Aggravating factors. The Contractor failed to xxxxx an alleged violation or enforce the requirements of a compliance plan, when directed by the Contracting Officer to do so.
Aggravating factors. The CNA failed to xxxxx an alleged violation or enforce the requirements of a compliance plan, when directed by the Agreement Officer to do so.
Aggravating factors. The Subcontractor failed to xxxxx an alleged violation or enforce the requirements of a compliance plan, when directed by SDSTA or the Government to do so.
Aggravating factors. The Agent has placed undue pressure on the complainant to withdraw the complaint.
Aggravating factors. The Deputy Executive Counsel considers that there are no aggravating factors
Aggravating factors. The Executive Counsel considers that there are no aggravating factors.
Aggravating factors. The Executive Director has taken into account as an aggravating factor that Xxxx was a registrant under the Act when he breached it. His conduct was significantly below the standard of conduct that the Commission expects from registrants under the Act.
Aggravating factors. The tribunals rarely mentioned factors that warranted an increase in a defendant’s sentence, most likely because, as Xxxx Xxxxxxx has pointed out, “[g]iven the horror of the crimes over which such tribunals had jurisdiction, discussion of aggravating factors must have seemed superfluous.”73 They do, however, appear to have implicitly recognized four aggravating factors. The first, and perhaps the most important, was membership in the SS. No defendant who was not a member of the SS was ever sentenced to death, not even those who – like Xxxxxx in Ministries – were responsible for hundreds, if not thousands, of murders. The tribunals also appear to have penalized defendants who had a particularly vicious character, even by Nazi standards. Xxxxxxx, for example, seems to have been sentenced to life instead of a term of years primarily because he was a particularly enthusiastic proponent of the Final Solution. Similarly, in sentencing Xxxxxxxx to life imprisonment – one of only two such sentences in High Command – Tribunal V emphasized that he had been responsible for “the Nazification of the various services, particularly of the army” and had served as a lay judge during the trial of the German 70 High Command, XI TWC 665-81. 71 Id. at 659-61. 72 Id. at 567-77. 73 Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxxxx, Sentencing by International Tribunals: A Human Rights Approach, 7 DUKE X. OF COMP. & INT’L L. 461, 483 (1997). officers who tried to assassinate Xxxxxx in 1944, “perhaps the most infamous travesty on human justice ever so completely recorded in the annals of man.”74 Conversely, the tribunals seem to have sentenced defendants more harshly who were particularly educated and cultured – the idea being that they should have known better than to collaborate with the Nazis. In Einsatzgruppen, for example, Tribunal II justified the severity of its sentences with the following statement: The defendants are not untutored aborigines incapable of appreciation of the finer values of life and living. Each man at the bar has had the benefit of considerable schooling. Eight are lawyers, one a university professor, another a dental physician, still another an expert on art. One, as an opera singer, gave concerts throughout Germany before he began his tour of Russia with the Einsatzkommandos. This group of educated and well-bred men does not even lack a former minister, self-unfrocked though he was.75 Finally, the tribunals appear to have treated a defendant’s consistent evasiveness during trial as ...
Aggravating factors. USC previously failed to update its employees’ registration status, in circumstances that permitted unregistered persons to trade in securities.
Aggravating factors. Xxxx has a history of securities-related misconduct.
