conspiracy

Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Medical, Financial, Idioms, Encyclopedia, Wikipedia.
Related to conspiracy: conspiracy theory

Conspiracy
An agreement between two or more persons to engage jointly in an unlawful or criminal act, or
an act that is innocent in itself but becomes unlawful when done by the combination of actors.

Conspiracy is governed by statute in federal courts and most state courts. Before its Codification
in state and federal statutes, the crime of conspiracy was simply an agreement to engage in an
unlawful act with the intent to carry out the act. Federal statutes, and many state statutes, now
require not only agreement and intent but also the commission of an Overt Act in furtherance of
the agreement.

Conspiracy is a crime separate from the criminal act for which it is developed. For example, one
who conspires with another to commit Burglary and in fact commits the burglary can be charged
with both conspiracy to commit burglary and burglary.

Conspiracy is an inchoate, or preparatory, crime. It is similar to solicitation in that both crimes

are committed by manifesting an intent to engage in a criminal act. It differs from solicitation in
that conspiracy requires an agreement between two or more persons, whereas solicitation can be
committed by one person alone.

Conspiracy also resembles attempt. However, attempt, like solicitation, can be committed by a
single person. On another level, conspiracy requires less than attempt. A conspiracy may exist
before a crime is actually attempted, whereas no attempt charge will succeed unless the requisite
attempt is made.

The law seeks to punish conspiracy as a substantive crime separate from the intended crime
because when two or more persons agree to commit a crime, the potential for criminal activity
increases, and as a result, the danger to the public increases. Therefore, the very act of an
agreement with criminal intent (along with an overt act, where required) is considered
sufficiently dangerous to warrant charging conspiracy as an offense separate from the intended
crime.

According to some criminal-law experts, the concept of conspiracy is too elastic, and the
allegation of conspiracy is used by prosecutors as a superfluous criminal charge. Many criminal
defense lawyers maintain that conspiracy is often expanded beyond reasonable interpretations. In
any case, prosecutors and criminal defense attorneys alike agree that conspiracy cases are usually
amorphous and complex.
The Elements of Conspiracy Agreement
The essence of conspiracy is the agreement between two or more persons. A single person acting
alone cannot be guilty of conspiracy.

Quiz Show Conspiracies

In the 1950s, the new medium of television was fast becoming a staple in U.S. households, and
quiz shows, with their low production costs and high-stakes drama, were enjoying immense
popularity. Contestants on quiz shows played until they lost; some competed for months and won
tens of thousands of dollars. The quiz show concept of rewarding intelligence with instant wealth
appealed to the U.S. public and inspired many to seek an invitation to play.

In May 1958, Edward Hilgemeier was in the studio audience of the quiz show "Dotto" when he
was approached by a "Dotto" producer. The producer asked if Hilgemeier would like to compete
on the show. Hilgemeier, an aspiring actor, accepted the offer. On May 20, he went to the
"Dotto" set as a standby contestant.

Marie Winn, a student at Columbia University, was the defending champion of "Dotto." A
charming, animated native of Czechoslovakia, the twenty-one-year-old Winn had won "Dotto"
on two consecutive nights. As Hilgemeier waited for his possible turn against Winn, he got the
impression that studio personnel were unduly familiar with the woman.

Winn's first challenger that day was Yeffe Kimball Slatin. Hilgemeier watched as Winn defeated
Slatin with ease; Winn seemed to have every answer at hand. After the contest between Winn
and Slatin, Hilgemeier returned to the contestants' dressing room, where he discovered a
notebook belonging to Winn that appeared to contain answers to "Dotto" questions. Hilgemeier
notified Slatin, and the two returned to the dressing room, where one of them tore the apparent
answer sheet out of Winn's notebook.

That night, after speaking to Slatin's lawyer, Hilgemeier and Slatin went to the "Dotto" offices,
where they spoke with the show's producers. The "Dotto" producers promised compensation to
both Hilgemeier and Slatin. Slatin agreed to stay quiet about the affair for a nominal sum of
money from "Dotto," but Hilgemeier, fearing for his reputation, refused. Hilgemeier took his
information to Manhattan district attorney Frank Hogan and assistant district attorney Joseph
Stone.

Initially, the Manhattan district attorney's office was skeptical of Hilgemeier's complaint. The
rigging of quiz shows was, after all, not illegal. Shortly into the investigation, however, it
became apparent to Hogan and Stone that a widespread conspiracy was in place to hide the truth
from the public—and conspiracy to commit Fraud wasillegal.

The Manhattan district attorney's office convened Grand Jury hearings, and a subcommittee of
the U.S. House of Representatives held congressional hearings on the quiz shows' practices.
Many producers and contestants lied to the grand jury and the congressional subcommittee about
their role in quiz show trickery. On October 14, 1959, their elaborate web of deceit began to
unravel when Charles Van Doren, a Columbia University professor, admitted to the
subcommittee his involvement in a rigged quiz show, "Twenty-One." (This incident was the
basis of Robert Redford's 1995 film Quiz Show.)

Quiz show producers and contestants eventually admitted their subterfuge to authorities. What
emerged were stories of how favored quiz show contestants were coached to agonize and sweat
over answers they already knew. On August 30, 1960, the U.S. Congress passed a bill that made
giving or receiving assistance on a quiz show a federal crime. The bill was signed into law by
President DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER two weeks later. Now, under 47 U.S.C.A. § 509, it is a federal
crime to rig quiz shows with the intent to deceive the listening or viewing public. Under 18
U.S.C.A. § 371, a conspiracy to engage in prohibited practices regarding radio and television
quiz shows is also a federal crime.

However, if a coconspirator dies prior to the indictment or trial, the surviving coconspirator may
still be charged with conspiracy. A Husband and Wife can be guilty of conspiracy. A corporation
is considered a person for conspiracy purposes, so a corporation can be guilty of conspiracy, but
it cannot conspire with itself. For example, if two or more employees within a corporation
conspire to break the law and subsequently commit an act in furtherance of the conspiracy, the
corporation itself is not criminally liable for conspiracy.The agreement must be made voluntarily
and with an intent to participate in furthering a common purpose. Mere knowledge or approval,
in the absence of an actual agreement to cooperate, does not constitute conspiracy.

Once an agreement with criminal intent is made, the conspiracy is complete, unless the
applicable statute requires the additional element of an overt act. The agreement need not be
written or formal, and it may be proved by Circumstantial Evidence. A tacit understanding is
sufficient to constitute agreement, even if no words are spoken that expressly communicate the
conspiracy. Conspiracy exists if there is some form of mutual understanding between persons
working together with a common unlawful end.

Intent Criminal intent is also necessary to create a conspiracy. This means that the parties must
intend both to agree on and to engage in the unlawful act. Ignorance of the law is not usually a
defense to a crime, but an unwitting conspirator may defend against conspiracy charges on
grounds of ignorance. Ignorance will not be a defense if the person continues to participate in the
common plan after learning of its illegality.

Either the purpose of the agreement or the means by which it is accomplished must be illegal to
support criminal prosecution on conspiracy charges. If the purpose is unlawful, the offense is
committed even if the means used to achieve the purpose are lawful. One illustration is where a
noncustodial parent conspires with another person to KIDNAP the parent's child, and the child is
abducted during a court-approved visit. Conspiracy also occurs if the purpose of the agreement is
lawful but the means used to achieve it are illegal. For example, if a custodial parent chooses to
retrieve a child who has been kidnapped by the noncustodial parent, an agreement to use
unlawful force constitutes conspiracy.
Overt Act An overt act can be any step that indicates that the execution of the conspiracy has
begun. This can be an innocuous act and need not be illegal unto itself. For example, if two
persons agree to rob a bank, then purchase a ski mask, the act of buying the mask may constitute
the overt act required to charge the two with conspiracy.

The overt act must follow the agreement and must be executed with an intent to carry out the
purpose of the conspiracy. For example, if one of the potential bank robbers buys a ski mask
after the agreement is made, the purchase may not constitute the overt act if the ski mask will not
be worn to carry out the Robbery. An overt act need not be committed by each and every
conspirator; an overt act by one conspirator solidifies the offense for all coconspirators. Thus, a
conspirator who does not participate in the overt act can be charged with conspiracy.

If a conspirator completely and voluntarily renounces the criminal purpose to all conspirators,
that person may withdraw from the conspiracy before the overt act is committed. Many
jurisdictions require that the withdrawing conspirator also inform law enforcement officials or
take measures to thwart the crime, in order to avoid criminal liability for the conspiracy.

Other Considerations
A conspiracy exists as long as measures are taken to conceal evidence of the crime. A person
who did not participate in the original agreement can become a coconspirator after the actual
criminal act if the person joins in the concealment of the conspiracy. Whether a coconspirator
received personal benefit or profit is of no importance.

Generally, conspirators are liable for all crimes committed within the course or scope of the
conspiracy. The application of this general rule varies from state to state. Ordinarily, an act is
within the course or scope of the conspiracy if it is a foreseeable result of the agreement. In some
states, a conspirator is not liable where he or she has no knowledge of the specific act and argues
successfully that the act was beyond the scope of the conspiracy. Also, if the purpose of the
agreement is later changed by coconspirators, a conspirator who did not participate in the
alteration may not be held liable for the new conspiracy. A person is liable for conspiracy only in
regard to the meaning of the agreement as he or she understands it.

In some jurisdictions, a person may be guilty of conspiracy even if a coconspirator is immune

from prosecution. For example, if two persons conspire to commit murder and one is found to
have been insane at the time of the killing, the other conspirator may not be exempt from
prosecution for conspiracy.

One who provides services to conspirators will not be guilty of conspiracy if that person has not
participated in the agreement and does not know that a conspiracy exists. There must be a willful
participation in the conspiracy, as well as an intent to further the common purpose or design for
conspiratorial liability. Therefore, aiding a conspiracy by selling material to further it does not
make someone a conspirator if the person does not know of the conspiracy, even if that person
knows the goods sold will be used for an unlawful purpose. However, if the circumstances
indicate a conspiracy, one who cooperates and knowingly sells goods for illegal use may be
guilty of conspiracy.
Generally, if a number of conspirators agree to carry out different functions in furtherance of the
conspiracy, the agreement constitutes a single conspiracy. This is so even if the different
functions amount to more than one unlawful purpose. In some states, however, the different
functions may constitute multiple conspiracies if there is an agreement to commit more than one
crime.

Punishment for the crime of conspiracy is ordinarily defined by statute and varies in accordance
with the conspiracy's objective. For example, a conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor will not be
subject to the same punishment as a conspiracy to commit a felony. Conspiracy may be alleged
in a civil case if the plaintiff has suffered an injury as a result of the conspiracy. Civil conspiracy
is ordinarily not a Cause of Action, but the existence of a conspiracy may be used in determining
the amount of damages in a civil action and the respective liabilities of civil codefendants for the
payment of damages.

History of Conspiracy
Federal conspiracy statutes were first passed in 1909. Under 18 U.S.C.A. § 371, it is a crime to
commit an offense against or to defraud the United States or any agency of the United States. If
the crime actually committed is a felony, the punishment is a fine of not more than $10,000 or
five years' imprisonment, or both. Under 18 U.S.C.A. § 372, it is a crime to conspire to impede
or injure a federal law enforcement officer.

The U.S. Congress has made specific conspiracies illegal through a variety of statutes. For
example, conspiracy to murder federal or foreign officials is prohibited by 18 U.S.C.A. § 1117, a
freestanding statute. Conspiracy to kidnap is contained in subsection C of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1201,
the federal kidnapping statute. Other federal statutes prohibit conspiracies to assassinate the
president, the vice president, and their successors; assassinate the director or deputy director of
the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA); assassinate or kidnap a Supreme Court justice; interfere
with commerce and trade; violate computer laws; launder money; obstruct state or local
regulation of gambling; injure property of the federal government; tamper with consumer
products; gather, transmit, lose, remove, or destroy national defense information or materials;
incite sailors to mutiny; engage in prohibited practices regarding radio broadcasts or game show
contests; defraud the Tennessee Valley Authority; violate or interfere with VOTING RIGHTS; and
sexually exploit children.

Conspiracy cases are often infamous for their ambition and breadth. The assassination of
President Abraham Lincoln in 1865 by John Wilkes Booth was a product of a conspiracy
between Booth and several supporters of the defunct Confederacy. In the early 1950s, the U.S.
Congress conducted numerous hearings on Communist conspiracies against the United States. In
the mid-1970s, several White House aides were indicted on charges of conspiracy in connection
with the 1972 burglary of the offices of the Democratic National Committee in the Watergate
Hotel, in Washington, D.C.

In November 1986, a Lebanese weekly, Al-Shiraa, reported that the U.S. government had
secretly sold military weapons to so-called moderate factions in Iran. In exchange for the arms
sales, according to Al-Shiraa, the moderate Iranians would work to secure the release of U.S.
citizens held hostage in Lebanon. Thus began an investigation into a conspiracy that became
popularly known as the Iran-Contra Affair.

Congressional investigations that followed the Al-Shiraa article revealed a covert "enterprise"
connected with the arms sales. The operation, staffed by private citizens and funded by private
monies, had diverted profits from the sale of the weapons to the Contras, a loosely knit military
force in Honduras that sought to overthrow the socialist Sandinista government in Nicaragua.

Congressional investigations in the spring of 1987 revealed that the enterprise had been
supervised by U.S. National Security Council (NSC) staff. The NSC, created by the National
Security Act of 1947 (61 Stat. 496 [50 U.S.C.A. §§ 402]) and amended by the National Security
Act Amendments of 1949 (63 Stat. 579 [50 U.S.C.A. § 401 et seq.]), existed to advise the
president with respect to the Integration of domestic, foreign, and military policies relating to
national security.

One of the many problems presented by the enterprise was its apparent violation of the Boland
amendments to a series of appropriations bills. These bills were established in the early 1980s to
prevent any "agency or entity of the United States involved in intelligence activities" from
spending funds available to it "to support military or paramilitary operations in Nicaragua" (133
Cong. Rec. H4982-87 [daily ed. June 15, 1987]). The covert arms sales also violated procedural
and substantive requirements of the Arms Export Control Act of 1976 (Pub. L. No. 90-629, 82
Stat. 1320 [22 U.S.C.A. §§ 2751–2796c (1989 Supp.)]). Moreover, the executive branch's failure
to notify Congress of the covert arms sales flouted the reporting provisions of the 1980
Intelligence Oversight Act (Pub. L. No. 96-450, tit. IV, § 407(b)(1), 94 Stat. 1981 [50 U.S.C.A. §
413 (1982)]).

In 1987, Lawrence Walsh, a former American Bar Association president and former federal
judge, was assigned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit,
Independent Counsel Division, to investigate the Contra-funding scheme. In March 1988, Walsh
charged Richard Secord, Albert Hakim, Oliver North, and John Poindexter with conspiracy to
obstruct the U.S. government. North and Poindexter had worked for the NSC.

As in all conspiracy cases, an important goal of the prosecution was to determine who was
involved in the agreement. A major issue in the Iran-Contra investigation was to determine
precisely who in the Executive Branch authorized or was aware of the arms diversions and,
specifically, whether the president had knowledge of the unlawful activities.

In the legal battles that ensued over access to information in connection with the prosecutions,
Walsh faced challenges by the RONALD REAGAN and GEORGE H. W. BUSH administrations, the
Justice Department, intelligence agencies, and lawyers for the accused. Ultimately, the White
House refused to relinquish classified information crucial to the prosecutions, and Walsh was
forced to drop all conspiracy charges. The Iran-Contra Affair resulted in criminal convictions of
several persons directly connected with the Reagan administration, but Walsh was never able to
link the president to a conspiracy to obstruct the U.S. government.
In another conspiracy case, Patricia Caldwell, a bookkeeper with the Northwest Community
Exchange (NCE), was charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States because she refused
to provide to the IRS certain account information it requested regarding NCE customers. The
NCE was one of a number of warehouse banks, which promised their customers that they would
not reveal account information to third parties, including the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). As
a result, the IRS shut down the warehouse banks, and it charged several customers and
employees with conspiracy to defraud the United States. A jury convicted Caldwell of conspiring
to defraud the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 371.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed Caldwell's conspiracy conviction (United States v.
Caldwell, 989 F.2d 1056 [1993]). The government had argued that people have a duty to conduct
their business affairs so as to not impair or impede the collection of revenue by the IRS. The
majority opinion, written by Judge Alex Kozinski, rejected this interpretation of 18 U.S.C.A. §
371 and held that to defraud the government, a person had to act deceitfully or dishonestly. To
allow otherwise would create an oppressive theory of criminal conspiracy. The court observed
that under the government's theory, "a husband who asks his wife to buy him a radar detector
would be a felon … because their actions would obstruct the government function of catching
speeders." According to the court, Congress did not intend to make a federal crime out of actions
that merely make "the government's job more difficult."

The jury in Caldwell's case had not been instructed that it had to find that Caldwell agreed to
obstruct the IRS's tax-collecting functions by deceitful or dishonest means. This failure to inform
the jury about an essential element of conspiracy constituted reversible error, and Caldwell's
conviction was overturned.

American Honda Conspiracy

The sheer size of a conspiracy can create distinct problems for prosecutors and defense attorneys
alike. In 1993, U.S. attorneys in New Hampshire began to investigate employees of the
American Honda Motor Company. By 1994, prosecutors had cobbled together an immense
conspiracy-based commercial Bribery case.

The conspiracy prosecutions of American Honda executives and dealers began to develop in
1989, when Richard Nault, an automobile dealer in Nashua, New Hampshire, brought a civil suit
against American Honda, claiming unfair treatment. In 1993, after testimony raised concerns of
bribery, the judge in Nault's case recommended that federal authorities investigate the financial
affairs at American Honda.

Investigations by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) revealed a widespread pattern of

illegal payoffs in which American Honda executives were given cash, jewelry, cars, and store
ownership interests in return for the awarding of new Honda dealerships and favorable car
allocations. According to the prosecutors, assistant U.S. attorneys Michael Connolly and Donald
Feith, the alleged conspiracy involved twenty-two American Honda executives and dealers,
encompassed thirty states, and was responsible for the misappropriation of approximately $50
million. In 1993 and 1994, prosecutors dangled various substantive and conspiracy charges
before the executives and dealers.
By the end of 1994, only three of the alleged conspirators had refused to plead guilty: John
Billmyer, an 18-year American Honda veteran and longtime vice president of auto field sales;
Stanley Cardiges, another vice president of auto field sales and Billmyer's protégé; and Dennis
Josleyn, whose last position was West Coast sales manager for Acura, American Honda's
flagship automobile. In March 1994, Billmyer, Cardiges, and Josleyn were arrested at their
homes, booked at local jails, and then released pending trial.

A federal Grand Jury charged Billmyer with one count of conspiring with Cardiges and Josleyn
to defraud American Honda, the United States, the Treasury Department, and the IRS, in
violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 1341. Specifically, the indictment alleged that Billmyer, Josleyn, and
Cardiges had conspired to receive money and gifts by secretly selling the valuable contract rights
conferred on prospective dealers by American Honda.

Cardiges and Josleyn were charged with participating in the broad conspiracy with Billmyer and
also conspiring to receive kickbacks in connection with an American Honda advertising
campaign. Cardiges and Josleyn were further charged with violating the RACKETEER
INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT (18 U.S.C.A. § 1961 et seq.). In November
1993, Cardiges allegedly asked former American Honda zone manager Edward Temple to tell
the FBI that payments the two had received from a hidden interest in a Conway, Arkansas, car
dealership were actually loan payments.

American Honda was portrayed by prosecutors as a victim of the conspiracies. As the trial
approached, lawyers for Cardiges and Josleyn prepared a defense that would further victimize
the company. According to Cardiges's lawyer Philip Israels, any conspiracy case should have
included the Japanese executives of Honda Motor Company International, the owner of
American Honda. Israels maintained that the Japanese executives knew of, condoned, and even
participated in the kickback schemes. Israels further charged that the federal government had
information that suggested that Japanese executives knew of the kickbacks, and that the decision
not to prosecute the Japanese executives was being used as a bargaining chip in trade
negotiations between the United States and Japan.

Josleyn adopted a defense similar to that of Cardiges. Josleyn's attorneys, Paul Twomey and
Mark Sisti, noted that the alleged conspiracy was so widespread that Japanese executives must
have known of it. Josleyn would deny no specific facts. Rather, he would invert the meaning of
the mountain of evidence uncovered by the prosecutors and the FBI, to show that the Japanese
executives must have known about and approved of the kickback schemes. Such a showing
would allow Josleyn's attorneys to argue that the alleged conspiracy was actually a lawful,
routine business practice promoted by American Honda's parent company.

Billmyer had retired from American Honda in 1988. His lawyers, David Long and Kevin
Sharkey, centered his defense on a variety of grounds. Their arguments included that the
prosecution of Billmyer was barred by the five-year Statute of Limitations on conspiracy charges
because the indictment actually alleged multiple conspiracies, and any criminal liability for a
conspiracy involving Billmyer expired in 1993; Billmyer had withdrawn from any alleged
conspiracies by retiring in 1988; and New Hampshire was an improper venue because none of
the acts Billmyer was alleged to have committed had any relation to New Hampshire.
In the months before trial, several motions to dismiss the case were denied by Judge Joseph
DiClerico of the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire. On January 22, 1994,
after two years of maintaining his innocence and just one day before jury selection was
scheduled to begin, Cardiges pleaded guilty to all charges. In exchange for lenient sentencing
recommendations by the prosecutors, Cardiges agreed to testify against Billmyer and Josleyn.
All the conspirators except Billmyer and Josleyn were prepared to testify to conspiracies to
defraud.

The case proceeded to jury trial in February 1995 and was presided over by Judge DiClerico. In
opening statements, assistant U.S. attorney Connolly submitted to the jury that the conspiracy
was limited to a few rogue U.S. executives and dealers, and that the United States and American
Honda had been conspired against and defrauded by them. Twomey declared that "the
government is going to take you everywhere—north, south, east and west" to prove a conspiracy
that was supposedly limited to U.S. executives and was completely unknown to Japanese
executives. Long and Sharkey covered the litany of apparent infirmities in the government's
conspiracy case against Billmyer.

A seemingly endless stream of witnesses then proceeded to testify against Billmyer and Josleyn.
American Honda executives and dealers regaled the jury with descriptive accounts of opulence
and excess. The kickback schemes resembled homage to the executives, a practice that Honda
and Acura dealers called kissing the ring. Dealers and executives told of expensive offerings,
including cash payments, free automobiles, Rolex watches, shopping sprees, swimming pools,
and tuition payments for children. In several days on the witness stand, Cardiges alone testified
to the receipt of approximately $5 million in kickbacks.

At the close of the government's case in chief, Long made a motion to dismiss, arguing that the
suit was one of multiple conspiracies, that any conspiracy involving Billmyer supported by the
evidence was barred by the statute of limitations, and that any payments or gifts received by
Billmyer were unconnected to any conspiracy with Josleyn. The motion was denied, Billmyer
called no witnesses, and Josleyn began his defense.

Throughout the presentation of the government's case, Josleyn's lawyers had been fighting a
battle with American Honda. They sought to obtain, and eventually received, a copy of
handwritten notes kept by Sherry Cameron, American Honda's vice president of human
resources. Cameron's notes had been made in connection with American Honda's 1992 internal
investigations into rumors of kickbacks. American Honda had appealed Judge DiClerico's
decision to order American Honda's release of the notes to the defense, but the First Circuit
Court of Appeals refused to reverse the order.

Cameron had testified for the government in March 1995, and Sisti's cross-examination of her
had been suspended while the production of her notes was contested. On May 15, 1995,
Cameron resumed the witness stand and was faced with poster-sized copies of her notes, one of
which revealed that her "point of view" in the investigation was to "try to protect" the company.
Cameron further testified that she had limited her investigation to facts, not rumors.
Twomey then called to the stand J. D. Powers, a prominent market research specialist for the
automobile industry. Powers testified that in 1983, he sent a letter to Yoshihida Munekujni, then
president of American Honda, informing him of widespread rumors of corruption in American
Honda. According to Powers, several unindicted top-ranking American Honda executives knew
of the kickback schemes in the early 1980s.

This and other evidence allowed Twomey to argue in his closing statement that the conspiracy
was so implicit as to constitute one company's policy. Twomey asked the jury whether it could
be satisfied that it knew the entire truth in the case. Long contended, in part, that the government
had been selective and heavy-handed in its prosecution. The case was submitted to the jury.
After five days of deliberations, Billmyer and Josleyn were convicted of all charges. Both vowed
to appeal.

Although no Japanese executives were charged in the case, 20 American Honda executives and
dealers pleaded guilty, making this the largest conspiracy-based commercial bribery prosecution
in the history of the United States.

United States v. Mohamed

Even before the September 11th Attacks against the United States in 2001, the country and the
world were well aware of the activities of Osama bin Laden and the terrorist network known as
al Qaeda. In October 2000, 48-year-old Ali A. Mohamed pled guilty in federal court in New
York to five counts of conspiracy, including conspiring to kill U.S. nationals; conspiring to
murder, kidnap, and maim outside the United States; conspiring to murder in general; and
conspiring to destroy U.S. buildings and property. The charges stemmed from the August 7,
1998, Terrorism at U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. More
than 200 people, including 12 American citizens, were killed in the attacks, and more than 5,000
were injured.

The case attracted national and international attention because Mohamed was a former U.S.
Army officer and because he implicated bin Laden in the bombings. Mohamed, a native
Egyptian, served briefly with the CIA in 1984, until the agency determined that Mohamed had
revealed his assignment to Middle East terrorists. In 1985, Mohamed moved to the California,
seeking to become a U.S. citizen. He enlisted in the U.S. Army and was assigned to the Special
Operations Command at Fort Bragg, where the Army trains its Special Forces. Mohamed was
trained as a paratrooper and achieved the rank of sergeant before being honorably discharged in
1989. Upon his discharge, he renewed his contacts with the Egyptian "Islamic Jihad," a radical
group he had secretly associated with since the early 1980s. In 1991 he was recruited by al
Qaeda to serve several missions directly related to bin Laden's terrorist activities.

In 1993, bin Laden asked Mohamed to scout possible sites in Kenya to target for terrorist attacks.
Mohamed, then a naturalized U.S. citizen, took photographs and drew diagrams of the U.S.
embassy in Nairobi. He personally delivered these to bin Laden, who planned the attack that
occurred about five years later. Mohamed became a suspect when one of his aliases turned up at
the Nairobi bombing site. After reaching a plea bargain agreement with federal prosecutors,
Mohamed implicated bin Laden in the attacks. At the time, prosecutors said it was the first time
that a close associate of bin Laden had implicated the reputed terrorist in open court. Mohamed
faces a prison term for an unspecified number of years. Less than one year after he gave his
testimony, the United States suffered terrorist attacks on its own soil, as al Qaeda operatives
destroyed the World Trade Center in New York City and seriously damaged the Pentagon in
Washington, D.C.

Further readings

Kaplan, John, and Robert Weisberg. 1991. Criminal Law: Cases and Materials. 2d ed. Boston:
Little, Brown.

Stone, Joseph, and Tim Yohn. 1992. Prime Time and Misdemeanors. New Brunswick, N.J.:
Rutgers Univ. Press.

Cross-references

Communism.

West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All
rights reserved.

conspiracy
n. when people work together by agreement to commit an illegal act. A conspiracy may exist
when the parties use legal means to accomplish an illegal result, or to use illegal means to
achieve something that in itself is lawful. To prove a conspiracy those involved must have agreed
to the plan before all the actions have been taken, or it is just a series of independent illegal acts.
A conspiracy can be criminal for planning and carrying out illegal activities, or give rise to a
civil lawsuit for damages by someone injured by the conspiracy. Thus, 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 for the fraud and
conspiracy. (See: conspirator)

Copyright © 1981-2005 by Gerald N. Hill and Kathleen T. Hill. All Right reserved.

conspiracy
noun abetment, abetting, acting in combination, acting in concert, acting in harmony, agreeeng
with another or others, agreement to accomplish an unlawful end, agreement to commit a crime,
aiding annther or others, an agreement with another or others, associate with another, banded
together, coalescence, coalition, colluding together, collusion, combination, combination of
operations, combine to perform a crime, combine to plan a crime, combine to plan an unlawful
act, combine to plan secretly, combine together, combined oppration, combining, combining for
a criminal purpose, compact, compliance, complicity, composition, concert, confederacy,
connivance, connive jointly, contrivance, contrive jointly, cooperation with, corrupt agreement,
countermine, counterplot, criminal arrangement, design jointly, devise jointly, duplicitous
agreement, in concert with, intrigue, intriguery, join forces with, join together with, joint effort,
joint planning, maneuvering, plan, plot, plot together, proposal, scheme, scheme together, take
part in a crime together, take part with another in crime, treasonable alliance, underplot, unlawful
combination, unnawful contrivance, unlawful plan, unlawful scheme
Associated concepts: conspiracy charges, conspiracy in reetraint of interstate trade, conspiracy
in restraint of trade, conspiracy to commit felony, conspiracy to defraud, connpiracy within the
Scherman Antitrust Act, continuing connpiracy, criminal conspiracy, entered into a conspiracy,
felony murder, furtherance of the conspiracy, overt act

See also: cabal, collusion, connivance, faction, frame up, machination, plan, plot, racket