## Facts

- John Hudson, Larry Baresel, and Jack Butler Rackley were officers/directors of two national banks in Oklahoma during the 1980s.
- The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) concluded they used their positions to arrange loans to nominee borrowers that effectively benefited Hudson, allegedly violating federal banking statutes and regulations.
- In 1989, the OCC initiated an administrative enforcement action seeking civil money penalties for the alleged violations.
- The administrative proceeding ended in a consent order requiring each petitioner to pay a civil money penalty and barring them from participating in the affairs of any insured depository institution without prior regulatory approval.
- Years later, federal prosecutors obtained criminal indictments based on the same lending transactions.
- Petitioners sought dismissal of the indictments, arguing the earlier OCC penalties and debarment were “punishment” that made the later prosecution a second punishment for the same offense.

## Issues

1. Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause bars a criminal prosecution following OCC-imposed civil money penalties and occupational debarment arising from the same conduct.
2. Whether the OCC sanctions, though labeled civil, were so punitive in purpose or effect that they must be treated as criminal punishment for Double Jeopardy purposes.
3. What framework governs classification of a sanction as civil or criminal in the Double Jeopardy analysis.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment allowing the criminal prosecution to proceed.
- The Court held the Double Jeopardy Clause protects only against multiple criminal punishments in successive proceedings.
- The OCC sanctions were civil, and petitioners did not provide the “clearest proof” that the statutory scheme was so punitive in form and effect as to transform the civil sanctions into criminal punishment.
- The Court rejected the disproportionality-focused approach associated with prior Double Jeopardy analysis and returned to the legislative-intent and punitive-effects framework.

## Legal Principles

- Double Jeopardy bars successive proceedings only when they impose multiple criminal punishments for the same offense.
- Classification of a sanction follows a two-step inquiry: (1) whether the legislature intended a civil or criminal sanction; and (2) if intended civil, whether the scheme is so punitive in purpose or effect, proven by the “clearest proof,” that it must be treated as criminal.
- In assessing punitive purpose or effect, courts consider nonexclusive factors (including affirmative disability or restraint, historical treatment as punishment, scienter, and retribution/deterrence), with no single factor controlling.
- Civil monetary penalties and occupational debarment imposed under a regulatory banking scheme generally remain civil when tied to remedial aims such as protecting the integrity of regulated institutions, even if they have deterrent effects.

## Conclusion

Because the OCC’s civil money penalties and debarment were civil sanctions and not transformed into criminal punishment by their purpose or effect, the Double Jeopardy Clause did not prevent the government from later pursuing criminal charges based on the same underlying banking transactions.


Hudson v. United States, 522 U.S. 93 (1997)