d 835, 841 (9 Cir.
th
1982). As the Barnett Court stated:
The fact that the aider and abettor's counsel and encouragement is not acted upon
for long periods of time does not break the actual connection between the
commission of the crime and the advice to commit it. "It is only necessary that the
appellant counseled and advised the commission of the crime, and that the counsel
and advice influenced the perpetration of the crime. We know of no rule of law
which fixes a time limit within which the crime must be perpetrated." Workman v.
State, 216 Ind. 68, 21 N.E.2d 712, 714 (1939).
SNIPPETS:
|
|
3
.
US PROPOSED VOIR DIRE QUESTIONS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
CRIME EVIDENCE CHARGES GOVERNMENT LAW UNITED STATES COURT AIDING ABETTING MITSUBISHI EMPLOYEES REASON EASTERN DISTRICT CONSPIRACY PRICE RESPONSIBILITY CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE VOIR DIRE GRAPHITE ELECTRODE JUROR PERSONAL OPINIONS FOREIGN COMPANIES DIRECT EVIDENCE WITNESSES MEMBER BUSINESS GRAPHITE ELECTRODE MANUFACTURERS FIXING COMMITTING |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) Criminal No. 00-033
)
v. ) Judge Marvin Katz
)
MITSUBISHI CORPORATION, ) Violations: 15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (a)
)
Defendant. ) Filed:
PROPOSED VOIR DIRE OF THE UNITED STATES
ROBERT E. CONNOLLY
JOSEPH MUOIO
WENDY BOSTWICK NORMAN
ROGER L. CURRIER
Attorneys, Philadelphia Office
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
The Curtis Center, Suite 650W
170 S. Independence Mall West
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Tel. No.: (215) 597-7401
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) Criminal No. 00-033
)
v. ) Judge Marvin Katz
)
MITSUBISHI CORPORATION, ) Violations: 15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2
)
Defendant. ) Filed: 01/16/01
UNITED STATES' PROPOSED VOIR DIRE QUESTIONS
SNIPPETS:
|
|
4
.
US PROPOSED REPLACEMENT JURY INSTRUCTION
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
CONSPIRACY EASTERN DISTRICT CIR INSTRUCTION DEFENDANT PENNSYLVANIA JURY INSTRUCTION EXISTENCE STATES DISTRICT COURT REPLACEMENT JURY INSTRUCTION STIPULATION PROPOSED REPLACEMENT STATUTE LIMITATIONS SUPP VENUE REQUEST AIDING ABETTING INDICTMENT PORTION SALES COATESVILLE ACTS OMISSIONS OCCURRED PRIOR HELPING SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE KISSEL |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) Criminal No. 00-033
)
v. ) Judge Marvin Katz
)
MITSUBISHI CORPORATION, ) Violations: 15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (a)
)
Defendant. ) Filed: 02-07-01
UNITED STATES PROPOSED
REPLACEMENT JURY INSTRUCTION
In view of the Stipulation entered into between the United States and the defendant, the
United States hereby files it proposed replacement instruction No. 6 on the Statute of Limitations
and Venue, which replaces the Government's original Request No. 6.
_________________________________
ROBERT E. CONNOLLY
JOSEPH MUOIO
WENDY BOSTWICK NORMAN
ROGER L. CURRIER
Attorneys, Philadelphia Office
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
The Curtis Center, Suite 650W
170 S. Independence Mall West
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Tel. No.: (215) 597-7401
GOVERNMENT'S REQUEST NO. 6
(Replacement)
Statute of Limitations and Venue
In addition to the other elements of aiding and abetting, before you can find the defendant
guilty, you must find beyond a reasonable doubt that the conspiracy charged in the indictment was
in existence and that some portion of it was carried out in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
SNIPPETS:
|
|
5
.
US PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
EVIDENCE REQUEST DEFENDANT JURY INSTRUCTIONS OFFENSE CONSPIRACY AIDING ABETTING SHERMAN ACT CIR AGREEMENT TESTIMONY EASTERN DISTRICT PRICES WITNESSES INDICTMENT STATES DISTRICT COURT PURSUANT PENNSYLVANIA COMMERCE CRIMINAL ANTITRUST PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS PLEA AGREEMENTS GOVERNMENT INTERSTATE FEDERAL JURY PRACTICE MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING UNLAWFUL |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) Criminal No. 00-033
)
v. ) Judge Marvin Katz
)
MITSUBISHI CORPORATION, ) Violations: 15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (a)
)
Defendant. ) Filed: 01/17/01
UNITED STATES PROPOSED JURY INSTRUCTIONS
The United States, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P.30, requests this Court give the attached
instructions in addition to the standard instructions to the jury in this case. The United States
further requests, in accordance with Rule 30, that the Court inform counsel of its proposed
actions on the requested instructions prior to counsels' arguments to the jury. The United States
reserves the right to supplement, modify, or withdraw these requested instructions depending
upon the evidence presented, the arguments of counsel, and any requests for instructions which
the defendant files.
_________________________________
ROBERT E. CONNOLLY
JOSEPH MUOIO
WENDY BOSTWICK NORMAN
ROGER L. CURRIER
Attorneys, Philadelphia Office
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
The Curtis Center, Suite 650W
170 S. Independence Mall West
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Tel. No.: (215) 597-7401
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GOVERNMENT'S REQUEST NO. 1
The Offense Charged . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SNIPPETS:
|
|
6
.
TRIAL MEMORANDUM FOR THE US
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
CIR MITSUBISHI COURT EVIDENCE CONSPIRACY ACT UCAR PRICES DEFENDANT JAPANESE AMERICA GRAPHITE ELECTRODES DISTRICT GOVERNMENT CRIME AUTHENTICATION PRODUCERS BUSINESS RECORDS INVESTMENT SHERMAN ACT SECONDEES PRELIMINARY STATEMENT INDICTMENT AGREEMENT CONSPIRATORS TESTIMONY FUKUSHIMA SUBSIDIARIES WITNESSES |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) Criminal No. 00-033
)
v. ) Judge Marvin Katz
)
MITSUBISHI CORPORATION, ) Violations: 15 U.S.C. § 1 & 18 U.S.C. § 2 (a)
)
Defendant. ) Filed: 12-11-00
TRIAL MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES
ROBERT E. CONNOLLY
JOSEPH MUOIO
WENDY BOSTWICK NORMAN
ROGER L. CURRIER
Attorneys, Philadelphia Office
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
The Curtis Center, Suite 650W
170 S. Independence Mall West
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Tel. No.: (215) 597-7401
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . .
I. Preliminary Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
II. Anticipated Length of Trial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
III. The Defendant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
IV. The Indictment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
V. Summary of the Evidence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
SNIPPETS:
|
|
7
.
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS REQUESTS TO CHARGE
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
GOVERNMENT UNITED STATES OBJECTION AIDING ABETTING COURT CIR CHARGE DEFENDANT INSTRUCTIONS CONSPIRACY ACT REPLACEMENT REQUEST DISTRICT WILLFULNESS JURY EMPLOYMENT INTERPRETER RESPONSE MITSUBISHI STANDARD OFFENSE EASTERN DISTRICT PENNSYLVANIA KNOWING THIRD CIRCUIT GARTH COUNSELING LAW |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) Criminal No. 00-033
)
v. ) Judge Marvin Katz
)
MITSUBISHI CORPORATION, ) Violations: 15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2(a)
)
Defendant. ) Filed: 02-07-01
GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANT'S REQUESTS TO CHARGE
The Government, by and through its attorneys, respectfully submits the following in
response to Defendant Mitsubishi Corporation's Requests to Charge.
Defendant's Request No. 1 (General Requests):
Objection.
Without knowing the specific standard instruction, defendant's Request that such
instructions be given as to "trial perjury" is objected to.
Defendant's Request No. 2 (Aiding and Abetting a Conspiracy):
No objection.
Defendant's Request No. 3 (Conspiracy):
No objection to Paragraph 1.
The Government respectfully requests that the Court give the Government's
requested instructions on a Sherman Act conspiracy.
Defendant's Request No. 4 (Elements of Aiding and Abetting):
Objection.
That the defendant act "willfully" is not an element of an offense under
18 U.S.C. § 2(a). Compare 18 U.S.C. § 2(a) with 18 U.S.C. § 2(b).
SNIPPETS:
|
|
8
.
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION CONCERNING COLLUSION BY JAPANESE MANUFACTURERS IN THE 1980S
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
DEFENDANT DISTRICT DEFENDANTS MOTION GOVERNMENT STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT PENNSYLVANIA MEMORANDUM RESPONSE COLLUSION JAPANESE MANUFACTURERS INTENDS KRASS ROBERT KRASS MITSUBISHI AIDING ABETTING CONSPIRACY OPPOSE GOVERNMENT NOTES EVIDENCE RUMORS PRICE-FIXING CROSS-EXAMINATION REDIRECT CERTIFY COUNSEL |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) Criminal No. 00-033
)
v. ) Judge Marvin Katz
)
MITSUBISHI CORPORATION, ) Violations: 15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (a)
)
Defendant. ) Filed: 02-06-01
MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES IN RESPONSE
TO DEFENDANTS MOTION CONCERNING COLLUSION
BY JAPANESE MANUFACTURERS IN THE 1980'S
The United States intends to limit its questioning of Robert Krass to his knowledge
concerning Mitsubishi and its role in aiding and abetting the conspiracy. Accordingly, the
Government does not oppose the defendant's motion.
The Government notes, however, that it has been the defendant which has introduced
evidence of "rumors" of price-fixing in the 1980's. Should the defendant pursue this area on
cross-examination of Mr. Krass, the Government does intend to address his knowledge on this
subject on redirect.
Dated:
_________________________________
ROBERT E. CONNOLLY
JOSEPH MUOIO
WENDY BOSTWICK NORMAN
ROGER L. CURRIER
Attorneys, Philadelphia Office
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
The Curtis Center, Suite 650W
170 S. Independence Mall West
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Tel. No.: (215) 597-7401
SNIPPETS:
|
|
9
.
PROPOSED REPLACEMENT AND ADDTNL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
EMPLOYEES DEFENDANT ACT AGENTS CIR REQUEST AIDING ABETTING OFFENSE CONSPIRACY CRIME INSTRUCTIONS SCOPE COMMITTING SUBSTANTIVE OFFENSE APPARENT AUTHORITY REPLACEMENT GOVERNMENT REQUEST JURY VIOLATION LAW GUILTY ACTING PROPOSED REPLACEMENT AID ABET ANTITRUST CONSPIRACY CHARGE SHERMAN ACT |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) Criminal No. 00-033
)
v. ) Judge Marvin Katz
)
MITSUBISHI CORPORATION, ) Violations: 15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (a)
)
Defendant. ) Filed: 02-05-01
UNITED STATES PROPOSED REPLACEMENT
AND ADDITIONAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
The United States, pursuant to Fed.R.Crim. P.30, hereby files the following:
1. Government Request No. 3 (Replacement), Aiding and Abetting: Elements of the
Offense, which replaces the Government's original Request No. 3;
2. Government Request No. 5 (Replacement), Corporations Act Through Employees
and Agents, which replaces the Government's original request; and
3. Government Request No. 5(a), Corporate Knowledge, which is an additional
Request.
The United States requests this Court to give the attached instructions to the jury in
addition to those already filed by the United States and the Court's standard instructions.
_________________________________
ROBERT E. CONNOLLY
JOSEPH MUOIO
WENDY BOSTWICK NORMAN
ROGER L. CURRIER
Attorneys, Philadelphia Office
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
The Curtis Center, Suite 650W
170 S. Independence Mall West
Philadelphia, PA 19106
Tel. No.: (215) 597-7401
SNIPPETS:
|
|
10
.
OPPOSITION TO MOTION CONCERNING VISUAL MANIPULATION OF EXHIBITS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COURT GOVERNMENT MOTION DISTRICT VISUAL MANIPULATION DEFENDANT DISCLOSE ORDER DIRECTING UNITED STATES DISTRICT EASTERN DISTRICT PENNSYLVANIA OPPOSITION PREMATURE HIGHLIGHT JURY ENLARGEMENT RESPONSE DEFENDANT MITSUBISHI CORPORATION GOVERNMENT RESPECTFULLY REQUESTS ATTORNEY DISPLAY UNDERSTANDING MEANING ATTENTION PERMISSION ABILITY REASON EQUIPMENT JURORS |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) Criminal No. 00-033
)
v. ) Judge Marvin Katz
)
MITSUBISHI CORPORATION, ) Violations: 15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (a)
)
Defendant. ) Filed: 01-25-01
GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S
MOTION DIRECTING THE GOVERNMENT TO DISCLOSE IN
ADVANCE ANY INTENDED VISUAL MANIPULATION OF EXHIBITS
Defendant Mitsubishi Corporation has moved the Court for an Order directing the
Government to disclose at least 48 hours in advance any intended use of computer technology to
visually manipulate exhibits. The Government respectfully requests that this motion be denied as
premature.
The Government and the defendant have both agreed to have available a computer
software program which will allow an attorney to display an exhibit in its original form and
highlight aspects of that exhibit. This is intended to facilitate the jury's understanding of the
exhibit's content and meaning. It merely focuses a jury's attention to the most meaningful
sections of an exhibit. It is neither intended to, nor capable of, manipulating the integrity of
exhibit.
Among its functions, the program allows an attorney to highlight a document; zoom into a
document; mark a section with an arrow; draw text or freehand lines; block out text; and show
documents side by side for comparison or a combination of these functions. It is the
Government's intention to limit our usage of Sanction to highlighting, zooming, and side by side
comparison of exhibits.
Defendant's motion is premature because no document can be displayed to the jury in any
SNIPPETS:
|
|
11
.
JOINT MOTION OF THE PARTIES FOR AN INSTRUCTION CONCERNING INTERPRETERS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
WITNESS PARTIES UNITED STATES INSTRUCTION DEFENDANT JURY QUALIFIED INTERPRETERS OBJECTION CHECKERS DISTRICT COURT REQUEST GOVERNMENT TRANSLATIONS PROPOSED INTERPRETATIONS NIPPON PAPER TESTIMONY JAPANESE DISAGREE NIPPON PAPER INDUS SUPP MASS WITNESSES TESTIFY COUNSEL ENGLISH RETAINED QUALIFIED INTERPRETERS SPECIAL WEIGHT OPINION EVIDENCE |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) Criminal No. 00-033
)
v. ) Judge Marvin Katz
)
MITSUBISHI CORPORATION, ) Violations: 15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (a)
)
Defendant. ) Filed: 01/16/01
JOINT MOTION OF THE PARTIES FOR AN
INSTRUCTION CONCERNING INTERPRETERS
The United States of America and the defendant, Mitsubishi Corporation, by and through
their attorneys, respectfully request this Court to give the jury an instruction about the role of
witness interpreter and their own qualified interpreters ("checkers") at the outset of the trial.
form of the instruction requested by the parties is attached. The government and the defendant
have each arranged for their own qualified interpreters ("checkers") to assist in checking the
accuracy of the witness interpreter's translations. The parties contemplate that either party may
object to an interpretation given by the witness interpreter. In the event of such an objection,
parties believe that the witness interpreter should be permitted to confer with the checkers at the
time of the objection to determine whether they can agree upon the correct interpretation. If the
witness interpreter and the checkers cannot agree upon a correct interpretation, then each of the
proposed interpretations (the witness interpreter's and the checkers') should be presented to the
jury, and the proper interpretation should be an issue of fact for the jury. In that event, the
witness interpreter's interpretation should be afforded no special status. This procedure was
followed in the Nippon Paper antitrust case. See United States v. Nippon Paper Indus. Co., 62 F.
Supp. 2d 173, 182-83. (D. Mass. 1999).
SNIPPETS:
|
|
12
.
INDICTMENT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
CONSPIRACY UNITED STATES GRAPHITE ELECTRODES INDICTMENT MITSUBISHI CORPORATION UCAR CHARGES PRICE EASTERN DISTRICT DEFENDANT TOKAI SHOWA DENKO CO-CONSPIRATORS SOLD STEEL CARBON TRADE COMMERCE ACT TRANSACTION ELECTRIC ARC FURNACES PENNSYLVANIA NIPPON COMPETITORS INTERSTATE FOREIGN TRADE CONTINUATION JAPAN BUSINESS |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )
) Criminal No.: 00-033
v. )
) Filed: January 19, 2000
)
) Violations: 15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (a)
MITSUBISHI CORPORATION, )
) Judge: Marvin Katz
Defendant. )
INDICTMENT
The Grand Jury charges:
I
OFFENSE CHARGED
1. Mitsubishi Corporation is hereby indicted and made a defendant on the
charge stated below.
2. Beginning at least as early as March 1992 and continuing until at least
June 1997, the exact dates being unknown to the Grand Jury, UCAR International
Inc. and its wholly-owned subsidiary UCAR Carbon Company (collectively UCAR);
SGL Carbon Aktiengesellschaft (SGL); Tokai Carbon Co., Ltd. (Tokai); Showa
Denko KK (Showa Denko); SEC Corporation (SEC); Nippon Carbon Co., Ltd.
(Nippon); and other co-conspirators entered into and participated in a combination
and conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition by secretly fixing the price
and allocating the volume of graphite electrodes sold in the United States and
elsewhere. The combination and conspiracy unreasonably restrained interstate and
foreign trade and commerce in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C.
§ 1).
SNIPPETS:
|
|
13
.
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
SENTENCING GRAPHITE ELECTRODES UNITED STATES CONSPIRACY DEFENDANT GUIDELINES GAIN OFFENSE COURT CARTEL RECOMMENDATION UCAR PRICE GOVERNMENT LOSS IMPOSE EVIDENCE GUIDELINES RANGE AGREED-UPON CULPABILITY SCORE MEMORANDUM PARTIES DISTRICT CALCULATING PRICE-FIXING CONSPIRACY MANUFACTURERS AGREEMENT SALES EMPLOYEES |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) Criminal No. 00-033
)
v. ) Judge Marvin Katz
)
MITSUBISHI CORPORATION, ) Violations: 15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (a)
)
Defendant. ) Filed: 04/19/01
SENTENCING MEMORANDUM OF THE UNITED STATES
The United States files this Sentencing Memorandum in support of its joint
recommendation with the defendant, Mitsubishi Corporation, that the Court sentence the
defendant to pay a fine of $134 million, payable within 15 days of sentencing. The parties also
request that sentence be imposed on May 10, 2001, based on the current record without need of
an evidentiary sentencing hearing or a presentence report.
I
INTRODUCTION
Mitsubishi was convicted after a two week jury trial on a one count Indictment for aiding
and abetting a conspiracy among graphite electrode manufacturers to fix the price of graphite
electrodes from at least as early as March 1992 and continuing at least until June 1997. Because
the case was tried before Your Honor, this memorandum will not recap the evidence presented at
trial. This memorandum will, however, highlight various issues raised in calculating the relevant
Sentencing Guidelines range, as well as agreements the Government and Mitsubishi Corporation
have reached to resolve these issues. These agreements were reached as a result of negotiations
concerning not only novel questions of how to apply the Sentencing Guidelines to a defendant
who aided and abetted a price-fixing conspiracy, but also disputed issues of fact regarding the
gain to the defendant and others or the loss to the victims resulting from the crime.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
14
.
US REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO INTRODUCTION OF 1990 DOCUMENTS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
MITSUBISHI GOVERNMENT FUKUSHIMA PLAN EVIDENCE EXCLUDE DISTRICT COURT TRANSLATIONS ADMISSIBILITY SUBMISSION OPPOSITION ICHIRO FUKUSHIMA CONSPIRACY PENNSYLVANIA INTENDS BUSINESS UCAR INDUSTRY-WIDE ELECTRODE MITSUBISHI EMPLOYEES MOREOVER PREDATE MOTION EXHIBITS CONTENTION REFUTE RELEVANT EVIDENCE PRECLUDING |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) Criminal No. 00-033
)
v. ) Judge Marvin Katz
)
MITSUBISHI CORPORATION, ) Violations: 15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (a)
)
Defendant. ) Filed: 02-01-01
GOVERNMENT'S REPLY TO SUBMISSION OF DEFENDANT
IN OPPOSITION TO INTRODUCTION OF 1990 DOCUMENTS
THROUGH ICHIRO FUKUSHIMA
Pursuant to the Court's Order of February 1, 2001, the Government respectfully submits
this reply to the Submission of Defendant Mitsubishi Corporation in Opposition to Introduction of
1990 Documents through Ichiro Fukushima.
As it has advised this Court and the Defendant, the Government plans to introduce certain
documents of defendant Mitsubishi created in 1990 into evidence as soon as possible. The
Government advised Defendant this morning that it intends to introduce these documents through
Ichiro Fukushima, former General Manager of Mitsubishi's Business Development Group.
The documents at issue are key Government evidence establishing that when Mitsubishi
decided to acquire UCAR, it did so with the intention and plan to encourage and facilitate the
industry-wide collusion that ultimately occurred. These documents also show that, even in 1990,
Mitsubishi had already begun to implement its plan through discussions with graphite electrode
manufacturers. Further, while defendant in both its opening and throughout this trial has
attempted to create the false impression that Mr. Fukushima and Mr. Kimura were the only
Mitsubishi employees who participated in or knew of the conspiracy, these documents clearly
establish that numerous individuals throughout Mitsubishi knew about Mitsubishi's plan to
SNIPPETS:
|
|
15
.
US MEMO REGARDING THE USE OF JUROR QUESTIONNAIRE
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
QUESTIONNAIRE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT JAPANESE BIAS DISTRICT DEFENDANT SURVEY MITSUBISHI CORPORATION ANTI-JAPANESE BIAS POTENTIAL JURORS COURT MEMORANDUM JAPANESE COMPANY AMERICAN DECISION QUEST EASTERN DISTRICT PENNSYLVANIA OPPOSE WRITTEN QUESTIONNAIRE VOIR DIRE PROCESS PARTIES DEFENSE PREJUDGE GUILT RESPONDENT ATTITUDES COSTS GOVERNMENT NOTES |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) Criminal No. 00-033
)
v. ) Judge Marvin Katz
)
MITSUBISHI CORPORATION, ) Violations: 15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2
)
Defendant. ) Filed: 01/05/01
GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM REGARDING
THE USE OF JUROR QUESTIONNAIRE
The United States does not oppose the defendant's request that prospective jurors be
asked to complete a written questionnaire as part of the jury selection process. The Government
and Mitsubishi Corporation have agreed on a proposed questionnaire for the Court's
consideration.
It is the preference of the Government that the questionnaire be completed by prospective
jurors on the morning of January 29, 2001. With the Courts' permission, jury selection would
begin the next morning to allow the parties the opportunity to review the completed
questionnaires.
I. Preliminary Statement
While the Government does not oppose the use of a questionnaire, it does not accept the
statement of the defense that there is a high degree of anti-Japanese prejudice among the juror
pool in this District. Defendant provides no data to make the leap from general attitudes about
economic competition between the United States and Japanese or foreign companies and the
tendency to prejudge guilt against a Japanese corporation. In fact, the survey did not ask any
questions of the respondents as to whether they had an anti-Japanese bias that would cause them
to pre-judge guilt in a criminal case.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
16
.
NOTICE OF THE US INTENTION TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
CONSPIRACY EVIDENCE AIDING ABETTING GRAPHITE ELECTRODE UCAR GOVERNMENT DISTRICT INTENTION MOTION CARTEL ADMISSIBILITY ELECTRODE MANUFACTURERS DEFENDANT PARTICIPATION PRICES MEMORANDUM UNITED STATES STATES DISTRICT COURT EXCLUDE ALLEGED CONSPIRACY PLAN ACQUISITION INDUSTRY EXHIBITS KNOWING FORMATION ANALYZING FACILITATE |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) Criminal No. 00-033
)
v. ) Judge Marvin Katz
)
MITSUBISHI CORPORATION, ) Violations: 15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (a)
)
Defendant. ) Filed: 1-31-01
NOTICE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S
INTENTION TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE
In response to Defendant's motion to exclude certain Mitsubishi documents that were
created in 1990, the Court issued an Order on January 24, 2001, requesting, as a matter of the
1
order of proof, that: (1) proof of events before the alleged conspiracy period be deferred until
events during the alleged conspiracy period are established; and (2) evidence of Defendant's role
in aiding and abetting the alleged conspiracy be presented as early in the trial as possible.
the Government has now established the underlying conspiracy, and the 1990 documents provide
significant evidence of Defendant's plan to establish a cartel and its role in aiding and abetting
establishment of that cartel, the Government now intends to establish the admissibility of the 1990
documents through the testimony of trial witnesses.
The Government has established the existence of a price-fixing conspiracy among graphite
electrode manufacturers through its first witness, HiroshiYamazaki. In fact, Defendant conceded
the existence of the conspiracy in its opening remarks, and informed the Jury that its defense
would be based on Mitsubishi's lack of participation in, or knowledge of, the conspiracy. The
Defendant's motion concerned Government Exhibits GX-101 through 108.
1
SNIPPETS:
|
|
17
.
RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR SPECIFIC ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
MOTION BRADY INTERVIEWS MITSUBISHI WITNESSES DISTRICT DEFENDANT BURKETT STATES DISTRICT COURT ANTICIPATES ATTORNEY KRASS EVIDENCE NAKAYAMA DISCLOSURE BAILINE PRICING UNITED STATES DISTRICT EASTERN DISTRICT PENNSYLVANIA RESPONSE OPPOSITION JENCKS EVIDENCE PRODUCTION BRADY OBLIGATION PARALEGAL NOTES YAMAMOTO IMPEACHMENT KEY WITNESSES |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) Criminal No. 00-033
)
v. ) Judge Marvin Katz
)
MITSUBISHI CORPORATION, ) Violations: 15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2
)
Defendant. ) Filed: 01-25-01
GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT'S
MOTION FOR SPECIFIC ADDITIONAL BRADY AND JENCKS EVIDENCE
Defendant has renewed its Motion to the Court for the production of the Government's
notes of all interviews of anticipated Government witnesses, including those notes taken by the
Government attorneys during pretrial preparation of its witnesses. The Government has
1
continued to comply with its Brady obligation and will have attorney notes in the courtroom as
previously ordered by the Court. The Government requests that the renewed motion for attorney
notes be denied.
While stating that its motion is not directed to the same Brady and Giglio issues covered
by Mitsubishi's previous motion to compel, it clearly is. Defendant continues to assert that the
Government cannot be relied upon to produce Brady material and that, therefore, Brady requires
the production of all attorney interview notes, even those taken during witness trial preparation
interviews. This motion raises no new issues.
Insofar as Mitsubishi seeks additional paralegal notes of interviews of anticipated
1
witnesses, the Government can provide no more notes--all such paralegal notes were produced on
January 16, 2001.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
18
.
US RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR ATTORNEY NOTES
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
BRADY ATTORNEY NOTES WITNESS DEFENDANT DEFENSE MATERIALS UNITED STATES COURT DISCLOSURE INTERVIEWS DISTRICT PRODUCTION REQUEST RESPONSE LAW PROFFERS MOTION DISCOVERY PENNSYLVANIA OPPOSITION INTENDS EXCULPATORY PARALEGAL NOTES DEFENSE COUNSEL RECOLLECTION MITSUBISHI THIRD CIRCUIT EVIDENCE SUDIKOFF |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) Criminal No. 00-033
)
v. ) Judge Marvin Katz
)
MITSUBISHI CORPORATION, ) Violations: 15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (a)
)
Defendant. ) Filed:
ORDER
AND NOW, this day of January 2001, upon consideration of Defendant's
Request for Attorney Notes and the Government's Response in Opposition thereto, it is
ORDERED that the motion is DENIED.
By the Court:
_________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) Criminal No. 00-033
)
v. ) Judge Marvin Katz
)
MITSUBISHI CORPORATION, ) Violations: 15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (a)
)
Defendant. ) Filed: 01/17/01
GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEY NOTES
For the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum of law, the United States
SNIPPETS:
|
|
19
.
RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO EXCLUDE DOCUMENTS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
EVIDENCE EXCLUDE CONSPIRACY UCAR MOTION UNITED STATES GRAPHITE ELECTRODE GOVERNMENT MITSUBISHI DISTRICT MEMORANDUM ELECTRODE MANUFACTURERS INTENT CIR RELEVANCE PLAN STATES DISTRICT COURT RESPONSE FACILITATE ACQUISITION EASTERN DISTRICT PENNSYLVANIA OPPOSITION SUPPORT CHARGE ADMISSIBILITY PRE-ACQUISITION INDUSTRY TRANSLATIONS |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) Criminal No. 00-033
)
v. ) Judge Marvin Katz
)
MITSUBISHI CORPORATION, ) Violations: 15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (a)
)
Defendant. ) Filed:
ORDER
AND NOW, this day of January 2001, upon consideration of the Defendant's
Motion to Exclude 1990 Documents and the Government's Response in Opposition thereto
IT IS hereby ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.
By the Court:
________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) Criminal No. 00-033
)
v. ) Judge Marvin Katz
)
MITSUBISHI CORPORATION, ) Violations: 15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (a)
)
Defendant. ) Filed: 01-25-01
GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO EXCLUDE 1990 DOCUMENTS
For the reasons stated in the accompanying Memorandum, the Government hereby
SNIPPETS:
|
|
20
.
US VOLUNTARY BILL OF PARTICULARS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
CARBON UCAR PARTICULARS DEFENDANT JAPAN DISTRICT INDICTMENT SHOWA DENKO CO-CONSPIRATORS EMPLOYEES TOKYO UNITED STATES BILL ROBERT EASTERN DISTRICT PENNSYLVANIA COUNTRIES MARKET GRAPHITE ELECTRODES AMERICA YUTAKA INDUSTRIES JAMES THOMAS TAKAHARA SGL GERMANY TANAKA HIROSHI |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) Criminal No. 00-033
)
v. ) Judge Marvin Katz
)
MITSUBISHI CORPORATION, ) Violations: 15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2(a)
)
Defendant. ) Filed: 05/16/00
GOVERNMENT'S VOLUNTARY BILL OF PARTICULARS
Without admitting that the defendant has any legal right to any particulars other than those
set forth in the Indictment and fully reserving all rights it may have to oppose or object to any
request contained in the defendant's letter of February 11, 2000, requesting a Bill of Particulars,
and further reserving the right to file further and amended particulars prior to trial, the United
States of America, by its attorneys, voluntarily files this bill based on present knowledge,
information and belief.
1. The unindicted corporate and individual co-conspirators described in the
Indictment that are presently known to the United States are listed below. The individual
co-conspirators were employed by their respective co-conspirator corporations during all or part
of the charged conspiracy.
(a) Nippon Carbon Co. Ltd., Tokyo, Japan
Shinichi Mori
Yutaka Okada
Yasuo Sakai
Toshiko Takami
Hirofumi Takado
Yoshitake Yamagucchi
(b) Pechiney Balzac S.A., Coarbevoie, France
Claude Calvez
Phillipe D'Argenlieu
SNIPPETS:
|
|
21
.
US REPLY TO DEFENDANTS TRIAL MEMORANDUM
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
WITNESS COURT TRANSLATOR MITSUBISHI TESTIMONY FOREIGN LANGUAGE UNITED STATES INTERPRETER COOPERATION DEFENDANT JURY TESTIFY DISTRICT COOPERATION AGREEMENT LAY OPINION TESTIMONY HOSTILE REFERENCE TAPE ADVERSE PARTY REVIEW PARTIES DEFENSE OBJECTIONS SOUND DISCRETION AUTHENTICITY ADMISSIBILITY CONFER RESERVES UNDERSTANDING |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) Criminal No. 00-033
)
v. ) Judge Marvin Katz
)
MITSUBISHI CORPORATION, ) Violations: 15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2
)
Defendant. ) Filed: 01/05/01
GOVERNMENT'S REPLY TO
DEFENDANT'S TRIAL MEMORANDUM
Preliminary Statement
As instructed by the Court, the Government is filing a response to the issues raised by the
defendant in its trial brief.
A. Court Appointed Interpreter
The United States and Mitsubishi Corporation have agreed upon a recommendation to the
Court for an appointed interpreter. A motion seeking the Court's approval of an interpreter who
has been interviewed by the parties and is mutually acceptable will be filed shortly. The parties
agree that the jury should be instructed that the Court appointed interpreter does not carry any
greater weight solely because of this designation than an expert witness either the Government or
defense may call. A preliminary statement to be read to the jury will be submitted for the Court's
consideration.
Mitsubishi proposes that where either the Government or defense foreign language expert
or "checker" disagrees with the Court appointed translator, the checkers and Court translator
should confer to determine whether they can come to a mutually agreeable translation. This
procedure, if used sparingly, may be the best way to clarify a witness's testimony clearly for the
jury. If, however, objections to translations are frequent, and conferences among the translators
SNIPPETS:
|
|
22
.
US MOTION FOR A HEARING ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
MITSUBISHI UCAR CONFLICT GOVERNMENT REPRESENTATION DEFENDANT COURT UNITED STATES MEMORANDUM CARBON ATTORNEYS LAW FIRM COUNSEL MITSUBISHI CORPORATION EASTERN DISTRICT PENNSYLVANIA SUBSIDIARIES CONSPIRACY JAPANESE MANUFACTURERS PAUL WEISS RIFKIND WEISS RIFKIND WHARTON CARBON COMPANY GRAPHITE ELECTRODES TRANSACTION FULLY SET CRIMINAL PROCEEDING MAJOR PARTICIPANT INDICTMENT |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) Criminal No. 00-033
)
v. ) Judge Marvin Katz
)
MITSUBISHI CORPORATION, ) Violations: 15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. §
)
Defendant. ) Filed: 9/29/00
GOVERNMENT'S MOTION FOR A HEARING
ON POSSIBLE CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The United States, by its attorneys, respectfully moves this Court for a hearing
a possible conflict of interest that the law firm of Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison (Paul
Weiss) may have in continuing to represent defendant Mitsubishi Corporation. The Government
has discussed this issue with counsel for Mitsubishi and has been advised that the defendant is
prepared to execute an appropriate waiver. Defense counsel will, however, file a response to this
motion.1
As more fully set forth in the Government's Memorandum of Fact and Law accompanying
this motion, Paul Weiss not only represents the defendant in this criminal proceeding, but also
represented Mitsubishi and one of its wholly-owned subsidiaries, Mitsubishi International
Corporation (MIC), in 1990 and 1991 at the time the defendant purchased 50% of UCAR
Carbon Company (UCAR), a major participant in the conspiracy charged in the Indictment. To
the Government's knowledge, however, the Paul Weiss attorneys representing the defendant in
the present criminal proceedings are not the same attorneys that represented it in the UCAR
purchase.
Defense counsel will request that any hearing on this issue be held in late
1
early November to allow time for a trip to Japan to discuss the issues with the defendant in
person.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
23
.
US AMENDED AND EXPANDED VOLUNTARY BILL OF PARTICULARS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
PARTICULARS UNITED STATES UCAR CONSPIRACY DISTRICT INDICTMENT BILL COUNSELING PRICES COMPETITION VOLUNTARY BILL ENCOURAGED UCAR GRAPHITE ELECTRODES EASTERN DISTRICT PENNSYLVANIA RESERVING REQUEST AIDING ABETTING ACTIVITIES THEREAFTER AID ABET INDUSTRY PARAGRAPH PRICE-FIXING CONSPIRACY JAPANESE MANUFACTURERS MITSUBISHI/UCAR INDUCING |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) Criminal No. 00-033
)
v. ) Judge Marvin Katz
)
MITSUBISHI CORPORATION, ) Violations: 15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2(a)
)
Defendant. ) Filed: 11/9/00
GOVERNMENT'S AMENDED AND EXPANDED
VOLUNTARY BILL OF PARTICULARS
Without admitting that the defendant has any legal right to any particulars other than those
set forth in the Indictment and fully reserving all rights it may have to oppose or object to any
request contained in the defendant's letter of February 11, 2000, requesting a Bill of Particulars,
and further reserving the right to file further and amended particulars prior to trial, the United
States of America, by its attorneys, voluntarily files this bill based on present knowledge,
information and belief which supplements the Government's Voluntary Bill of Particulars filed on
May 16, 2000.
1. The additional unindicted corporate co-conspirators that are presently known to
the United States are listed below.
(a) M.C. Carbon Co., Ltd., Tokyo, Japan
(b) Union Carbide Chemical, New South Wales, Australia
2. The additional individual co-conspirators who are presently known to the United
States are listed below.
(a) Ikusaburo Wakae
(b) D.T. Nakajima
(c) Tetsuro Imai
SNIPPETS:
|
|
24
.
SENTENCING AGREEMENT
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
SENTENCING UNITED STATES COURT OFFENSE IMPOSE VICTIMS SENTENCING GUIDELINES DISTRICT AGREEMENT CONVICTION GAIN LOSS PURSUANT PAY RECOMMENDATION CULPABILITY SCORE CHARGE VIOLATION CRIME RESTITUTION SHERMAN ACT AMOUNT TWICE REQUIRING DEFENDANT SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PROBATION WAIVES PARAGRAPH |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) Criminal No. 00-033
)
v. ) Judge Marvin Katz
)
MITSUBISHI CORPORATION, ) Violations: 15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (a)
)
Defendant. ) Filed: 05/10/01
SENTENCING AGREEMENT
The United States of America, by its attorneys, acting with the authorization of the Acting
Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice and
Mitsubishi Corporation (hereinafter Mitsubishi) hereby enter into the following Sentencing
Agreement:
1. Mitsubishi has been found guilty in the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania in Criminal No. 00-033 of aiding and abetting (18 U.S.C. §2(a)) a
violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. §1) in connection with a conspiracy to
suppress and eliminate competition by secretly fixing the price and allocating the volume of
graphite electrodes sold in the United States and elsewhere.
2. Mitsubishi understands that the maximum penalty which may be imposed against it
as a result of its conviction in this case is a fine in an amount equal to the largest of:
(a) $10 million (15 U.S.C. § 1, 18 U.S.C. §2);
(b) twice the gross pecuniary gain derived from the crime; or
(c) twice the gross pecuniary loss caused to the victims of the crime
(18 U.S.C. § 3571(d)).
3. In addition, Mitsubishi understands that:
SNIPPETS:
|
|
25
.
RESPONSE TO MOTION TO RECONSIDER ADMITTING US EXHIBITS 2 AND 3
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
MOTION UCAR EVIDENCE MITSUBISHI GOVERNMENT COURT RECONSIDER MANUFACTURERS GX-3 ORDER ADMITTING PURSUANT ADMISSION RELEVANCE PREJUDICE DISTRICT ADMITTING GOVERNMENT EXHIBITS GX-2 JURY JAPANESE ACQUISITION RESPONSE EXCLUDE PRIOR WASTE CONFUSION PLAN GRAPHITE ELECTRODE COLLUDE CHARGE |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) Criminal No. 00-033
)
v. ) Judge Marvin Katz
)
MITSUBISHI CORPORATION, ) Violations: 15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (a)
)
Defendant. ) Filed: 02-01-01
GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO MOTION OF DEFENDANT TO
RECONSIDER ORDER ADMITTING GOVERNMENT EXHIBITS 2 AND 3
Defendant has asked the Court to reconsider its Order admitting Government Exhibits
GX-2 and GX-3. Defendant's initial motion to exclude those documents was based on
Fed.R.Evid. 403. The Court appears to have inadvertently admitted the documents pursuant to
Rule 404(b). Defendant now seeks to exclude the documents because the Government did not
provide it with the requisite notice before documents may be introduced pursuant to Rule 404(b).
Because the Government did not seek admission of the documents pursuant to Rule 404(b),
Defendant did not challenge their admission pursuant to Rule 404(b), and the Court already has
balanced the relevance of the exhibits against any possible prejudice and found them admissible.
The Court should deny Defendant's Motion.
While the Court's Order admitting GX-2 and GX-3 cited Rule 404(b), that citation
appears to have been in error. The Government did not offer those documents as evidence of
prior bad acts, and Defendant did not seek their exclusion in its original motion as evidence of
prior bad acts. Rather, Defendant simply claimed, pursuant to Rule 403, that the documents had
little, if any, relevance, and that their relevance was outweighed by the potential for waste of
and jury prejudice and confusion. (Defendant's Motion to Reconsider at p.1) In its response to
Defendant's original motion, the Government showed that these documents are key evidence of
Defendant's plan and intent to encourage the graphite electrode industry to collude in pricing, the
SNIPPETS:
|
|
26
.
RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS M-O-L ON AN EVIDENTIARY ISSUE
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
DEFENDANT UNITED STATES JOINT ENTERPRISE EVIDENCE CIR CHARGE GOVERNMENT DISTRICT MEMORANDUM INDICTMENT HEARSAY PRE-CONSPIRACY CERT RESPONSE LAW DECLARANT PARTICIPATING ANTITRUST ELLIS FURTHERANCE VIRGIN ISLANDS BRATHWAITE JAPANESE ELEC PROD LITG SUB NOM PREPONDERANCE AIDING |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) Criminal No. 00-033
)
v. ) Judge Marvin Katz
)
MITSUBISHI CORPORATION, ) Violations: 15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (a)
)
Defendant. ) Filed: 01-26-01
GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM
OF LAW ON AN EVIDENTIARY ISSUE THAT MAY ARISE AT TRIAL
Defendant asserts in its Memorandum of Law on an Evidentiary Issue that May Arise at
Trial: (1) that conspirator statements made prior to the conspiracy identified in the Indictment
hearsay and not admissible as co-conspirator statements and (2) that statements made by
conspirators during the course of the conspiracy are inadmissible because defendant has not been
identified as a co-conspirator. Defendant's assertions are incorrect.
A. Pre-Conspiracy Statements
In its argument concerning "pre-conspiracy" statements, defendant incorrectly claims that
conspiratorial statements made before the price-fixing conspiracy alleged in the Indictment are
inadmissible because they could not have been made during the course of the charged conspiracy.
A statement need not concern a charged conspiracy to meet the requirements of Rule
803(d)(2)(E), but may concern any joint enterprise as long as the statement is relevant. See
United States v. Ellis, 156 F.3d 493, 496-97 (3d Cir. 1998). The Government need only show
that defendant and the declarant participated in a joint enterprise at the time of the statement,
that the statement was made in furtherance of their joint enterprise. See Virgin Islands v.
Brathwaite, 782 F.2d 399, 403 (3d Cir. 1986); In re: Japanese Elec. Prod. Antitrust Litg. , 733
F.2d 238, 262 (3d Cir. 1983), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. 475 U.S. 574 (1986). The joint
SNIPPETS:
|
|
27
.
ORDER CONCERNING PROTECTION OF GRAND JURY MATERIALS
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
DISCLOSURE COUNSEL GRAND JURY UNITED STATES PURSUANT FEDERAL RULES CRIMINAL PROCEDURE PURPOSE PREPARING PROSPECTIVE WITNESS COURT CRIM THEREOF TRANSCRIPTS DISTRICT DEFENDANTS JENCKS ACT BRADY MARYLAND PROGENY REPRESENTATIONS TESTIMONY EMPLOYEES MITSUBISHI CORPORATION CLERICAL WORKERS PARALEGALS CONTRACT PERSONNEL |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) Criminal No. 00-033
)
v. ) Judge Marvin Katz
)
MITSUBISHI CORPORATION, ) Violations: 15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (a)
)
Defendant. ) Filed: 03-15-00
ORDER PROVIDING FOR THE DISCLOSURE AND PROTECTION OF
GRAND JURY MATERIALS PURSUANT TO FED. R. CRIM. P. 6(e)(3)(C)
The United States has moved pursuant to Rule 6(e)(3)(C) of the Federal Rules of
Criminal Procedure for an order, preliminarily to or in connection with the trial in the above-
captioned case, (1) authorizing the limited disclosure to counsel for the defendants of grand jury
materials that must be disclosed under normal circumstances pursuant to the Jencks Act, 18
U.S.C. § 3500; Rules 16 and 26.2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; and Brady v.
Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and its progeny; and (2) limiting the kind and extent of disclosure
of these materials, the purposes for which such disclosure may be made, and the use of such
disclosed materials.
Having considered the representations of the attorneys for the United States and the
applicability of Rule 6(e)(3)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, it is hereby
ORDERED that:
1. The attorneys for the United States may disclose to counsel for the defendants
grand jury material that must be disclosed under normal circumstances pursuant to the Jencks
Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3500; Rules 16 and 26.2 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure; and
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) and its progeny.
SNIPPETS:
|
|
28
.
OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
CONSPIRACY EVIDENCE DEFENDANT UCAR MEETINGS JURY MOTION GOVERNMENT ELECTRODE FUKUSHIMA JAPANESE UNITED STATES PRICES MANUFACTURERS KRASS PROMOTING GRAPHITE ELECTRODE FORMATION FACILITATING INDUSTRY COOPERATION CARBON EXISTENCE EXECUTIVES PARTICIPATION ENCOURAGING TRANSLATIONS COMPETITORS TRADER |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) Criminal No. 00-033
)
v. ) Judge Marvin Katz
)
MITSUBISHI CORPORATION, ) Violations: 15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (a)
)
Defendant. ) Filed: 02-08-01
GOVERNMENT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION
TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL
PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 29(a)
Defendant has moved for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 29(a).
Because Defendant has failed to meet its burden under Rule 29(a), its Motion should be denied.
I.
LEGAL STANDARD WHEN CONSIDERING
A MOTION FOR JUDGMENT OF ACQUITTAL
The standard for granting a motion for acquittal was well stated in United States v. Cerilli,
in which the Court said:
A trial judge can grant a motion for judgment of acquittal only when the evidence
as a whole is insufficient to support a conviction as a matter of law . . . .
However, where there is evidence upon which a jury may reasonably base and find
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the trial judge can not intrude on the function of
the jury as the trier of fact. The evidence need not be of such overwhelming
magnitude that the jury must inevitably find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt; there
need only be sufficient, legal evidence which when viewed in a light most favorable
to the government, a jury can reasonably and in good faith make a finding of guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt.
418 F.Supp. 557, 565 (W.D. Pa. 1976)(citations omitted). See also United States v. Boatwright,
425 F.Supp. 747, 749-50 (E.D. Pa. 1977); United States v. Miah, 433 F.Supp. 259, 264 (E.D. Pa.
1977), aff'd, 571 F.2d 573 (3d Cir. 1978).
In making its determination, "[the Court] must view the evidence in a light most favorable
SNIPPETS:
|
|
29
.
JOINT MOTION OF THE PARTIES FOR A COURT APPOINTED JAPANESE INTERPRETER
|
EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COURT JAPANESE WITNESSES UNITED STATES DISTRICT PENNSYLVANIA DEFENDANT PARTIES MITSUBISHI CORPORATION JARED TAYLOR JAPANESE SPEAKING CLERK PAID CLARKES LANDING OAKTON VIRGINIA PURPOSE COUNSEL COURTROOM FLOOR COURTHOUSE MARKET PHILADELPHIA LAW FEE TRAVEL ACCOMMODATION EXPENSES EQUAL SHARES |
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) Criminal No. 00-033
)
v. ) Judge Marvin Katz
)
MITSUBISHI CORPORATION, ) Violations: 15 U.S.C. § 1 and 18 U.S.C. § 2 (a)
)
Defendant. ) Filed: 01/16/01
JOINT MOTION OF THE PARTIES FOR A
COURT APPOINTED JAPANESE INTERPRETER
The United States of America and the defendant, Mitsubishi Corporation, by and through
their attorneys, respectfully request this Court to retain the services of Jared Taylor, 2717
Landing, Oakton, Virginia, a Japanese interpreter, to attend the trial for the purpose of
interpreting questions posed by counsel for the parties and the Court to Japanese speaking
witnesses and interpreting answers given by such witnesses in the above-captioned case. The
Government and the defendant believe that Mr. Taylor is amply qualified to serve as a witness
interpreter at trial. Mr. Taylor's resume is attached. There will be a number of Japanese speaking
witnesses who may require the services of an interpreter. The interpreter will be present in court
on all days during the trial when his services may be needed. The trial is scheduled to commence
January 29, 2001 at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 13-B, 13 Floor, U.S. Courthouse, 601 Market
th
Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Further, it is respectfully requested that the Clerk of Court be authorized to pay for such
services to the extent permitted by law. Any fee of the interpreter over and above the rate
authorized by the Court, and any reasonable travel and accommodation expenses of the
SNIPPETS:
|
|
|
| | | |
|
|
