Opinion ID: 1435420
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Common goal among the conspirators

Text: The first Kemp factor is whether there was a common goal among the conspirators. Kemp, 500 F.3d at 287. The Government urges us to focus on the objectives of the conspiracies charged in the two indictments, arguing that the object of the New York conspiracy was to commit securities fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud, to file false reports with the SEC, and to falsify the books and records of Adelphia, while the object of the Pennsylvania conspiracy was to defraud the IRS. However, this argument misses the point of the totality of the circumstances test. In Liotard, we specifically rejected including objects of the charged conspiracies in that test. 817 F.2d at 1078 n. 7. It is well established that a single conspiratorial agreement can envisage the violation of several statutes. See, e.g., Braverman v. United States, 317 U.S. 49, 53, 63 S.Ct. 99, 87 L.Ed. 23 (1942). Further, the Government's approach would give undue weight to the grand jury's characterization of the Rigases' conduct, instead of focusing on the substance of the matter. J. David Smith, 82 F.3d at 1267. Thus, in considering whether the defendants had a common goal we look to the underlying purpose of the alleged criminal activity. See, e.g., United States v. Greenidge, 495 F.3d 85, 93 (3d Cir.2007) (describing common goal as to make money by depositing stolen and altered corporate checks into business accounts); Kelly, 892 F.2d at 259 (describing common goal as to make money selling `speed'). As set forth above, in the Pennsylvania Indictment the Government alleges that, after a particularly high tax bill, the Rigases decided that they would never pay [a] large amount of taxes again. Pennsylvania Indictment at 6, ¶¶ 1-2. To accomplish this purpose, the Rigases decided that Rigas family members should not take large salaries from Adelphia, but should `live out of the company.' Id. To avoid detection, the Rigases engaged in sham transactions to conceal their use of corporate assets. Of course, to conceal their income from the Government, the Rigases also had to conceal it from the public in general, including shareholders. The New York Indictment simply targeted this aspect of the Rigases' scheme. Further, it is not dispositive that the conspiracy charged in the New York Indictment was broader than the Pennsylvania Indictment. The charges in both indictments relate to a common goal of enriching the Rigases through Adelphia. A master conspiracy [can involve] more than one subsidiary scheme. United States v. Kenny, 462 F.2d 1205, 1216 (3d Cir.1972). The allegations related to conversion of Adelphia funds by the Rigases  a subsidiary scheme within the New York Indictment  appear to be the same in both indictments.