Commonwealth v. Donoghue
89 A.L.R. 819, 250 Ky. 343, 63 S.W. 2d 3 (1933)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A combination to habitually engage in an activity that violates public policy, such as lending money at grossly exorbitant rates to vulnerable individuals and using unlawful means to prevent recovery of the usury, constitutes an indictable common-law criminal conspiracy, even if the underlying act of charging usury is not itself a statutory crime.
Facts:
- M. Donoghue, W. T. Day, and Vernon L. Buckman operated a money-lending business called the Boone Loan Company.
- They engaged in a coordinated plan to lend small amounts of money, from $5 to $50, to poor and necessitous wage-earners.
- The loans carried exorbitant and usurious interest rates, ranging from 240% to 360% per annum.
- A central part of their agreement was to prevent borrowers from recovering the excessive interest they had paid.
- To conceal their identities and hinder legal action by borrowers, they filed false certificates in the county clerk's office about the business's true ownership.
- The business was part of a foreign corporation that had not filed the required paperwork with the Secretary of State to legally operate in Kentucky.
Procedural Posture:
- The Commonwealth of Kentucky indicted M. Donoghue, W. T. Day, and Vernon L. Buckman in Kenton County for the common-law offense of criminal conspiracy.
- Only the defendant, Donoghue, was before the trial court.
- Donoghue filed a demurrer to the indictment, arguing that the facts alleged did not constitute a public offense.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer and dismissed the indictment.
- The Commonwealth of Kentucky, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's dismissal to the Kentucky Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a combination to operate a business that habitually lends small sums of money to poor wage-earners at exorbitant interest rates (240% to 360%) and uses unlawful means to conceal ownership and prevent borrowers from recovering the usury constitute an indictable common-law offense of criminal conspiracy?
Opinions:
Majority - Stanley, Commissioner
Yes. A combination to systematically prey upon poor persons by charging exorbitant interest rates and to obstruct justice by preventing them from seeking recovery constitutes an indictable common-law conspiracy. The indictment describes more than just charging usury; it alleges a nefarious plan for the habitual exaction of gross usury, which is a form of extortion and a violation of public policy. While charging usury itself is not a statutory crime, the term 'unlawful' in the context of conspiracy is broad and includes acts that are wrongful, injurious to the public, and violate the common weal. The defendants' use of unlawful means—failing to properly register their business and its ownership—was an intrinsic part of the scheme to obstruct justice and prevent borrowers from obtaining restitution, making the entire combination a punishable offense.
Dissenting - Clay, Justice
No. The indictment does not state a valid offense because the majority improperly extends the conspiracy doctrine to create a new crime. Charging usury is not a crime in Kentucky, so for a conspiracy to exist, the conspirators must have used criminal or unlawful means to obtain the loan, such as force, threats, or fraud, which was not alleged here. The statutory violations of failing to file business ownership statements are wholly disconnected from the act of lending money. By declaring this conduct a crime based on a vague theory of public policy, the court is acting like a legislature and creating an ex post facto law, which is a dangerous precedent.
Analysis:
This case is significant for its broad interpretation of the 'unlawful purpose' element of common-law conspiracy. The decision establishes that a combination can be criminal if its objective is to engage in a systematic course of conduct that is profoundly against public policy and injurious to the public, even if the core activity is not a specific statutory crime. This empowers prosecutors to target socially harmful predatory schemes by using the flexible doctrine of conspiracy, treating the combination itself as the punishable offense. It sets a precedent that the term 'unlawful' in conspiracy law extends beyond acts defined as criminal to include conduct that harms the community and obstructs the administration of justice.
