Source: http://www.ussc.gov/Guidelines/2012_Guidelines/Manual_HTML/2b1_1.htm
Timestamp: 2013-05-25 16:38:23
Document Index: 426282700

Matched Legal Cases: ['§2', '§ 982', '§ 1', '§ 80', '§3', '§3', '§ 1001', '§2', '§2', '§ 1341', '§2', '§ 1030', '§ 43']

2012 Guidelines Manual - Chapter 2 - §2B1.1
(3) If the offense involved a theft from the person of another, increase by 2 levels. (4) If the offense involved receiving stolen property, and the defendant was a person in the business of receiving and selling stolen property, increase by 2 levels. (5) If the offense involved misappropriation of a trade secret and the defendant knew or intended that the offense would benefit a foreign government, foreign instrumentality, or foreign agent, increase by 2 levels.
(15) (Apply the greater) If– (A) the defendant derived more than $1,000,000 in gross receipts from one or more financial institutions as a result of the offense, increase by 2 levels; or
(18) If the offense involved– (A) a violation of securities law and, at the time of the offense, the defendant was (i) an officer or a director of a publicly traded company; (ii) a registered broker or dealer, or a person associated with a broker or dealer; or (iii) an investment adviser, or a person associated with an investment adviser; or
(D) The defendant's past activities involving stolen property. 6. Application of Subsection (b)(7).–For purposes of subsection (b)(7), "improper means" includes the unauthorized harvesting of electronic mail addresses of users of a website, proprietary service, or other online public forum.
7. Application of Subsection (b)(9).—
8. Sophisticated Means Enhancement under Subsection (b)(10).—
9. Application of Subsection (b)(11).—
(D) Application of Subsection (b)(11)(C)(ii).—Subsection (b)(11)(C)(ii) applies in any case in which the offense involved the possession of 5 or more means of identification that unlawfully were produced or obtained, regardless of the number of individuals in whose name (or other identifying information) the means of identification were so produced or so obtained. 10. Application of Subsection (b)(13).—Subsection (b)(13) provides a minimum offense level in the case of an ongoing, sophisticated operation (e.g., an auto theft ring or "chop shop") to steal or to receive stolen (A) vehicles or vehicle parts; or (B) goods or chattels that are part of a cargo shipment. For purposes of this subsection, "vehicle" means motor vehicle, vessel, or aircraft. A "cargo shipment" includes cargo transported on a railroad car, bus, steamboat, vessel, or airplane.
11. Gross Receipts Enhancement under Subsection (b)(15)(A).—
(A) In General.—For purposes of subsection (b)(15)(A), the defendant shall be considered to have derived more than $1,000,000 in gross receipts if the gross receipts to the defendant individually, rather than to all participants, exceeded $1,000,000. (B) Definition.—"Gross receipts from the offense" includes all property, real or personal, tangible or intangible, which is obtained directly or indirectly as a result of such offense. See 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(4).
12. Application of Subsection (b)(15)(B).—
(A) Application of Subsection (b)(15)(B)(i).—The following is a non-exhaustive list of factors that the court shall consider in determining whether, as a result of the offense, the safety and soundness of a financial institution was substantially jeopardized:
(B) Application of Subsection (b)(15)(B)(ii).—
13. Application of Subsection (b)(17).—
(B) Subsection (b)(17)(A)(iii).—If the same conduct that forms the basis for an enhancement under subsection (b)(17)(A)(iii) is the only conduct that forms the basis for an enhancement under subsection (b)(15)(B), do not apply the enhancement under subsection (b)(15)(B).
"Introducing broker" has the meaning given that term in section 1a(23) of the Commodity Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. § 1a(23)). "Investment adviser" has the meaning given that term in section 202(a)(11) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. § 80b-2(a)(11)).
(B) In General.—A conviction under a securities law or commodities law is not required in order for subsection (b)(18) to apply. This subsection would apply in the case of a defendant convicted under a general fraud statute if the defendant's conduct violated a securities law or commodities law. For example, this subsection would apply if an officer of a publicly traded company violated regulations issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission by fraudulently influencing an independent audit of the company's financial statements for the purposes of rendering such financial statements materially misleading, even if the officer is convicted only of wire fraud.
(C) Nonapplicability of §3B1.3 (Abuse of Position of Trust or Use of Special Skill).—If subsection (b)(18) applies, do not apply §3B1.3. 15. Cross Reference in Subsection (c)(3).—Subsection (c)(3) provides a cross reference to another guideline in Chapter Two (Offense Conduct) in cases in which the defendant is convicted of a general fraud statute, and the count of conviction establishes an offense involving fraudulent conduct that is more aptly covered by another guideline. Sometimes, offenses involving fraudulent statements are prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 1001, or a similarly general statute, although the offense involves fraudulent conduct that is also covered by a more specific statute. Examples include false entries regarding currency transactions, for which §2S1.3 (Structuring Transactions to Evade Reporting Requirements) likely would be more apt, and false statements to a customs officer, for which §2T3.1 (Evading Import Duties or Restrictions (Smuggling); Receiving or Trafficking in Smuggled Property) likely would be more apt. In certain other cases, the mail or wire fraud statutes, or other relatively broad statutes, are used primarily as jurisdictional bases for the prosecution of other offenses. For example, a state employee who improperly influenced the award of a contract and used the mails to commit the offense may be prosecuted under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 for fraud involving the deprivation of the intangible right of honest services. Such a case would be more aptly sentenced pursuant to §2C1.1 (Offering, Giving, Soliciting, or Receiving a Bribe; Extortion Under Color of Official Right; Fraud involving the Deprivation of the Intangible Right to Honest Services of Public Officials; Conspiracy to Defraud by Interference with Governmental Functions).
(i) A primary objective of the offense was an aggravating, non-monetary objective. For example, a primary objective of the offense was to inflict emotional harm. (ii) The offense caused or risked substantial non-monetary harm. For example, the offense caused physical harm, psychological harm, or severe emotional trauma, or resulted in a substantial invasion of a privacy interest (through, for example, the theft of personal information such as medical, educational, or financial records). An upward departure would be warranted, for example, in an 18 U.S.C. § 1030 offense involving damage to a protected computer, if, as a result of that offense, death resulted. An upward departure also would be warranted, for example, in a case involving animal enterprise terrorism under 18 U.S.C. § 43, if, in the course of the offense, serious bodily injury or death resulted, or substantial scientific research or information were destroyed.
(B) Upward Departure for Debilitating Impact on a Critical Infrastructure.—An upward departure would be warranted in a case in which subsection (b)(17)(A)(iii) applies and the disruption to the critical infrastructure(s) is so substantial as to have a debilitating impact on national security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or any combination of those matters.
Subsection (b)(8) implements the directive to the Commission in section 10606 of Public Law 111–148.
Subsection (b)(14)(B) implements, in a broader form, the instruction to the Commission in section 110512 of Public Law 103–322.
Subsection (b)(15)(A) implements, in a broader form, the instruction to the Commission in section 2507 of Public Law 101–647.
Subsection (b)(15)(B)(i) implements, in a broader form, the instruction to the Commission in section 961(m) of Public Law 101–73.
Subsection (b)(16) implements the directive in section 209 of Public Law 110–326.
Subsection (b)(17) implements the directive in section 225(b) of Public Law 107–296. The minimum offense level of level 24 provided in subsection (b)(17)(B) for an offense that resulted in a substantial disruption of a critical infrastructure reflects the serious impact such an offense could have on national security, national economic security, national public health or safety, or a combination of any of these matters.
Historical Note: Effective November 1, 1987. Amended effective June 15, 1988 (see Appendix C, amendment 7); November 1, 1989 (see Appendix C, amendments 99-101 and 303); November 1, 1990 (see Appendix C, amendments 312, 317, and 361); November 1, 1991 (see Appendix C, amendments 364 and 393); November 1, 1993 (see Appendix C, amendments 481 and 482); November 1, 1995 (see Appendix C, amendment 512); November 1, 1997 (see Appendix C, amendment 551); November 1, 1998 (see Appendix C, amendment 576); November 1, 2000 (see Appendix C, amendment 596); November 1, 2001 (see Appendix C, amendment 617); November 1, 2002 (see Appendix C, amendments 637, 638, and 646); January 25, 2003 (see Appendix C, amendment 647); November 1, 2003 (see Appendix C, amendments 653, 654, 655, and 661); November 1, 2004 (see Appendix C, amendments 665, 666, and 674); November 1, 2005 (see Appendix C, amendment 679); November 1, 2006 (see Appendix C, amendments 685 and 696); November 1, 2007 (see Appendix C, amendments 699, 700, and 702); February 6, 2008 (see Appendix C, amendment 714); November 1, 2008 (see Appendix C, amendments 719 and 725); November 1, 2009 (see Appendix C, amendments 726, 733, and 737); November 1, 2010 (see Appendix C, amendments 745 and 747); November 1, 2011 (see Appendix C, amendment 749); November 1, 2012 (see Appendix C, amendment 761).