73 F. Supp. 3d 154
D. Conn.2014Background
- Hoskins moves to dismiss the Second Superseding Indictment charging conspiracy to violate the FCPA, substantive FCPA offenses, conspiring to launder money, and substantive money laundering.
- Indictment alleges bribery scheme for Alstom Power U.S. to secure a Tarahan Project contract with PLN in Indonesia, spanning 2002–2009.
- Hoskins, a UK citizen, was Senior VP for Asia at Alstom Holdings S.A., worked in Paris, and did not travel to the U.S. in connection with employment.
- Hoskins resigned from Alstom in August 2004; he contends withdrawal from the conspiracy occurred then, which would toll the statute of limitations.
- Government disputes withdrawal and argues unresolved factual issues must await trial; pretrial dismissal requires legal deficiency or undisputed facts.
- Court addresses whether withdrawal is a defense, agency issue under FCPA, extraterritorial application, venue for money laundering, and potential multiplicity.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Withdrawal from conspiracy as a defense | Hoskins’ withdrawal requires factual proof; pretrial adjudication inappropriate. | Resignation constitutes withdrawal; statute of limitations should bar charges. | Withdrawal defenses must be decided by trial; pretrial dismissal denied. |
| Agency element under FCPA | Hoskins acted as an agent of a domestic concern via Alstom Power U.S. in carrying out payments. | Indictment taxonomically mislabels him; whether he is an agent is a factual question for trial. | Jury must determine whether Hoskins was an ‘agent’ of a domestic concern; not decided pretrial. |
| As-applied vagueness of FCPA | FCPA’s agent concept can encompass Hoskins given his role and actions. | Application to Hoskins is unconstitutionally vague as applied. | As-applied vagueness challenge denied; requires trial-record evidence. |
| Extrateritorial application of FCPA | Indictment alleges domestic conduct through use of mails and interstate commerce to bribe abroad. | Non-U.S. status and conduct outside U.S. boundaries limit application. | Court finds extradomain application adequate; domestic conduct suffices for jurisdiction. |
| Venue and multiplicity for money laundering counts | Venue proper in Connecticut; continuing transaction theory may co-exist with FCPA counts. | Venue objections and potential multiplicity if same conduct under two statutes. | Venue proper; multiplicity challenge rejected; no dismissal on these grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Aleynikov, 676 F.3d 71 (2d Cir. 2012) (indictment legally insufficient when defining 'goods' under NSPA; informs agency ambiguity here)
- United States v. Smith, 133 S. Ct. 714 (U.S. 2013) (withdrawal is an affirmative defense proven by preponderance of evidence)
- United States v. Berger, 224 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2000) (withdrawal requires affirmative action disavowing purpose of conspiracy)
- United States v. Antar, 53 F.3d 568 (3d Cir. 1995) (continuing effects of conspiracy; withdrawal considerations)
- United States v. Sisson, 399 U.S. 267 (U.S. 1970) (indictment sufficiency; defenses not required to be pled in indictment)