United States v. Kissel
31 S. Ct. 124, 1910 U.S. LEXIS 2054, 218 U.S. 601 (1910)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A conspiracy can be a continuing offense for statute of limitations purposes. The statute does not necessarily begin to run from the date of the initial agreement if the conspiracy contemplates ongoing cooperation to achieve a continuous criminal result, and such cooperation continues into the limitations period.
Facts:
- On December 30, 1903, the American Sugar Refining Company and others, including Kissel, entered into a conspiracy to restrain trade by eliminating a competitor, the Pennsylvania Sugar Refining Company.
- The scheme involved the American Sugar Refining Company, through Kissel, making a large loan to an individual named Segal.
- In exchange for the loan, Segal transferred a controlling interest of the Pennsylvania Sugar Refining Company's stock, along with voting power, to Kissel.
- Segal was not aware that the American Sugar Refining Company was the true party behind the loan and stock transaction.
- The conspirators used their voting power to pass a resolution that the Pennsylvania Sugar Refining Company cease all business operations.
- The conspirators' objective was to maintain control over the Pennsylvania company, prevent it from repaying the loan, and ultimately drive it out of business entirely.
- The alleged conspiracy and the continuous cooperation to maintain it continued from 1903 until at least July 1, 1906, which was within three years of the indictment.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States filed a criminal indictment against Kissel and other defendants in the Circuit Court of the United States (a federal trial court).
- The indictment, filed July 1, 1909, charged the defendants with engaging in a conspiracy in restraint of trade from December 30, 1903, until the date of the indictment.
- The defendants filed special pleas in bar, arguing the prosecution was barred by the three-year statute of limitations because the initial conspiratorial agreement was made more than three years prior to the indictment.
- The Circuit Court sustained the defendants' pleas in bar and dismissed the indictment.
- The United States brought a writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States to appeal the Circuit Court's judgment.
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 the statute of limitations for a criminal conspiracy under the Sherman Act begin to run from the moment the initial agreement is formed, or can a conspiracy be a continuing offense that extends beyond its formation for limitations purposes?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Holmes
No, the statute of limitations for a criminal conspiracy does not necessarily begin to run from the moment of the initial agreement because a conspiracy can be a continuing offense. A conspiracy is not a crime that is completed the instant the agreement is made; rather, it endures as long as the conspirators continue to cooperate towards their unlawful goal. The Court reasoned that when a criminal plot contemplates a continuous result that requires the continuous cooperation of the conspirators, the conspiracy is a single, ongoing offense. Likening a conspiracy to a 'partnership in criminal purposes,' the Court explained that just as a business partnership endures beyond its initial formation contract, a conspiracy continues until it is abandoned or its purpose is fully achieved. Therefore, if the conspiracy continued into the statutory period, the indictment is not time-barred, and the question of its continuation must be decided at trial under a general denial, not dismissed beforehand through a special plea.
Analysis:
This decision formally established the 'continuing conspiracy' doctrine in antitrust law. It prevents conspirators from escaping liability by merely forming their illegal agreement outside the statute of limitations period and then continuing to carry out their scheme within it. The ruling is critical for prosecuting long-term anticompetitive behavior, as it defines the crime's duration by the conspirators' active cooperation rather than the initial agreement date. This precedent ensures that as long as an illegal scheme like a monopoly or price-fixing cartel is actively maintained, the statute of limitations will not bar prosecution.
