Opinion ID: 572629
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Vulpis Companies

Text: 80 The Vulpis companies contend that the jury's verdict finding them guilty on counts 1, 2, and 5-9 was not supported by sufficient evidence because the only evidence linking them to the A & A illegal operation was the fact they were 50% owned by Vulpis. They contend that they could not properly be held liable for his actions because there was no evidence that they had conferred any authority on him to involve them in the A & A landfill. This contention need not detain us long. 81 A corporation can act only through its agents, and the acts of individuals on [the corporation's] behalf may be properly chargeable to it. United States v. Ingredient Technology Corp., 698 F.2d 88, 99 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 462 U.S. 1131, 103 S.Ct. 3111, 77 L.Ed.2d 1366 (1983). Thus, the corporation may be held criminally liable for the conduct of its supervisory employees who had either intentionally disregarded the law or had acted with plain indifference to its requirements. United States v. Demauro, 581 F.2d 50, 54 (2d Cir.1978). 82 The evidence in the present case was sufficient to permit a rational juror to infer beyond a reasonable doubt that Vulpis's actions with respect to the A & A dump were for the benefit of and authorized by Rosedale and Vulpis Brothers, Ltd. It included proof that Vulpis owned 50% of each company; that he was an officer of each corporation; and that he largely ran their operations. Vulpis entered into the A & A partnership with Paccione for the purpose of operating the illegal dump. Vulpis helped run the dump. Truck drivers for both of Vulpis's companies testified that they daily made numerous dumps in Arlington Yard without being required to pay a fee. Use of that dump saved the Vulpis companies millions of dollars. 83 In short, the evidence was ample to support the convictions of the Vulpis companies on the RICO and mail fraud counts with which they were charged.