| |
| |
United States v. West Coast Aluminum Heat Trating Co. |
 | | West Coast objected to the loss calculation in its sentencing papers, arguing that there was no proof that the parts sold to the government were actually defective; thus, the method employed to calculate loss was not a realistic, economic approach. |
 | | West Coast also pointed out that, at trial, government witnesses had testified that the tested parts had passed all applicable tests, and that the government had failed to cite any instances of actual part failure due to the use of the shortened processes. |
 | | West Coast argues that, because no injuries have occurred or were intended, and because only "18 out of hundreds of thousands [of parts were allegedly defective] over the life of the fraud, which carried on for almost twenty years," the record did not justify the enhancement. |
| www.law.com /regionals/ca/opinions/sep/0050402.shtml (3111 words) |
|