Defendants Falsely Denied that They Manipulated Cigarette Design and

Defendants Falsely Denied that They Manipulated Cigarette Design and

Composition so as to Assure Nicotine Delivery Levels Which Create and Sustain Addiction Defendants recognized the relationship between nicotine delivery and continued cigarette

¶sales. See generally Findings of Fact Section V(C)(1)(c). By delivering the optimum amount of nicotine, Defendants could keep people smoking, keep those already addicted satisfied, and therefore maintain or increase cigarette sales revenue. Based on this understanding, Defendants actively tried to ensure that smokers would continue to receive sufficient nicotine from cigarettes that would deliver reduced tar and nicotine measurements under the FTC Method. See generally Findings of Fact Section V(C)(2).

¶Defendants dedicated substantial resources to devising techniques to modify and manipulate the amount of nicotine that their products deliver. Defendants have studied extensively how every characteristic of every component of cigarettes -- including the tobacco blend, the paper, the filter, additives, and the manufacturing process -- affects nicotine delivery. They have utilized that understanding in designing their cigarettes. Defendants have designed their cigarettes with a central overriding objective -- to ensure that smokers obtain enough nicotine to create and sustain addiction.

¶Nevertheless, Defendants have publicly and fraudulently denied that they manipulate nicotine delivery. The evidence establishes that Defendants' statements denying manipulation of nicotine have been intentionally deceptive, misleading, or otherwise fraudulent when made. Through these and other false statements, Defendants have furthered their common efforts to deceive the public and carry out their fraudulent scheme.15

¶Defendants spent many millions of dollars and thousands of scientist hours over decades to ensure that smokers of all brands consumed sufficient nicotine to establish and maintain addiction. Defendants' own internal evidence shows that (a) they intended to manipulate the nicotine delivery of their cigarettes; (b) they employed numerous design techniques because they intended and believed that those techniques allowed them to successfully control nicotine delivery; and (c) these efforts were driven by Defendants' widespread understanding that nicotine is an addictive drug and that cigarette smoking is a drug-driven addiction.

¶Nevertheless, at the same time they were pursuing these techniques, Defendants fraudulently denied both their efforts to manipulate nicotine and their knowledge of nicotine's addictiveness. Defendants have publicly and fraudulently denied that they manipulate nicotine and falsely asserted that the level of nicotine in a cigarette is inextricably linked to the cigarette's tar level, that nicotine delivery levels automatically follow tar delivery levels in cigarette smoke, that nicotine is an essential flavorant, and that because they do not add "extra" nicotine to cigarettes they are not

¶The Racketeering Acts associated with this component of the scheme to defraud are Racketeering Act Nos. 109-113 engaged in manipulating the delivery of nicotine through the smoke. For example, on a March 27, 1994, airing of "Face the Nation," Brennan Dawson, Vice President of the Tobacco Institute, stated:

The industry does take the position that . . . not only do they not add nicotine, but they don't manipulate nicotine. So Congress has been told formally by every cigarette manufacturer in the United States that this claim is without foundation.

¶TLT0730851-1975 (US 77012). Through these and other false statements, Defendants have furthered their common efforts to deceive the public regarding their control and manipulation of nicotine.