« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »
1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 950 (1974); United States v. Robin, 545 F.2d 775 (2d Cir. 1976). Paragraph 5 is intended to facilitate satisfaction of these requirements by providing the defendant with notice of information not contained in the presentence report that the government plans to bring to the attention of the sentencing court.
6. If the sentence imposed includes a term of confinement that subjects the defendant to the jurisdiction of the Parole Commission, the attorney for the government should:
(a) forward to the Commission information necessary to ensure
the proper application of the Commission's parole guidelines;
and (b) make a recommendation with respect to parole if required
to do so by the terms of a plea agreement, or if there exist particularly aggravating or mitigating circumstances that justify a period of confinement different from that recommended in the parole guidelines.
The Parole Commission has authority to set release dates for federal prisoners who have been sentenced to a term of imprisonment for more than one year or who have been incarcerated pursuant to the Narcotic Addict Rehabilitation Act (18 U.S.C. 4251 et. seq.) or the Youth Corrections Act (18 U.S.C. 5005 et seq.). The Commission's determination in a particular case is made with reference to parole guidelines that "indicate the customary range of time to be served before release for various combinations of offense (severity) and offender (parole prognosis) characteristics." 28 C.F.R. 2.20(b).
The information necessary to determine a prisoner's offense and offender characteristics may be available to the Commission through the presentence report. In some cases there may be no presentence report, however. In other cases the report may not reflect all the facts about the offender or the offense that the prosecutor believes are necessary to the informed application of the Parole Commission's guidelines. For example, the report may not contain an adequate description of the defendant's cooperation with the government, or it may omit information relating to charges that have been or will be dropped as part of a plea agreement. There may also be cases in which the attorney for the government does not have access to the presentence report and, consequently, cannot judge its adequacy in terms of the Parole Commission's requirements. Moreover, the prosecutor should bear in mind that the Parole Commission will not know what took place at the sentencing hearing unless one of the parties provides it with a transcript of the proceedings. Finally, if the defendant is released on bail pending appeal, the attorney for the government should bear in mind the possibility that the defendant's post-sentence conduct may be pertinent to the Parole Commission's determination.
To ensure that the Parole Commission has all the information it needs, the attorney for the government should forward to the Chief Executive Officer of the institution to which the defendant will be committed U.S.A. Form 792 (“Report on Convicted Prisoner"), setting forth such information as he believes is necessary to ensure the proper application of the parole guidelines (see U.S. Attorney's Manual, 9-34.220, 9-34.221). The Form 792 submission should be made promptly after the sentencing hearing, and may be supplemented thereafter if necessary, since the Commission's initial parole determination ordinarily will be made within a short time after the defendant's incarceration.
In supplying information to the Parole Commission, the prosecutor should bear in mind that the Commission, like the sentencing judge, is permitted to consider unadjudicated charges in assessing the seriousness of an individual's criminal behavior. Billiteri v. United States Board of Parole, 541 F.2d 938, 944-945 (2d Cir. 1976). Accordingly, the information supplied need not be related solely to the offense or offenses for which the person was convicted, but should reflect the full range and seriousness of the conduct that could have been charged and proved. On the other hand, Commission regulations require that the information it considers meet “a threshold test of reliability.” 44 Fed. Reg. 12692-93 (March 8, 1979). Thus,' the same standard should be applied to Form 792 -submissions as is applied to factual presentations at judicial sentencing hearings and, with respect to contested facts, there should be included a summary of corroborating information sufficient to overcome a denial by the prisoner.
Recommendations by the prosecutor concerning parole should be made when, as a part of a plea agreement, the prosecutor has agreed to make a recommendation, or when the prosecutor concludes, preferably after consultation with his supervisor, that the period of confinement recommended in the parole guidelines would be inappropriate in light of particularly aggravating or mitigating circumstances of the case. In the latter situation, the recommendation should be accompanied by a statement of the aggravating or mitigating circumstances and, if the severity rating of the criminal conduct involved is at issue, should specify the severity rating that the prosecutor believes to be applicable.
This report describes the work of the United States Department of Justice during the period October 1979 through June 1980 in connection with the formulation of national white collar crime law enforcement priorities. Defining such priorities has been a matter of considerable interest within the Department for years. The Attorney General's order establishing the Economic Crime Enforcement Units (A.G. Order No. 817-79) directed the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division to develop proposals for national white collar crime law enforcement priorities to be submitted for approval to the Deputy Attorney General and the Attorney General. In furtherance of the Attorney General's order, the Criminal Division prepared and submitted an extensive report and specific recommendations on white collar crime law enforcement priorities, which serve as the basis for this report,
The national white collar crime law enforcement priorities, and the district priorities that will subsequently be established in a number of federal districts, constitute a major step forward in enhancing our efforts to combat white collar crime. They will serve several important purposes, including the following:
1. Improved coordination and allocation of limited federal investigative and prosecutive
resources on both the national and district level;
2. Better coordination of federal, state and local law enforcement efforts directed toward
white collar crime;
3. More comprehensive and timely identification of trends or patterns in white collar crime
requiring legislative initiatives or special emphasis in the areas of prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution;
4. Expeditious development of new and more effective investigative techniques, prosecution
practices, and training programs in white collar crime law enforcement;
5. Furtherance of consistency and equal justice in federal law enforcement, in conjunction with
prosecutive guidelines for United States Attorneys; and
6. Improved communication between and among law enforcement officials, Congress, the
business community and members of the general public concerning white collar crime problems, their impact on society, and appropriate public and private measures for dealing with them.
To supplement existing information with more current and more comprehensive data on white collar crime and corruption activity, the Criminal Division designed a lengthy White Collar Crime Information Request that was distributed to the major federal agencies and departments involved in the investigation and prosecution of white collar crime. The same Information Request was distributed to Department of Justice personnel directly involved in white collar crime matters, including the existing Economic Crime Unit Specialists in the field, Special Fraud or Corruption Units in United States Attorney offices, the Immigration and Naturalization Service, the Tax Division, and the Land and Natural Resources Division. All told, 240 respondents in 21 federal departments and agencies provided information concerning known or suspected white collar crime activity in every region of the country, along with their respective views on which deserved to have priority status. The FBI provided information concerning white collar crime activity from a Fiscal Year 1979 survey of all its field offices. The Bureau updated that information with additional data collected in a February 1980 survey. Most of the information serving as the basis for this report was provided during the months of January and February 1980.
In analyzing the massive amount of information gathered, the Criminal Division assumed the following to be the broad, underlying objectives of federal law enforcement efforts directed at combatting white collar crime (no ranking implied):
1. The protection and enhancement of the integrity of governmental institutions and
2. The protection and enhancement of the integrity of the free enterprise system, the
competitive marketplace and the nation's economy generally;
3. The protection and enhancement of the well-being of the individual citizen, including his or
her health, safety, physical environment and opportunities to exercise political, economic and other fundamental rights, and
4. The enhancement of the public's respect for and compliance with the nation's laws
In assessing the significance of various white collar crime problems and in defining white collar crime priorities, the following attributes of each criminal activity were studied:
1. Its scope and frequency;
2. The immediate victims and their losses;
3. The secondary victims and their losses;
4. The individuals and institutions involved as perpetrators and accomplices;
5. Any connection with organized crime or other criminal activity';
6. The availability and feasibility of prevention or self-protection by the victims;
7. The need for federal law enforcement involvement;
8. Problems and obstacles confronting increased federal emphasis;
9. The benefits and costs likely to result from increased federal emphasis; and
10. Any other important factors.
With the above-mentioned objectives and decision-making factors in mind, white collar crime activity was divided into seven broad categories. These categories reflect the different, broad groups of institutions and individuals victimized by white collar crime: 1) Government institutions and
The participation of traditional organized crime figures in white collar crime matters may make those matters organized crime law enforcement priorities, regardless of the presence or absence of other attributes, some white collar crime matters, however, involve non-traditional organized crime or other “organized” criminal activity. The presence of this type of activity is a factor to be considered in determining the relative significance of white collar crime problems.