Any voluntary agreement and some overt act by one conspirator in furtherance of the plan are the main elements necessary to prove a conspiracy.
The criminal law often requires one of the conspirators to take an overt step to accomplish the illegal act to demonstrate the reality of their intention to break the law, whereas in a civil conspiracy, an overt act towards accomplishing the wrongful goal may not be required.
Civil conspiracy law often takes the form of antitrust lawsuits, usually litigated in federal court, where, for example, a plaintiff may seek treble damages for overpayments caused by price-fixing above a market rate.
For example, a regional bank called PNC Financial Services Group Inc. through a subsidiary agreed, in June 2003, to pay $115 million in civil fines and restitution to settle the SEC's allegations of securities fraud.
The subsidiary was accused of conspiracy to violate securities laws by transferring $762 million in troubled loans and investments to off-balance-sheet entities in 2001.
In that case, the Justice Department deferred prosecution of PNC, citing its cooperation in a related investigation.
§ 1395y(b)(2)(B)(ii) & (iii) (Count Two), and the civil provisions of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations ("RICO") 18 U.S.C.
Plaintiff Smith, Inc., claims that it was harmed by Defendant Jones Corp. for refusing to sell widgets to Plaintiff Smith, Inc. with intent to unreasonably injure competition and that Defendant Brown & Associates is also liable for the harm because it was part of the conspiracy with Jones Corp. to unreasonably injure competition under the California antitrust laws.
In theory, vicarious liability may be of more assistance in that it is attributing the wrong done by one (natural) person to another (fictitious) but, in Belmont Finance Corporation v Williams Furniture Ltd [1979] Ch 250, the Hampshire Land agency line of authority was preferred.