Source: http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f205600/205609.htm
Timestamp: 2015-03-31 15:40:14
Document Index: 419707166

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 3571', '§ 3559', '§ 3583', '§ 5']

Plea Agreement : U.S. v. Hitoshi Hayashi
formats: this web page (for browsing content), and PDF (comparable to original document formatting). To view the PDF you will need Acrobat Reader, which may be downloaded from the Adobe site. For an official signed copy, please contact the Antitrust Documents Group. MARC SIEGEL (CSBN 142071)
Attorneys for the United StatesFILED
SEP X 8 2004
v. HITOSHI HAYASHI,
| No. CR 01-0019 (SI)
PLEA AGREEMENT	San Francisco Venue
The United States of America and HITOSHI HAYASHI ("defendant") hereby enter into
(a) to be represented by an attorney; (b) as a citizen and resident of Japan, to decline to accept service of the Summons in this case and to contest the jurisdiction of the United States to
District of California; (c) to plead not guilty to any criminal charge brought against him; (d) to have a trial by jury, at which he would be presumed not guilty of the charge and the United States would have to prove every essential element of
2.	The defendant waives the rights set out in Paragraph 1(b)-(g) above, including all jurisdictional defenses to the prosecution of this case, and agrees voluntarily
to consent to the jurisdiction of the United States to prosecute this case against him in the United
States District Court for the Northern District of California. The defendant agrees to have his
sentence determined under the United States Sentencing Guidelines ("U.S.S.G.") and waives all
have to have facts that determine his Guidelines fine and imprisonment ranges under the
U.S.S.G. (including any facts used to determine his offense level, volume of commerce, any
specific offense characteristic or other enhancement or adjustment under the U.S.S.G.) alleged in
an indictment and found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant agrees that facts
that determine his Guidelines fine and imprisonment ranges will be found by the Court at
sentencing by a preponderance of the evidence and that the Court may consider any reliable
evidence, including hearsay, in making such determinations. The defendant also waives the right
to appeal the imposition of the sentence against him, so long as the sentence imposed is
consistent with the recommended sentence contained in Paragraph 8 of this Plea Agreement. The
defendant will plead guilty at arraignment to a one-count Superseding Information to be filed in
the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, in which he is charged
with participating in a conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition by fixing the prices and
allocating the volumes of sorbates to be sold in the United States and elsewhere, beginning in
1992 and continuing until 1996, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. The
United States agrees to move to dismiss the defendant from the pending Indictment, United
States v. Komatsu et al., CR 01-0019 (SI), immediately following the imposition of the sentence.
(a) For purposes of this Plea Agreement, the "relevant period" is that period beginning in 1992 and continuing until 1996. During the relevant period, the
defendant was a salesman for Daicel Chemical Industries, Ltd. ("Daicel"), an entity
organized and existing under the laws of Japan and with its principal place of business in
Tokyo, Japan. During the relevant period, Daicel was a producer of sorbates and was
engaged in the sale of sorbates in the United States and elsewhere. Sorbates are chemical
preservatives used primarily as mold inhibitors in high-moisture and high-sugar food
products. All references to "sorbates" in this Plea Agreement include the products
potassium sorbate and sorbic acid. During the relevant period, Daicel's sales of sorbates
to U.S. customers totalled at least $37.5 million. (b) During the relevant period, the defendant participated in a conspiracy with other persons and entities engaged in the manufacture and sale of sorbates, the primary purpose of which was to fix the prices and allocate the
volumes of sorbates sold in the United States and elsewhere. In furtherance of the
representatives of other major sorbates producers. During such meetings and
conversations, agreements were reached to fix the prices and allocate the volumes of
sorbates to be sold in the United States and elsewhere. (c) During the relevant period, sorbates sold by one or more of the conspirator
firms, and equipment and supplies necessary to the production and distribution of
sorbates, as well as payments for sorbates, traveled in interstate and foreign commerce. The business activities of Daicel and co-conspirators in connection with the production
and sale of sorbates affected by this conspiracy were within the flow of, and substantially
affected, interstate and foreign trade and commerce. (d) Acts in furtherance of this conspiracy were carried out within the Northern District of California. Sorbates affected by this conspiracy was sold by one
(a) a term of imprisonment for three years (15 U.S.C. § 1); (b) a fine in an amount equal to the greatest of (1) $350,000; (2) twice the gross pecuniary gain the conspirators derived from the crime, or (3) twice
§ 1; 18 U.S.C. § 3571(b) and (d)); and (c) a term of supervised release of one year following any term of imprisonment. If the defendant violates any condition of supervised release, the defendant could be imprisoned for the entire term of supervised release (18 U.S.C. § 3559(a)(5); 18 U.S.C. § 3583(b)(3) and (e)(3); and U.S.S.G. § 5D1.2(a)(3)). 6.	In addition, the defendant understands that:
7.	Sentencing for the offense to be charged will be conducted pursuant to the U.S.S.G. Manual in effect on the day of sentencing. The United States and the defendant
agree on the determination of the U.S.S.G. offense level in this c