Is Single Person Acting Through Various Legal Forms Enough to To Establish Criminal Enterprise ?

In People v. Demenus, (N.Y.L.J., 4/13/95) the Court concluded that the evidence of a criminal enterprise was insufficient, writing that "I decline to hold, that a single defendant acting through various legal forms, as in this particular complex of fact, is sufficient, in and of itself, to establish the existence of the required criminal enterprise." Then in Andreadakis, where I found the grand jury evidence questionable to establish a criminal enterprise, the Court explained that "the addition of the closely held corporation ... does not establish the existence of the required criminal enterprise [citing to Domenus]". In light of the statutory requirement (P.L. 460.00) that "the question whether to prosecute under these statutes ... is essentially one of fairness" the Court held in each case, that even if these conclusions were incorrect and that an enterprise had been established, nevertheless, the enterprise corruption charge should be dismissed in the furtherance of justice, since, under the facts of those two cases, prosecution seemed to me to be inconsistent with the stated legislative findings. The Court was convinced that tin those cases, involving small, closely held corporations, that there were adequate sanctions and that the enterprise corruption statute's enhanced sanctions, were not "necessary", referring to the legislative findings In People v. Andreadakis, Ind. No. 9691/93 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co., 5/3/95), the alleged enterprise was comprised of two same owner-operated plumbing companies, and one of their supervisors, who was the record owner of an alleged shell company. And in Domenus there were also two same owner-operated plumbing companies and several supervisory employees.