|
NIALL E. LYNCH (State Bar No. 157959)
RICHARD B. COHEN (State Bar No. 79601)
DINA WONG (State Bar No. 202878)
EUGENE S. LITVINOFF (State Bar No. 214318)
NATHANAEL M. COUSINS (State Bar No. 177944)
Antitrust Division
U.S. Department of Justice
450 Golden Gate Avenue
Box 36046, Room 10-0101
San Francisco, CA 94102
Telephone: (415) 436-6660
Attorneys for the United States
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.
ALFRED P. CENSULLO,
Defendant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No. CR 03 0368 PJH
FILED: December 17, 2003
INFORMATION
VIOLATION:
Title 18, United States Code,
Section 1503 (Obstruction
of Justice)
San Francisco Venue
|
The United States of America, acting through its attorneys, charges:
I.
DESCRIPTION OF THE OFFENSE
1. ALFRED P. CENSULLO is made a defendant on the charge stated below.
2. During the period in or about June 1999 until the present, defendant ALFRED P.
CENSULLO was the Regional Sales Manager (RSM) for upstate New York for Micron
Technology, Inc. (Micron), a company located and headquartered in Boise, Idaho. During the
period that the defendant was an RSM for Micron, he was responsible for sales of dynamic
random access memory devices and modules (DRAM) to the customers in his geographic region,
including the server division of International Business Machines, Inc. During the period set forth
in this Information, Micron and its subsidiaries were engaged in the manufacture and sale of
certain DRAM products sold to customers in the United States and elsewhere. DRAM is the
most commonly used semiconductor memory product. DRAM provides high-speed storage and
retrieval of electronic information in personal computers, servers and other devices.
3. From in or about June 2002 to the present, a federal grand jury sitting in the
Northern District of California has been investigating, among other things, possible federal
antitrust offenses in the DRAM industry.
4. In or about June 2002, the federal grand jury sitting in the Northern District of
California investigating possible violations of the federal antitrust laws in the DRAM industry
issued a subpoena duces tecum to Micron.
5. Between in or about June 2002 and in or about November 2002, the defendant
ALFRED P. CENSULLO
knowingly corruptly influenced, obstructed and impeded, and endeavored to influence, obstruct
and impede, the due administration of justice, in that:
| (a) | On or about June 17, 2002, a grand jury sitting in the Northern District of
California caused a subpoena duces tecum to be served on Micron relating
to an investigation into criminal antitrust violations in the DRAM industry,
and, among other things, the grand jury subpoena called for the production
of documents relating to any contacts and communications between
DRAM competitors relating to the pricing and sale of DRAM.
|
| (b) | In the course of his employment at Micron, the defendant was invited and
encouraged to attend weekly RSM telephone conferences with other
Micron RSMs responsible for major computer original equipment
manufacturer (OEM) customers, also known as core accounts. During
these phone calls, the Micron RSMs stated their price recommendations
for DRAM sales to the major OEMs and also discussed the prices at which
competing DRAM suppliers would sell their products to major OEMs in
upcoming price negotiations. During the period covered by the grand jury
subpoena, the defendant from time to time recorded in his notebooks
handwritten information concerning competing DRAM suppliers' pricing
which he obtained during these RSM telephone conferences. Additionally,
during the period covered by the grand jury subpoena, from time to time
the defendant received competing DRAM suppliers' pricing from other
sources. The defendant also recorded this information by hand in his
notebooks.
|
| (c) | Sometime shortly after the grand jury subpoena was served on Micron,
Micron notified many of its employees, including the defendant, of the
grand jury investigation into criminal antitrust violations in the DRAM
industry. After being notified of the grand jury investigation and
subpoena, the defendant, with an intent to influence, obstruct, and impede
the grand jury investigation, altered his handwritten notations in his
notebooks by inserting additional words, phrases, and symbols into his
notebooks in an effort to materially change the meaning of the original
notes. Many of the entries that were altered by the defendant relate to
competitor pricing information, which was responsive to the subpoena.
Additionally, the defendant removed and initially withheld 14 pages from
his notebooks that contained competitor pricing information and obvious
alterations that could be detected by the naked eye, and which, if
produced, would have alerted the United States that these documents had
been altered.
|
| (d) | The alterations to the defendant's handwritten notations were material to
the grand jury investigation. The alterations by the defendant were an
attempt to disguise the nature, source, and accuracy of information
responsive to the grand jury subpoena concerning contacts and
communications between DRAM suppliers relating to the pricing and sale
of DRAM, evidence central to any criminal antitrust investigation.
|
ALL IN VIOLATION OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, SECTION 1503.
Dated:
_______________/s/________________
R. Hewitt Pate
Assistant Attorney General
_______________/s/________________
James M. Griffin
Deputy Assistant Attorney General
_______________/s/________________
Scott D. Hammond
Director of Criminal Enforcement
United States Department of Justice
_______________/s/________________
Kevin V. Ryan
United States Attorney
Northern District of California
|
_______________/s/________________
Phillip H. Warren
Chief, San Francisco Office
_______________/s/________________
Niall E. Lynch
Richard B. Cohen
Dina Wong
Eugene S. Litvinoff
Nathanael M. Cousins
Attorneys
U.S. Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
450 Golden Gate Ave.
Box 36046, Room 10-0101
San Francisco, CA 94102
Tel: (415) 436-6660
|
|