Opinion ID: 1982295
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Practical Difficulty in Assessing Per Diem Penalty

Text: Finding much room for dispute as to the specific date the conspiracy ended, the trial court held that there was no objective basis on which to assess a per diem penalty. We find that the court erred in assuming that it had to determine the exact duration of the conspiracy in order to impose a per diem penalty. It is enough that the duration of the conspiracy be determined by a fair and reasonable estimate even though [t]he imprecision of the [witnesses'] testimony makes it difficult to pin down the duration of the conspiracy. United States v. Phelps Dodge Indus., Inc., supra, 589 F. Supp. at 1362. The more successful a conspiracy has been, the more unlikely it is that the duration of the conspiracy can be determined with certainty. It is incompatible with the deterrent purposes of the Antitrust Act to reward a defendant because his actions made calculation of a fine difficult. Cf. Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc., 327 U.S. 251, 264-65, 66 S.Ct. 574, 579-80, 90 L.Ed. 652, 660 (1946) (Antitrust damages under the Sherman Act can be determined by a just and reasonable estimate based upon probable and inferential as well as upon direct and positive proof. Any other rule would enable the wrongdoer to profit by his wrongdoing at the expense of his victim.) (citations omitted).