Opinion ID: 2775174
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the alternative fine statute

Text: The final basis for the defendants’ appeal is the $500 million fine the district court imposed on AUO pursuant to 10 Reversal is not required when the jury returns a general guilty verdict and “one of the possible bases of conviction was . . . merely unsupported by sufficient evidence.” Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46, 55–56 (1991); see Sochor v. Florida, 504 U.S. 527, 538 (1992) (explaining that in Griffin the Court “held it was no violation of due process that a trial court instructed a jury on two different legal theories, one supported by the evidence, the other not. . . . [because] although a jury is unlikely to disregard a theory flawed in law, it is indeed likely to disregard an option simply unsupported by evidence”); see also United States v. Barona, 56 F.3d 1087, 1098 (9th Cir. 1995). UNITED STATES V. HSIUNG 45 the Alternative Fine Statute, 18 U.S.C. § 3571(d). The Alternative Fine Statute provides: “If any person derives pecuniary gain from the offense, or if the offense results in pecuniary loss to a person other than the defendant, the defendant may be fined not more than the greater of twice the gross gain or twice the gross loss . . . .” 18 U.S.C. § 3571(d). The jury found that the collective gain to the conspiracy members was over $500 million. We analyze the fine from two perspectives: (i) whether the fine was improper because it was based on the collective gains to all members of the conspiracy rather than the gains to AUO alone, and (ii) whether the district court, in not imposing joint and several liability, erred by failing to adhere to the “one recovery” rule and failing to take into account any fines paid by AUO’s coconspirators. These are issues of first impression.
Whether “gross gains” under § 3571 means gross gains to the individual defendant or to the conspiracy as a whole is an issue of statutory interpretation that we review de novo. United States v. Marbella, 73 F.3d 1508, 1515 (9th Cir. 1996). The district court instructed the jury as follows: In determining the gross gain from the conspiracy, [the jury] should total the gross gains to the defendants and the other participants in the conspiracy from affected sales of (1) TFT-LCD panels that were manufactured abroad and sold in the United States or for delivery to the United States; or (2) TFT-LCD panels incorporated into finished products such as notebook computers 46 UNITED STATES V. HSIUNG and desktop computer monitors that were sold in the United States or for delivery to the United States. Gross gain is the additional revenue to the conspirators from the conspiracy. This instruction was proper because the statute unambiguously permits a “gross gains” calculation based on the gain attributable to the entire conspiracy. The statute does not require that the gain derive from the defendant’s “own individual conduct,” as AUO reads it. Indeed, AUO’s interpretation reads additional provisions into the statute. AUO relies on United States v. Pfaff, 619 F.3d 172, 175 (2d Cir. 2010) (per curiam), which held that the jury must find the gain or loss amount to impose a fine beyond the limits set by § 3571. Id. Pfaff is not instructive because it was not a conspiracy case; it did not address whether gross gains could include gains to all coconspirators. Id. at 173. Nor has AUO pointed to any case that supports its suggested interpretation, which is contrary to the plain text of the statute.11 AUO’s offense is the conspiracy to fix prices for TFTLCDs. The jury found $500 million in gross gains from that offense. The unambiguous language of the statute permitted the district court to impose the $500 million fine based on the gross gains to all the coconspirators. 11 AUO also points to the legislative history, a comment from the Sentencing Guidelines, and the rule of lenity. Because the text of the statute is unambiguous, we stop with the text and do not refer to extrinsic sources to divine its meaning. See O’Donnell, 608 F.3d at 555. UNITED STATES V. HSIUNG 47
AUO also argues that the district court erred by failing to follow principles of joint and several liability in imposing the fine, an approach that would have required a reduction from the fine amount of the portion already paid by AUO’s coconspirators. However, AUO offers no support for the proposition that § 3571(d) incorporates principles of joint and several liability. The cases it cites do not address whether the “one recovery” rule of joint and several liability applies to § 3571(d), nor do they even discuss § 3571(d). At best, two of the cited cases establish that joint and several liability is an option available to a sentencing court. See United States v. Pruett, 681 F.3d 232, 249 (5th Cir. 2012); United States v. Radtke, 415 F.3d 826, 836 (8th Cir. 2005). The other cases, which address the imposition of civil penalties in RICO prosecutions and civil asset forfeiture, are similarly inapposite because the purpose of criminal fines is to punish the offender, not to compensate a victim or disgorge ill-gotten gains. See Schachter v. Comm’r., 255 F.3d 1031, 1034–35 (9th Cir. 2001). No statutory authority or precedent supports AUO’s interpretation of the Alternative Fine Statute as requiring joint and several liability and imposing a “one recovery” rule. AFFIRMED.