500 F.Supp.3d 21
S.D.N.Y.2020Background
- Akshay Aiyer was convicted after a three-week jury trial of one count of conspiracy in restraint of trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Act for alleged price-fixing and bid-rigging in CEEMEA foreign-exchange markets.
- The Indictment alleged a horizontal agreement among competitors to fix prices and rig bids for CEEMEA currencies; the Court previously denied motions to dismiss and for acquittal or a new trial.
- The Court sentenced Aiyer to eight months imprisonment and two years supervised release; Aiyer filed a motion for bail pending appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b).
- The statutory bail-on-appeal framework (as summarized in Randell) requires, inter alia, that the defendant not be likely to flee and that the appeal raise a "substantial question" likely to result in reversal or a new trial if resolved favorably.
- The Court found by clear and convincing evidence that Aiyer is not likely to flee, but concluded his appeal does not present any substantial question of law or fact based on the trial record, evidentiary rulings, and prior post-trial rulings.
- The Court denied bail pending appeal; it rejected Aiyer’s three principal arguments (pre-trial per se/rule-of-reason determination, exclusion of impact evidence, and juror-misconduct claims) and declined to treat sentence length or place-of-confinement as grounds for release pending appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court erred by not deciding pre-trial whether alleged conduct is per se or governed by rule of reason | United States: Indictment adequately alleged a per se horizontal price-fixing/bid-rigging conspiracy; pre-trial parsing of overt acts was improper | Aiyer: Court was required to analyze particular behaviors pre-trial and rule that only per se conduct be submitted to jury | Court: Not a substantial question; indictment and jury instructions properly alleged and addressed per se conspiracy; trial/post-trial findings control |
| Whether exclusion of evidence that the conduct had no effect on supply/price was error | United States: Per se rule makes pro-competitive/no-impact justification irrelevant; court nonetheless allowed relevant, non-ruse evidence | Aiyer: Court wrongly precluded substantial evidence showing no impact on price/supply/demand | Court: Not a substantial question; per se precedent bars such justifications and evidentiary rulings were careful and permissible |
| Whether juror misconduct required vacatur of verdict | United States: Post-trial inquiry and credibility findings were proper; no basis to overturn verdict | Aiyer: Alleged juror misconduct warrants vacating verdict or new trial | Court: Not a substantial question; inquiry and findings consistent with Supreme Court and 2d Circuit precedent |
| Whether other considerations (short sentence, place of confinement) warrant bail pending appeal | United States: These do not satisfy §3143(b) requirements for release pending appeal | Aiyer: Eight-month sentence and allegedly harsher private facility justify release pending appeal | Court: Not persuasive; statutory factors unmet so bail denied (compassionate-release remedies available later) |
Key Cases Cited
- Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. v. United States, 310 U.S. 150 (U.S. 1940) (establishes per se illegality of price-fixing)
- United States v. Koppers Co., 652 F.2d 290 (2d Cir. 1981) (recognizes bid-rigging as a per se Sherman Act violation)
- Arizona v. Maricopa Cnty. Med. Soc'y, 457 U.S. 332 (U.S. 1982) (explains facial invalidation of price-fixing despite procompetitive justifications)
- United States v. Randell, 761 F.2d 122 (2d Cir. 1985) (sets factors for release pending appeal under §3143(b))
- United States v. Guillory, [citation="740 F. App'x 554"] (9th Cir. 2018) (upholds exclusion of procompetitive defenses to per se bid-rigging)
- Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107 (U.S. 1987) (limits on post-trial jury-inquiry relief for internal jury matters)
- United States v. Baker, 899 F.3d 123 (2d Cir. 2018) (addresses standards for juror-misconduct inquiries)
- United States v. Stewart, 433 F.3d 273 (2d Cir. 2006) (addresses jury-misconduct and evidentiary standards)