en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Ponzi
2 corrections found
costing his "investors" $20 million (equivalent to $237 million in 2024).
The inflation-adjusted figure is too low. Using the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ CPI-U annual averages, $20 million in 1920 is about $312.1 million in 2024, not $237 million.
Full reasoning
This appears to be a bad inflation conversion.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics' historical CPI-U table gives an annual average CPI of 20.0 for 1920 and 312.145 for 2024. BLS also states that its inflation calculator uses the average Consumer Price Index for a given calendar year. Using those official annual averages:
- $20,000,000 × (312.145 / 20.0) = $312,145,000
So $20 million in 1920 is about $312.1 million in 2024. The article's figure of $237 million understates the 2024 equivalent by roughly $75 million.
2 sources
- Historical Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI-U): U.S. city average, all items, by month
The BLS historical CPI-U table lists annual averages of 20.0 for 1920 and 312.145 for 2024.
- CPI Inflation Calculator : U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics
The CPI inflation calculator uses the average Consumer Price Index for a given calendar year.
On 27 March 1922, the Supreme Court ruled that federal plea bargains have no standing regarding state charges.
This misstates the Supreme Court's holding. Ponzi v. Fessenden was about whether a federal prisoner could be brought into state court for trial with federal consent, not a ruling that 'federal plea bargains have no standing regarding state charges.'
Full reasoning
The official text of Ponzi v. Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254 (1922) frames the case very differently from the article.
The Court said the certified question was whether a prisoner serving a federal sentence could, with the Attorney General's consent, be taken on a writ of habeas corpus into a state court and there tried on pending state indictments. The opinion then explains that a person serving a federal sentence is not immune from state prosecution, and that the United States may, as a matter of comity, allow the state court to try him while he remains in federal custody.
That is the actual subject and holding of the case. The opinion does not hold that "federal plea bargains have no standing regarding state charges." Describing the case that way is inaccurate because it replaces the Court's real custody/comity holding with a different rule that is not the question the Court said it was deciding.
2 sources
- PONZI v. FESSENDEN et al. | Supreme Court | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute
The case asks: 'May a prisoner, with the consent of the Attorney General, while serving a sentence imposed by a district court of the United States, be lawfully taken on a writ of habeas corpus ... into a state court ... and there put to trial upon indictments there pending against him?' It then states: 'The fact that he may have committed two crimes gives him no immunity from prosecution of either.'
- U.S. Reports: Ponzi v. Fessenden, 258 U.S. 254 (1922)
The official U.S. Reports syllabus states that a federal prisoner 'does not render him immune to prosecution in a state court' and that he 'may, with the consent of the United States, be brought before a state court, for trial on indictment there.'