(A) understand the wrongfulness of the behavior comprising the
offense or to exercise the power of reason; or (B) control
behavior that the defendant knows is wrongful."). See also
United States v. McBroom, 124 F.3d 533 (3d Cir. 1997).
But a compulsive gambler is not, a fortiori, a compulsive
illegal trader. While defendant's large gambling losses may have
sufficiently exceeded his otherwise substantial income as to
create an incentive to engage in lucrative unlawful trading,
economic pressure hardly equates with diminished mental capacity.
Accordingly, defendant, although alleging that compulsive
gambling provided an economic incentive for his crime, goes
further and asserts that what finally pushed him over the edge
were the same psychotic demons that led to his compulsive
gambling and that here found expression in the allure of illegal
trading with its high stakes and high risks — a form of
"substitute gambling" he could neither resist nor renounce.
The Court finds, however, that this hypothesized psychological
state is insufficiently supported by the evidence here
adduced.*fn2 When invited by his colleagues to participate in
this illegal trading, defendant, though recognizing the
wrongfulness of such conduct, yielded to temptation without
anything like a Dostoevskian struggle. He knew, the Court finds,
that it was easy money (roughly $10,000 or more a month), that he
was unlikely to be caught, and that his activity, even if
detected, might be "explained" away (as defendant attempted to do
when, as now admitted, he purposely tried to mislead the
Government agents who questioned him in November 1997).
For more than four years, while his gambling activity waxed and
waned and his economic and personal vicissitudes came and went,
Mr. Carucci continued with his calculated, sophisticated criminal
activity, free of any outward sign of diminished mental capacity.
Although the psychological construct proffered by the defense is
sufficiently flexible to accommodate even such calculated
misconduct,*fn3 the much simpler explanation is that defendant,
having both the motive and opportunity to cheat and steal, freely
chose to do so. The Court is not persuaded to the contrary.
Accordingly, defendant's departure motion is denied.