US SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

Appellees, a railroad and three of its officers, were indicted under §10 of the Clayton Act for participating in the noncompetitive sale of equipment to another corporation in which the officers had a "substantial interest," described in a bill of particulars as an agreement for substantial payment to the individual appellees for effecting the sale. Holding that § 10 applies to a "then present legal interest," and not one dependent on the outcome of an illegal plan, the District Court dismissed the indictment.

Held:

1. Under the strict construction applicable to a criminal statute, the words "substantial interest" in § 10 presuppose not bribery (which the indictment here in effect charges) under a conflict of interest law, but either an existing investment in the purchaser, the creation of the purchaser for the use of those acting for the seller, or a joint venture or continued course of dealings for profit sharing with the purchaser, each of which would be within the concept of this antitrust statute. Pp. 380 U. S. 160-162.

2. Since an amended bill of particulars may be filed under Rule 7(f) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, the case is vacated and remanded. P. 380 U. S. 162.

225 F.Supp. 577, vacated and remanded. chanrobles.com-red

Page 380 U. S. 158