## Facts

- John J. Rigas (founder/chairman/CEO) and Timothy J. Rigas (CFO/director) controlled Adelphia Communications Corporation and its corporate affairs.
- Adelphia expanded rapidly in the late 1990s, financed largely through stock and debt.
- Federal authorities alleged the Rigases engaged in transactions and accounting practices that misstated Adelphia’s financial condition and diverted corporate funds for personal use, including conduct tied to tax-related wrongdoing.
- In 2002, the Rigases were indicted and later convicted in the Southern District of New York of conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371 (framed as conspiracy to commit federal offenses) and related substantive fraud offenses.
- In 2005, prosecutors in the Middle District of Pennsylvania indicted the Rigases for a separate § 371 conspiracy (framed as conspiracy to defraud the United States) and substantive tax-evasion offenses.
- The Rigases moved to dismiss the Pennsylvania indictment on Double Jeopardy grounds, arguing both § 371 counts rested on the same underlying agreement.
- The district court denied the motion; the Rigases took an interlocutory appeal, which the Third Circuit heard en banc.

## Issues

1. Whether 18 U.S.C. § 371 creates two distinct conspiracy crimes (“offense” conspiracy and “defraud” conspiracy) or one conspiracy offense that may be committed through alternative objects.
2. If § 371 defines one offense, whether a second § 371 prosecution is barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause when it is based on the same agreement as an earlier § 371 conviction.
3. What procedure and evidentiary showing are required to determine whether two § 371 indictments charge the same conspiracy agreement.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit held that 18 U.S.C. § 371 creates a single conspiracy offense, not two separate crimes.
- Because § 371 is a single offense, a successive § 371 prosecution “may” violate Double Jeopardy if it is based on the same agreement previously prosecuted.
- The court vacated the order denying dismissal and remanded for an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the New York and Pennsylvania § 371 charges involved one agreement or multiple agreements.

## Legal Principles

- 18 U.S.C. § 371 defines one conspiracy offense with alternative objects: conspiring either to commit an offense against the United States or to defraud the United States.
- For § 371, the relevant “unit of prosecution” is the conspiratorial agreement, not the number of objectives, statutory labels, or overt acts pleaded.
- The government may not avoid Double Jeopardy limits by dividing a single agreement into separate prosecutions based solely on characterizing one as an “offense” conspiracy and another as a “defraud” conspiracy.
- Whether two conspiracy charges constitute the same agreement is a fact-bound inquiry assessed under a totality-of-the-circumstances approach (including overlap in participants, methods, timing, locations, objectives, and scope).
- When the record is inadequate to determine sameness of agreement, the proper remedy is a remand for a full evidentiary hearing.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit construed § 371 as a single conspiracy statute with alternative objects and required a remand for fact-finding on whether the Pennsylvania § 371 charge was the same agreement previously prosecuted in New York, which would bar reprosecution under the Double Jeopardy Clause.


United States v. Rigas, 605 F.3d 194 (3d Cir. 2010)