Research Task #3 The United States of America v. Martha Stewart and Peter Bacanovic, 433 F.3d 273 (2d Cir. 2006)

/in /by

Research Task #3: The United States of America v. Martha Stewart and Peter Bacanovic, 433 F.3d 273 (2d Cir. 2006)

Question 1: Defendants

Martha Stewart and Peter Bacanovic

Question 2: Type of jurisdiction

Federal question – Federal court jurisdiction hear cases in which the United States is a party, and in this case, the United States was the plaintiff.

Question 3:

A misdemeanor and infraction are less serious than a felony. The case is a felony as it involves several charges – the jury found Stewart and Bacanovic guilty of conspiracy, concealing material information from and making false statements to government officials, and obstructing an agency proceeding; the jury also found Bacanovic guilty of perjury. Conspiracy is a felony because it attracts a jail sentence of up to five years I federal prison plus monetary fines.

Question 4:

Explain the actus reus and mens rea required by the law.

In the concept of law, actus reus means is he guilty act while in mens rea, is the guilty mind.

How the defendant’s actions met actus reus and mens rea

The defendants were both found guilty of making false statements, which means that they violated Title 18 U.S. Code § 1001 which makes it a crime to willingly and willfully make any materially false or fraudulent statements or representation in the United States jurisdiction. The defendants possessed both guilty mind and guilty act as they planned to conceal and conspire to hide information implying that they had a guilty mind. However, it never ended there as their will to conceal information was transformed into action which they actually did, thus they possessed guilty action.

Question 5: Defendants’ sentences

The Federal Appeals court denied the defendants appeals and thus upheld the previous judgements. In the previous judgement, Stewart and Bacanovic were both sentenced to five months imprisonment, five months of home confinement, and two years’ probation for lying about a stock sale, conspiracy and obstruction of justice. Also, Stewart was fined 30,000 dollars while Bacanovic was fined only 4,000 dollars.

Question 6:

Based on the case, I don’t think that the punishment accorded to the defendants was fit for the crime committed. Stewart and Bacanovic were found guilty of conspiracy, concealing material information from and making false statements to government officials, and obstructing an agency proceeding. The jury also found Bacanovic guilty of perjury. These are more than one crime that is all punishable by imprisonment. The punishment for conspiracy in the United States is a maximum of five years in prison and a maximum fine of 250,000 dollars. The defendants’ actions led to losses in the stock exchange while they might have indirectly benefited from their actions. The United States is a country that holds up integrity values and anyone in public office should be a person of integrity. To promote such behaviors, a maximum sentence would be ideal, but since their crimes weren’t much serious, a three-year conviction behind the bars would be a fair sentence that would as well deter other people from committing such crimes in future.

Question 7: The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) also filed a civil lawsuit against the defendants.

The Security and Exchange Commission claimed that the defendants committed securities fraud by engaging in illegal insider trading.

By the end of the next trading day, the price of ImClone stock had dropped by 16%, and by Stewart selling her shares, she avoided losing 45,673 dollars.

According to SEC, the defendants on multiple occasions lied to the Commission’s staff, the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, and the FBI about the events of December 27, 2001, as well as the facts surrounding Stewart’s sale of ImClone stock. They fabricated an alibi for Stewart’s trade and misrepresented facts concerning her trade.

According to SEC, the Defendants Violated Section 17(a) of the Securities Act, Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5. Based on this, SEC sought relief that Stewart be barred from acting as a director and limiting her activities as an officer, order the defendants to pay civil money penalties, order the defendants to disgorge, jointly and severally, the losses avoided by Stewart’s sale of ImClone securities and to pay prejudgment interest. Finally, SEC requested a permanent enjoining the defendants, their agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and any other person involved in the fraud.