United States V. Hansen 262 F.3d 1217

Summary of the Facts

In 1972, Christian A. Hansen formed Hansen group that purchased an industrial plant in Brunswick, Georgia and did business as LCP Chemicals-Georgia, LCP.    The facility manufactured industrial chemicals like caustic soda, hydrochloric acid, hydrogen gas, and chloralkali bleach. There were approximately 150 employees who worked as plant cellrooms. LCP was located adjacent to Purvis Creek and Tidal marshes. The manufacturing process generated hazardous wastes contaminated with chlorine and mercury, and wastewater with high pH. There were various environmental regulations that governed the production and treatment of industrial wastes. LCP applied for a permit to discharge treated wastewater into the Purvis Creek after having set up treatment system. But LCP misrepresented to the Georgia Environmental Protection Division, EPD, that the plant's wastewater continuous treatment capacity was at 70 gallons per minute instead of its at 35 gallons per minute. After accidental spills, bleach started to pool on the floor of a cellroom, and the same continued in a state of disrepair. The unavailability of replacement parts led to wastewater pooling around the plant. LCP repeatedly failed to comply with environmental standards: its small capacity and disrepair of the facility contributed to excess wastewater spilling off from the cellrooms into the environment.

The LCP plant also failed to protect the workers by making them work in contact with contaminated air, floors, and water.  Following an employee complaint, OSHA inspected the plant and found LCP to be in willful violation of safety regulations. Hanlin filed for bankruptcy in July 1991 but continued to operate the plant as the debtor-in-possession, and defendants-appellants operated the plant at that time. LCP received a notice from the Georgia EPD in 1993 of the intention to revoke their permit to discharge the treated effluent into Purvis Creek due to the continuing violations of the plant beginning in May 1992 of pH, mercury, and total residual chlorine. Pumping the wastewater into bunker tanks that had been used to store oil made it impracticable to subsequently run the wastewater through the treatment system. Parties and their Positions The United States was the Plaintiff-Appellee in the case against Randall W. Hansen, Christian A. Hansen, and Alfred R. Taylor, the Defendants-Appellants.

Christian Hansen was founder, Chair of the Board, Chief Executive Officer, and President of the Hanlin Group.

Hansen also worked as LCP plant manager for nearly two months. Randall Hansen was an executive vice president and, thereafter Chief Executive Officer. Before serving as Brunswick operations manager in 1991, Alfred Taylor was employed by LCP for around 12 years and served as plant manager from February to July 1993. Procedural Background The government indicted Christian Hansen, Douglas Brent Hansen, Randall Hansen, and Alfred R. Taylor on 42 counts of different charges including conspiracy to commit environmental crimes at the plant contrary to 18 U.S.C. 371, knowingly endangering employees contrary to 42 U.S.C. 6928(e), storing wastewater in the Bunker tanks contrary to 42 U.S.C. 6928(d)(2)(A), and, violating the Clean Water Act (CWA) 33 U.S.C. 1319(c)(2)(A), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act ("CERCLA") 42 U.S.C. 9603(b)(3) and the Endangered Species Act. A jury trial was conducted on the case in the Southern District of Georgia.

Douglas Brent Hansen pleaded guilty and testified against the other three defendants.

The defendants-appellants filed various motions for acquittal, and the same was eventually granted only in an indictment under the Endangered Species Act. Randall and Christian Hansen were both convicted in all their charged counts, and Taylor was convicted under 20 counts.

The defendant's motion for a new trial was overruled.  Christian and Randall Hansen were sentenced to 108 and 46 months of imprisonment, respectively, a special assessment of $2,050 and $1,700, respectively, as well as a fine of $20,000 and two years of supervised release. Taylor was sentenced to 78 months in prison with a special assessment of $1,000 and supervised release for two years. The defendants duly appealed, and remained on bond pending appeal. The case then went before the United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit. Christian Hansen filed four issues on appeal with the first being that the district court had made an error in admitting the testimony of the government's expert witnesses. Hansen first objected to the district court's definition and application of the reasonable doubt standard, the reasonable corporate officer, the elements of knowing endangerment, and removal of the mens rea requirement from each statutory violation. Third, Hansen argued that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions. Finally, Hansen agitated that the district court erred in holding that it lacked discretion to depart from the advisory sentencing guidelines.

Randall appealed the decision of the district court to deny his motion for judgment of acquittal on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction for knowing endangerment.     It was further Randall's contention that the government below had failed to establish its case; he also claimed error on the part of the district court in allowing prejudicial evidence on the elements of the charged substantive offenses, in refusing to make a downward departure, and in the responsible corporate officer instruction as grounds for criminal liability. Taylor contended that the district court had erred by denying his motion for judgment of acquittal and for a new trial based on insufficient evidence, its position on the wastewater treatment system and in sentencing him. The Court of Appeals found no error in the findings and judgment of the district court. Legal Issue Did the trial court err in ruling that the company officials and plant administrators were personally liable as operators of a hazardous waste facility under the environmental statutes (CWA, RCRA, and CERCLA)?

We Affirm     No. The Court affirmed the judgment below. The court of appeals reviewed the record transmitted from the district court and held that it was both necessary and sufficient to establish upon it the corporate officers' guilt of criminal charges of violations of the acts applicable to the environmental laws (CWA, RCRA, and CERCLA). PER CURIAM. Held that Christian Hansen could not be acquitted of offenses committed when he was not the head of the company or the plant manager. He cannot be acquitted as held by the court since although the wrongful acts occurred at a time when he was not holding any position of authority, he incited their commission.

The court was guided by the decision in United States v. Pepe, 747 F.2d 632, 665 (11th Cir.1984) that held the government was not burdened to prove that the accused was present at the scene of the crime or an active participant but rather it was enough to show that the accused person shared a common criminal motive with the perpetrator ().

A defendant will found to have aided or abetted a crime if they encouraged its occurrence or obstructing its investigation.

In the case Hansen, the court of appeals found that he encouraged the violations because he did not stop the heinous acts when he was in decision making position despite having knowledge of their occurrence.

The court invoked the same reasoning to deny Taylor's prayer to be discharged from the violations that had taken place after he left the place of operation.

In the case of Randall Hansen, the court observed that "the bankruptcy laws never absolve the debtor from environmental laws."

Going further, the court observed that since the appellants were well aware of their violations, they hadn't erred at all.    Conclusion Yes, the court was right. All the defendants-appellants were in superior positions and got consistent updates and also issued communication regarding the condition of the Industrial plant. Therefore, their acts and omissions regarding the pollution at the site were purposeful and willful breaches, some of the most gross violations taking place on their directions Twomey & Jennings, 2013). 

For more information look here.