The Nuremberg Tribunal is not the only international tribunal that can consider a group to be a criminal enterprise in this way. A recent decision by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) could lay the groundwork for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to use the theory of a criminal enterprise in the same way to determine greater responsibility for corporate misconduct. (ICTR decisions may have precedent for the ICC under the Rome Statute.) The ICTY Prosecutor has indicted Slobodan Milošević on three separate counts, which he successfully appealed to the ICTY Appeals Chamber, and which should be considered as a single indictment. Since the prosecution did not use the same language for all three counts, it was left to the Court of Appeal to decide whether the alleged criminal enterprises in the three counts were the same and what was customary between charges. The Court of Appeals ruled that:[13] To combat organized crime, and in particular its infiltration and the exercise of corrupt influence over legitimate corporations, the United States introduced the criminal offense of extortion. Racketeering is a new type of law with a similar purpose to conspiracy and criminal association, but with a broader scope. The offence of extortion is not included in the Organized Crime Convention. It provides for extended penalties for offences committed in the context of an ongoing criminal enterprise. It is sometimes referred to as RICO for the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, a U.S.
federal law passed in 1970, and makes it illegal to acquire, operate, or receive income from a business through an extortion model. Salvador “Sal” Magluta and Augusto “Willy” Falcon ran one of the largest cocaine trafficking organizations in South Florida history. They were indicted by a federal grand jury in April 1991 for various drug-related crimes, including operating an ongoing criminal enterprise. They were charged with importing and distributing more than 75 tons of cocaine, or more than 68,181 kilograms (150,000 pounds). Both Magluta and Falcon were found not guilty after a lengthy trial before Judge Federico Moreno. Magluta was represented by Roy Black, Martin Wienberg and Richard Martinez and Falcon by Albert Krieger, Susan Van Dusen and D. Robert “Bobby” Wells. [7] After the trial, the U.S. Attorney`s Office conducted an investigation into Magluta and Falcon`s finances, which eventually revealed that members of their jury – including the jury foreman – had been bribed. Magluta, Falcon, several jurors, their staff and even some of their lawyers were eventually charged with various crimes resulting from the conduct.
Magluta was eventually sentenced to 205 years in prison, while Falcon received only 20 years after reaching a deal with the government. Magluta was first transferred to the Supermax federal prison in Florence, Colorado. In 2010, after Magluta`s lawyer, Paul Petruzzi, sued the federal government, Magluta was transferred from ADX Florence. Federal agents involved in the case say there are few drug dealers in history who are more successful or better known than Magluta and Falcon. Magluta is currently seeking a new trial based on more than 40 violations. He is currently represented by Paul Petruzzi and Richard Klugh. [8] In addition to the offences of conspiracy, criminal organisation and extortion, liability must be extended to persons who advise or assist in the commission of serious offences related to organised crime. That responsibility includes, in particular, persons who intentionally organise, direct, support, facilitate, facilitate or advise the commission of serious crimes involving an organised criminal organisation, as set out in the Organised Crime Convention. These provisions make it possible to prosecute leaders, accomplices, organizers and arrangers, as well as participants below the commission of serious crimes. Aid, inducement, facilitation or advice also includes secondary parties and accomplices who are not themselves the main perpetrators. Early uses of the joint criminal enterprise doctrine are identified in post-World War II cases where the doctrine was used under the name Common Purpose (or Joint Enterprise) or without a specific name.
[4] The Nuremberg Charter states: “At the hearing of an individual member of a group or organization, the tribunal may decide. that the group or organization to which the person belonged was a criminal organization. This declaration is final and cannot be challenged against other members of the same organization in subsequent cases: “In cases where a group or organization is declared punishable by the court, the competent national authority of a signatory has the right to bring persons to justice before national, military or professional courts for membership. In this case, the criminal nature of the group or organization is deemed to be proven and is not called into question. The Continuing Criminal Enterprise Statute (commonly known as the CCE Statute or Kingpin Statute) is a united States federal law targeting major drug traffickers responsible for sophisticated, long-term drug conspiracies. Unlike the RICO Act, which covers a wide range of organized crime societies, the EAC Act only covers large anti-drug organizations. CCE is codified as Chapter 13 of Title 21 of the United States Code, 21 U.S.C. § 848. The Act criminalizes the federal act of committing or conspiring to commit a continuous series of crimes against the Comprehensive Prevention and Control of Drug Abuse Act of 1970 when such acts are committed jointly with five or more other persons. For a conviction under the law, the offender must have been an organizer, manager or supervisor of continuous operations and have generated significant revenue or resources through drug offences. [1] The exact scope and meaning of the terms “corporations”, “models” and activities sufficient for “extortion activities” have been developed through a series of decisions and interpretations of domestic courts, as is common in the common law tradition, and extortion cases now include corporate misconduct, public corruption and other ongoing criminal activities. It is the company that is at the center of the blackmail (Kleemans, 2017; New Jersey State Commission of Inquiry, 2011; Transcrime, 2012; U.S.
Department of Justice, 2016). The parties in Unocal agreed on a summary judgment shortly after that decision. However, if the case had gone to court, could the plaintiffs have argued that Unocal was a criminal enterprise? The ICTY concluded in a first instance decision that General Ante Gotovina was involved in a joint criminal enterprise with Croatian President Franjo Tuđman with the aim of “forcibly and definitively expelling the Serbian population from the territory [occupied by the armed forces of the Republic of Serbian Krajina]”. Nevertheless, the ICTY Appeals Chamber acquitted Ante Gotovina, Ivan Čermak and Mladen Markač of all charges, including involvement in the joint criminal enterprise. In April 2001, the ICTY Chief Prosecutor, Carla Del Ponte, stated that she was preparing to indict Croatian President Franjo Tudjman before his death in December 1999. [20] Could international law be applied in such cases to hold a company as a whole accountable as a criminal enterprise, thereby extending criminal responsibility to its leaders without proving their personal involvement in certain acts? This is exactly what several international tribunals are doing. In the case of Edouard Karemera and Matthieu Ngirumpatse v. ICTR prosecutors found two politicians guilty under a rarely used theory of accountability, with the defendants found guilty of the actions of others for participating in a plan that had a plausible consequence of certain human rights violations. The ICTR found two senior political officials of the 1994 Rwandan transitional government responsible for human rights violations during the genocide in Rwanda, particularly the mass rape, maiming and sexual assault of thousands of Tutsi women and girls. There was no indication that any of the accused had personally committed rape, mutilation or sexual assault, or that any of the politicians had ordered such acts. They were found guilty of prolonged liability for criminal joint ventures. Id.
Joint Criminal Enterprise (JCE) is a legal doctrine used in war crimes tribunals to enable the prosecution of class members for class actions. This doctrine holds that each member of an organized group is individually responsible for crimes committed by groups within the framework of the common plan or goal. [1] It arose from the application of the idea of the common goal and was applied by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to prosecute political and military leaders for mass war crimes, including genocide, committed during the Yugoslav wars of 1991-1999.