United States v. Bergman
416 F.Supp. 496 (1976)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A prison sentence for a white-collar crime is justified for the purposes of general deterrence and to avoid depreciating the seriousness of the offense, even when the defendant is a non-violent, first-time offender for whom rehabilitation or incapacitation are not relevant sentencing goals.
Facts:
- Bernard Bergman, an ordained rabbi and doctor of divinity, was widely acclaimed for his philanthropy and had amassed considerable wealth through the ownership and operation of nursing homes.
- An investigation into fraudulent Medicaid claims in the nursing home industry began to focus on Bergman.
- Bergman knowingly and willfully participated in a scheme to defraud the United States by presenting wrongfully padded claims for Medicaid payments to his nursing homes.
- Bergman also participated in filing a false and fraudulent partnership tax return which failed to list individuals who had purchased partnership interests in one of his nursing homes.
Procedural Posture:
- Federal and state authorities investigated Bernard Bergman for fraud related to his nursing home businesses.
- A federal grand jury returned an 11-count indictment against Bergman in the United States District Court.
- Bergman entered into plea negotiations with both federal and state prosecutors.
- In the U.S. District Court, Bergman pled guilty to two counts of the indictment: conspiracy to defraud the United States and filing a false partnership return.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a term of imprisonment a justified sentence for a non-violent, white-collar offender who is unlikely to re-offend, where the primary goals of the sentence are general deterrence and affirming the seriousness of the crime?
Opinions:
Majority - Frankel, District Judge.
Yes, a term of imprisonment is justified. A prison sentence is appropriate for a non-violent, white-collar offender, even if rehabilitation and incapacitation are not valid sentencing goals, when it serves the purposes of general deterrence and prevents the depreciation of the crime's seriousness. The court rejected rehabilitation as a basis for imprisonment, stating that no one should be confined on the premise it will be good for them. The court also found incapacitation (specific deterrence) unnecessary, as Bergman was not dangerous and unlikely to reoffend. However, the court identified two compelling reasons for imprisonment: 1) General deterrence, which aims to discourage similar wrongdoing by others by demonstrating that crimes of deception for profit will be met with serious consequences; and 2) The need to avoid depreciating the seriousness of the offense, which proclaims the gravity of the crime, promotes equal justice by not exempting 'privileged' violators from prison, and satisfies a sense of 'just deserts.' The court dismissed arguments that public humiliation from media exposure was 'punishment enough,' reasoning that a defendant's notoriety should not serve to lighten a sentence that a less-known individual would receive for a similar crime.
Analysis:
This sentencing memorandum is a foundational text in criminal law for its clear articulation of modern sentencing philosophy, particularly in the context of white-collar crime. It marks a significant judicial endorsement of general deterrence and the expressive or retributive functions of punishment, while explicitly moving away from the rehabilitative ideal as a justification for incarceration. The decision establishes a strong precedent that high-status individuals who commit financial crimes will face imprisonment, not just fines or alternative sanctions, to maintain public faith in the principle of equal justice and to deter potential offenders. This reasoning has profoundly influenced how courts approach the sentencing of non-violent, affluent defendants.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Bergman