Opinion ID: 1435420
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Continuous Result Requiring Continuous Cooperation

Text: The second Kemp factor is whether the agreement contemplated bringing to pass a continuous result that will not continue without the continuous cooperation of the conspirators. Kemp, 500 F.3d at 287. The first part of this factor overlaps with the time factor from the Liotard test. In evaluating the cooperation part of this factor we look to whether there was evidence that the activities of one group were necessary or advantageous to the success of another aspect of the scheme or to the overall success of the venture. United States v. Greenidge, 495 F.3d 85, 93 (3d Cir.2007) (internal quotation marks, ellipsis, and citation omitted). In other words, we consider whether all aspects of the scheme were interdependent. Cf. Kemp, 500 F.3d at 289 ([I]nterdependence serves as evidence of an agreement; that is, it helps establish whether the alleged coconspirators are all committed to the same set of objectives in a single conspiracy. (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)). As to time, the Pennsylvania Indictment covers a wider time span than the New York Indictment, but again the key years in both conspiracies are the same. The Pennsylvania Indictment alleges that the conspiracy lasted from November 1989, through the date of the indictment [2005], but only describes overt acts occurring between 1998 and 2002. [13] Pennsylvania Indictment at 2. The majority of the allegations in the conspiracy count relate to the period between 1996 and 2002. The alleged tax loss is further limited to the period of 1998 to 2000. [14] The New York Indictment charged a conspiracy between 1999 and May 2002. However, the New York Indictment suggests that the Rigases' conspiratorial conduct began well before 1999. The Bill of Particulars further alleges that the Rigases began using Adelphia funds for their personal benefit [f]rom at least ... 1993. Bill of Particulars ¶ 81. Because the New York Indictment does not purport to reach the origin of the Rigases' conspiracy, we do not find it significant that its charges began later than those in the Pennsylvania Indictment. As to interdependence, we again reiterate that the Government claims that the Rigases appropriated money from Adelphia to avoid taking salaries on which they would have had to pay income tax. See Pennsylvania Indictment at 6, ¶¶ 1-2 (JOHN J. RIGAS and TIMOTHY J. RIGAS stated to an Adelphia employee that they would never pay this large amount of taxes again.; Timothy Rigas told Adelphia employees that the Rigas family members should not take large salaries from Adelphia, but should `live out of the company.') Further, the Rigases had to hide their misuse of Adelphia's corporate assets from the public in order to avoid detection of their income by the Government.