Legislature(2009 - 2010)CAPITOL 120
03/15/2010 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB71 | |
| HB381 | |
| HB355 | |
| HB115 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 381 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 71 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 115 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 355 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 355 - CRIMINAL FINES FOR ORGANIZATIONS
1:56:54 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 355, "An Act relating to criminal fines for
organizations."
1:58:17 PM
GRETCHEN STAFT, Staff, Representative Max Gruenberg, Alaska
State Legislature, speaking on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Gruenberg, offered her understanding that DOL
doesn't keep the data as part of its formal records. The
document that notes it was "Distributed by Rep. Gruenberg"
encompasses the information the department was able to compile.
She related her understanding that many of the cases in which
this statute would've been used were settled, and thus there
isn't a lot of data for situations in which data was imposed.
Ms. Staft pointed out that HB 355 would help set the bottom line
for organizations faced with potential criminal penalties.
1:59:31 PM
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section, Criminal Division, Department of Law, confirmed that
DOL doesn't keep data collected in this form, and therefore the
document in the committee packet is anecdotal recollections of
prosecutors. Ms. Carpeneti informed the committee that the
department doesn't prosecute corporations that often and
corporations don't go to jail. When a corporation is charged
with a crime, the fine and the amount of restitution is often
negotiated. She related her understanding that the special
prosecutions that allow three times the harm in certain
circumstances are helpful, in terms of negotiating. In response
to Chair Ramras, offered her understanding that the BP case when
the field was depleted fell under statutes other than Title 12.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recalled that the BP case fell under
Title 46, environmental crimes. In further response to Chair
Ramras, Representative Gruenberg said that the VECO case
would've fallen under this and was the reason for the original
legislation. The VECO situation wouldn't have allowed the
treble damages because the tax bill passed and there was no gain
to VECO or its clients and no loss to the state. That glitch in
the law, he said, is what compelled him [to introduce HB 355].
The amendment was suggested in conversations with Mr. Sniffen,
DOL.
2:02:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN mentioned that there is legislation under
consideration that requires certain disclosures. He asked if HB
355 would cover [corporations] that don't make those
disclosures. He further asked if, under this legislation, those
corporations could be fined for failure to disclose.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG replied yes, adding that it would be
covered by Title 11.
2:03:13 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS characterized HB 355 as a very important bill.
2:04:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO offered his understanding that in the past
when fines have been doubled, not even half of the damages
resulting have been received. He asked if HB 355 does more than
simply increase the fines.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to Amendment 1, labeled 26-
LS1385\E.1, Luckhaupt, 3/9/10, which read:
Page 1, line 7:
Delete "$1,000,000"
Insert "$2,000,000 [$1,000,000]"
Page 1, line 9:
Delete "$200,000"
Insert "$400,000 [$200,000]"
Page 1, line 11:
Delete "$25,000"
Insert "$50,000 [$25,000]"
Page 1, line 13:
Delete "$10,000"
Insert "$20,000 [$10,000]"
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that both HB 355 and proposed
Amendment 1 seek to legally obtain higher fines.
2:05:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM made a motion to adopt Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected for the purpose of discussion.
[Chair Ramras passed the gavel to Vice Chair Dahlstrom.]
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, in response to a question, posed a
situation in which a bribe was offered in exchange for a vote at
which point the bribery crime is completed because the crime is
the offering of the illegal consideration. Regardless of
whether the offeree does anything, the offeror is guilty of the
bribe. Subsequent events occur such that the offeree votes
against the bill, although the bill passes. Paragraphs (2) and
(3) wouldn't apply because there was no gain to the defendant
because the attempt to defeat the bill failed. Furthermore,
there was no loss to the victim in the case because the bill
passed. [This legislation] attempts to close the loophole.
MS. CARPENETI, in response to Representative Dahlstrom, agreed
that HB 355 would close a loophole.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG added that the crime of conspiracy is
frequently used at the federal level. The crime of conspiracy
is an illegal criminal contract in which two people come
together to do something illegal, even if there's no further
action the crime is complete. In that case, there is no gain to
the defendant and no loss to the victim. Representative
Gruenberg opined that this could be used in virtually any
conspiracy that involved a property crime.
MS. CARPENETI pointed out that Alaska's conspiracy law is very
limited, adding that she would need to research whether the
conspiracy law would apply to property crimes.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO posed a scenario in which an individual
gives a candidate $500, which is the limit, and then gives $250
more. He inquired as to the result of the crime, the worth of
that crime.
2:10:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG answered that he didn't think
paragraphs (2) and (3) would apply in the case of illegal
campaign contributions. He explained that illegal campaign
contributions aren't bribes for a vote. Representative
Gruenberg opined that it's not a crime involving a pecuniary
gain or loss and thus isn't applicable.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO suggested an applicable scenario in which
the $250 continues to be compounded into newer and better
things. He asked if the [worth of the crime] would be $250 or
$250,000 because of investment connections.
MS. CARPENETI related her belief that [the worth] would be the
original amount.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG characterized this question as
referring to how far out in the future it's applied.
MS. CARPENETI offered her belief that it would be at the time of
the crime. She added that the crime of conspiracy in Alaska is
limited to felonies against a person, certain Class A or B
felonies involving controlled substances, and criminal mischief
in the first degree, which includes intentionally damaging an
oil or gas pipeline and terroristic threatening. She then
pointed out that the provisions in HB 355 would apply to
attempts of certain crimes, which would be useful. She noted
that the [department's] attorneys are supportive of HB 355.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG surmised that in a crime against the
pipeline, there would be pecuniary loss. He then related the
need to consider including conspiracy for arson.
2:13:16 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 2:13 p.m. to 2:15 p.m.
[Vice Chair Dahlstrom returned the gavel to Chair Ramras.]
2:15:08 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS made a motion to adopt Amendment 1 to Amendment 1,
such that the change proposed to page 1, line 7, would insert
"$2,500,000" rather than "$2,000,000".
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO objected, then removed his objection.
There being no further objection, Amendment 1 to Amendment 1 was
adopted.
CHAIR RAMRAS then made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2
to Amendment 1, such that the change proposed on page 1, line 9,
would insert "$500,000" rather than "$400,000". There being no
objection, Conceptual Amendment 2 to Amendment 1 was adopted.
CHAIR RAMRAS made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 3 to
Amendment 1, such that the proposed change to page 1, line 11,
would insert "$40,000" rather than "$50,000".
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES objected.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG inquired as to why Chair Ramras is
proposing to lower the amount with Conceptual Amendment 3 while
Amendments 1 and 2 increased the amounts.
CHAIR RAMRAS revised his motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 3
to Amendment 1 such that the proposed change to page 1, line 11,
would insert "$75,000" rather than "$50,000".
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES withdrew her objection.
There being no further objection, the committee treated
Conceptual Amendment 3 to Amendment 1 as adopted.
2:17:59 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment 4 to
Amendment 1, such that the proposed change on page 1, line 13,
would insert "$25,000" rather than "$20,000". There being no
objection, Conceptual Amendment 4 to Amendment 1 was adopted.
2:18:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HOLMES removed her objection to the adoption of
Amendment 1, as amended.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO objected, and asked if the fine amounts are
justifiable.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG explained that the Legislative Research
Services report labeled LRS Report 10.206 relates the fine
amounts as adjusted for inflation. The original fine amounts
more than accounted for inflation. He noted that prior to the
earlier adopted amendments the fine amounts in HB 355 doubled
the existing fine amounts since it has been some 20 years since
these fines have been addressed. The amendments to Amendment 1
increase the fine amounts more. As the sponsor, Representative
Gruenberg said that he doesn't have a problem with those
increases because things are more sophisticated and there is
more at risk than there was 20-30 years ago. These fine amounts
merely provide the judge more discretion on what to do.
Moreover, in dealing with an organization/corporation no one is
jailed and people don't really care if a large corporation has
been convicted of a commercial felony. He characterized it as a
business decision on a cost versus profit basis. These fines,
he pointed out, make it uneconomical/unprofitable to commit the
crime. Representative Gruenberg said that he supports all the
amendments to Amendment 1.
CHAIR RAMRAS related that he believes that the amendments to
Amendment 1 strengthen Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG interjected that these fine amounts
aren't amended every year, just every 20-25 years.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO removed his objection to Amendment 1, as
amended.
2:22:58 PM
CHAIR RAMRAS announced then that Amendment 1, as amended, was
adopted.
2:23:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report HB 355, as amended, out
of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, CSHB
355(JUD) was reported from the House Judiciary Standing
Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| 1 HB 381 Sponsor Statement HJUD.pdf |
HJUD 3/15/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 381 |
| 3 HB381 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HJUD 3/15/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 381 |
| 4 HB381 AS 11 81 335.pdf |
HJUD 3/15/2010 1:00:00 PM |
HB 381 |