Opinion ID: 6351454
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Summation of Testimony

Text: Three witnesses testified in regard to the payments from [X], [A, B and C]. There is no doubt from the testimony that the money was given to respondent by [X] and there is also no doubt that he did spend some of it for political purposes. But it may be found that the money was given to him for that purpose. The gist of the testimony by [A] and respondent was that the checks were given to respondent without any instructions and no accounting was demanded or even requested from respondent concerning the distribution of the money. An additional fact to be considered is that respondent paid Federal income taxes on the funds received from [X]. Was this an elaborate scheme or conspiracy to violate the statute while giving the appearance of complying with it? Or was it in fact no violation at ah? Respondent did testify on page 156 and 157: “I consulted both sections and in my reading of both sections, I made the judgment that as long as the funds belonged to me, were my property and I paid for them, reading 3224 and 25 together, and fairly, that there was no illegal act on my part.” Taking all the above into consideration, do those facts constitute a conspiracy to violate the statute? A conspiracy is an agreement by two or more persons to commit an unlawful act or to commit a lawful act in an unlawful manner. One of the key elements in this offense is the agreement by the parties (more than one) to commit an act which they know or believe to be illegal. I cannot recall any testimony in which either [A] or [B] admitted that they knew or even thought the giving of the money was illegal or in which they said respondent had told them it was illegal. If respondent really beheved that he was not in violation of the statute and so informed the others, do we have any statutory violation? In his analysis of this particular section, respondent may have reached an erroneous conclusion. Perhaps other lawyers would have come to a different conclusion. But a mistake in judgment is not such an act that renders respondent subject to discipline or criminal responsibility. Certainly neither [A] nor [B] could have participated in a conspiracy to perform an illegal act if the only advice they had was from respondent, and such advice was that the processing of funds in this manner was not a violation of the election code. [A] was President of [X] from 1969 to 1974. His recollection was that at a meeting, respondent thought [X] should become more politically active in the City of [ ]. To that end, an account was to be set up in respondent’s name, into which [X] could deposit funds. Then respondent could draw checks for various political purposes. These contributions were to be at the discretion of respondent both as to amounts and recipients. It was also [A’s] recollection that respondent would not be called upon for an accounting of his expenditures. [B] testified that he was controller of [X]. He said it was decided that contributions were to be made in the [ ] area through respondent. As far as he remembered, there was no discussion of legality or illegality nor of accounting for the money received. [C] was retained by [X] as a public relations officer during 1972 and 1973. He didn’t believe that he was violating the law. Respondent’s testimony was that [A] was going to send him money that would allow him to take part in a whole range of activities and that it would be “in his sole discretion how to use the fund.” Respondent said that it would be considered his money and that he paid the Federal income tax on it. Respondent stated that the money belonged to him and therefore his expenditures for political purposes were not violations of the election code which prohibited a person making contributions for primary or election expenses in other than his own name.