organization is from 20 to 50 percent of the volume of commerce, but not less than $100,000.").
26 See Sentencing Guidelines for United States Courts, 52 FR 18046 (May 13, 1987).
27 See Letter from William W. Wilkins, Jr. (July 1988), in u.s. sEnt'g coMM'n, discussion MatERials on
oRganizational sanctions (1988). These materials included a draft of sentencing guidelines for organizations,
a draft proposal on standards for organizational probation, and a report on past sentencing practices of
organizations by the federal courts from 1984 through 1987. See Public Hearings on Organizational Sanctions,
53 FR 32815, 32816 (Aug. 26, 1988). Working groups of scholars and experts from various government
agencies helped shape these materials. See 1991 suPPlEMEntaRy REPoRt, supra note 15, at 2.
28 See Jeffrey S. Parker, Staff Working Paper on Criminal Sentencing Policy for Organizations, in discussion
MatERials on oRganizational sanctions, supra note 27, at pt. IV, at 9.
29 The rst was held on October 11, 1988, in New York City, and the second in Pasadena, California
on December 2, 1988. See Public Hearing on Organizational Sanctions, 53 FR 35407 (Sept. 13, 1988); Public
Hearing on Organizational Sanctions, 53 FR 41644 (Oct. 24, 1988), respectively.
30 For a complete list of the witnesses, see 1991 suPPlEMEntaRy REPoRt, supra note 15, at B-1–B-3.
31 See generally Transcript of Public Hearing before the U.S. Sent'g Comm'n, New York, N.Y. (Oct. 11,
1988); see also supra note 30.
32 See Transcript of Public Hearing before the U.S. Sent'g Comm'n, Pasadena, CA 71 (Dec. 2, 1988) (R.
Monks).
33 See Transcript of Public Hearing 73 (Dec. 2, 1988) (W. Wilkins, Jr.) ("The points you make are very
interesting."); Id. at 83 (S. Breyer) ("[I]t's a very interesting proposal, and I think perhaps practical."); Id.
(H. Corrothers) ("I think the idea is a marvelous one, and I would like to encourage you and to do anything I can
to help promote it, too.").
34 See 1991 suPPlEMEntaRy REPoRt, supra note 15, at 2.
35 See Letter from Joseph E. diGenova, Chair, Att'y Working Grp., to Hon. William W. Wilkins, Jr.,
Chairman, U.S. Sent'g Comm'n 2 (May 19, 1989).
36 See id. at 1. The Attorney Working Group consisted of recognized experts in the areas of white collar,
tax, antitrust law, and economic regulation, including Chair diGenova, Esq., Victoria Toensing, Esq., Ernest
Gellhorn, Esq., Bert W. Rein, Esq., Winthrop Swenson, Justin Thornton, Esq., Samuel J. Buffone, Esq., Earl Silbert,
Esq., Carl Rauh, and Robert Jordan, III Esq. Id. at 7. Notably, the group recommended that the Commission
limit itself to the promulgation of "exible policy statements rather than rigid and binding guidelines." Id. at 4.
Other reductions suggested by the Working Group included steps taken by the organization "to discipline the
responsible individuals" and to "make it easier for the criminal justice system to identify and punish responsible
individuals," or "if an organization takes appropriate steps to prevent a recurrence of similar offenses." Id. at 3.
37 See Sentencing Guidelines for United States Courts, 54 FR 47056 (Nov. 8, 1989).
38 On February 14, 1990, the Commission conducted a public hearing on "the proposals and any other
aspect of the sentencing guidelines, policy statements, and commentary as they apply to the sentencing of
organizations." See Sentencing Guidelines for United States Courts; Public Hearing, 55 FR 4045 (Feb. 6, 1990);
Transcript of Public Hearing before the U.S. Sent'g Comm'n, Washington, D.C. (Feb. 14, 1990). Seventeen
witnesses, with a diversity of backgrounds and interests, testied before the Commission about organizational
sentencing policy. For a complete list of the witnesses, see 1991 suPPlEMEntaRy REPoRt, supra note 15, at B-3.
39 For a complete list of the witnesses, see 1991 suPPlEMEntaRy REPoRt, supra note 15, at B-3.
72
United States Sentencing Commission