Justia White Collar Crime Opinion Summaries

A Slovenian businessman, who had served as a consultant to the government of Brunei, entered into an agreement to investigate corruption within the Bruneian government. He alleges that after delivering his findings—which implicated high-level officials in theft, money laundering, and terrorism financing—his contractual partners refused to pay him and conspired, along with three corporate entities, to ruin his reputation and business. The suit claims violations under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and various common law contract and tort theories. The corporate defendants are Audley Property Management Company Limited, Seven Properties AG, and The Dorchester Group, LLC.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the claims against the corporate defendants for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding neither general nor specific jurisdiction was established. It also denied the plaintiff’s request for jurisdictional discovery, concluding that his allegations were speculative and that the proposed discovery would not show purposeful direction of activities toward the United States. Partial final judgment was entered in favor of the corporate defendants under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reviewed the district court’s dismissal de novo and the denial of jurisdictional discovery for abuse of discretion. The appellate court assumed, based on the parties’ agreement and post-Fuld v. Palestine Liberation Organization, that personal jurisdiction under the Fifth Amendment required reasonableness and a meaningful nexus to the United States. The court found the plaintiff had not established any concrete interest in litigating in the U.S., nor had he identified any meaningful U.S. interest in the dispute. The burden on the foreign corporate defendants would be unjustified. The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal and denial of jurisdictional discovery. View "Gligorov v. Nation of Brunei" on Justia Law

Rishi Shah and Shradha Agarwal, executives at Outcome Health, were indicted in 2019 for orchestrating a years-long, multi-million-dollar fraud scheme affecting both clients and investors of the company. Outcome Health sold advertising space in doctors’ offices and allegedly inflated its inventory and performance metrics, misleading clients and investors. The fraud resulted in substantial revenue, which was used both for company growth and personal gain. Following public exposure of the scheme, Shah and Agarwal settled civil suits, resigned from Outcome, paid significant sums to investors, and retained funds for legal fees.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, entered a pretrial protective order freezing assets deemed traceable to the alleged fraud, including funds Shah and Agarwal intended for legal fees. Shah and Agarwal unsuccessfully challenged the restraint of these funds before trial, resulting in their preferred counsel withdrawing. Both defendants were convicted by a jury on multiple counts of mail, wire, and bank fraud, with Shah also convicted of money laundering. The district court imposed prison terms, fines, and forfeiture orders, and denied post-trial motions challenging the asset restraint, evidentiary rulings, and alleged government misconduct.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case. It held that Shah and Agarwal forfeited their Sixth Amendment right-to-counsel claim by not timely raising it, and, in the alternative, failed to prove that the government’s asset restraint prevented them from affording their counsel of choice. The court further found no Fifth Amendment violation, as the government did not knowingly present or fail to correct false testimony to the grand jury. The court also rejected evidentiary and jury instruction challenges, concluding any errors were harmless and that convictions rested on valid legal theories. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the convictions and all related district court rulings. View "USA v. Agarwal" on Justia Law

Thomas Duncan, a supervisor at the Jesse Brown VA Medical Center in Chicago, participated in a fraudulent scheme with his co-defendant, Daniel Dingle. Duncan used his purchasing authority to submit or direct others to submit false orders for blood pressure cuffs from Dingle’s medical supply company. These orders were structured to avoid detection by staying under authorization thresholds and were never actually fulfilled. Dingle received payments from the VA for these phantom orders and paid Duncan kickbacks in return. Altogether, the VA paid nearly $1.9 million to Dingle’s company, with over $1.7 million related to these patterned, fraudulent orders.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, oversaw Duncan’s guilty plea to one count of wire fraud. At sentencing, the court considered a Presentence Investigation Report and heard arguments regarding sentencing enhancements for multiple bribes and the loss calculation. Duncan contended he was responsible for only a portion of the loss and that the scheme involved only a single bribe. The district court disagreed, finding Duncan responsible for all patterned orders and concluding the offense involved multiple bribes. The court calculated the Sentencing Guidelines range accordingly and sentenced Duncan to 84 months’ imprisonment.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the district court’s legal interpretations de novo and factual findings for clear error. The appellate court held that the district court did not err in applying enhancements for multiple bribes and a loss amount over $1.5 million. The court found the district court’s conclusions were supported by reasonable inferences from the evidence and that any possible error would be harmless, given the district court’s explicit statement that it would impose the same sentence regardless of the enhancements. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "USA v. Duncan" on Justia Law

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress established a program to provide emergency loans and grants to small businesses impacted by the crisis. Almar Sales and Services, Inc.—with Alexander Alli as its principal owner—submitted a loan application to the Small Business Administration (SBA) under this program, falsely stating it was based in Minnesota, had two employees, and claimed $250,000 in gross revenues. The SBA approved the application, granting $2,000 and later issuing an $80,500 loan. Alli signed the loan documents and received the funds, which he used in part to purchase two trucks, but only made one payment before the loan was charged off. Subsequent investigation revealed numerous false representations in the application, including business location, revenue, and citizenship status.The United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida reviewed the case after a grand jury indicted Alli on one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and two counts of wire fraud. Before trial, the prosecution sought to exclude certain portions of Alli’s interviews with a Homeland Security agent. The district court ruled that most of Alli’s requested excerpts were inadmissible hearsay, though it allowed some additional context where needed. The court also instructed the jury on Pinkerton liability and deliberate ignorance over Alli’s objections. After trial, the jury convicted Alli on all counts, and he was sentenced to 13 months’ imprisonment and ordered to pay restitution.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the evidentiary rulings, sufficiency of evidence, and jury instructions. The court held that the district court did not err in its application of the rule of completeness regarding Alli’s interviews, found sufficient evidence supported the conspiracy conviction, and upheld the jury instructions on Pinkerton liability and deliberate ignorance. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Alli’s convictions. View "USA v. Alli" on Justia Law

A nurse practitioner was accused of orchestrating a large-scale Medicare fraud scheme beginning in 2018. The evidence showed that she signed prescriptions for durable medical equipment and genetic testing that were medically unnecessary, often without examining patients or verifying their needs. She worked with telemarketers who cold-called Medicare beneficiaries, fabricated records, and sold prescriptions to medical providers who then billed Medicare. The practitioner received significant kickbacks for her participation and later recruited others to help. When government investigations targeted similar schemes, she attempted to cover her tracks but continued fraudulent conduct by billing for nonexistent telemedicine appointments, at times claiming over twenty-four hours of appointments in a single day. Ultimately, she received more than $1.66 million from these activities, and law enforcement discovered a written confession during a search of her residence.A grand jury indicted her on conspiracy, health care fraud, and false statement charges. Pretrial, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida denied her motion to exclude her written statement, finding the attorney-client privilege was waived. During jury selection, her request to strike a potentially biased juror for cause was denied, forcing her to use a peremptory challenge. At trial, disputes arose over the introduction of her inculpatory statement, and the court allocated more time for the government’s closing argument than for her defense. The jury found her guilty, and she was sentenced based on intended loss, not just actual billed amounts, despite her objections.The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed her claims, including the unequal allocation of closing argument time, a misstatement in oral jury instructions, jury selection issues, the handling of her statement, and sentencing calculations. The court held that although the district court abused its discretion by giving the government more closing argument time based solely on its burden of proof, this error was harmless due to overwhelming evidence of guilt. The court found no reversible error on the other grounds and affirmed her conviction. View "USA v. Hernandez" on Justia Law

The defendant, a physician specializing in obstetrics and gynecology in Illinois, owned and operated a medical practice where she engaged in fraudulent billing to health care benefit programs, including Medicaid and Tricare, from February 2018 to April 2022. She submitted claims for procedures and services that were either not provided or not medically necessary, including telemedicine visits, office visits, and tests. Some of these fraudulent claims were for endometrial ablations, a procedure with significant consequences for patients’ reproductive health.Facing a thirteen-count indictment for health care fraud, the defendant pleaded guilty to two counts pursuant to a plea agreement. These counts specifically alleged the submission of fraudulent claims to Tricare for a telemedicine visit and lab testing. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, held a sentencing hearing, during which it considered testimony from patients, expert witnesses, and victim impact statements. The court found that the defendant performed medically unnecessary procedures without informed consent, and that her statements during the plea hearing and subsequent professional regulation proceedings indicated a failure to accept responsibility.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed three main issues: the district court’s denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility, application of a sentencing enhancement for reckless risk of serious bodily injury, and the substantive reasonableness of the 120-month sentence. The Seventh Circuit held that the district court did not clearly err in its factual findings, properly applied the sentence enhancement, and did not abuse its discretion in weighing aggravating and mitigating factors. The court affirmed the judgment of the district court, upholding the defendant’s sentence. View "USA v Ghosh" on Justia Law

Shelly Ketcher was employed as a bookkeeper for South Delta Aviation (SDA) and also managed the personal affairs of the owner, D.R. Over a five-year period, she embezzled about $2.7 million from SDA and D.R. by forging more than a thousand checks, making them payable to herself, family, and friends. Ketcher concealed her extensive criminal history of prior fraud and embezzlement convictions when she was hired. The embezzlement was discovered after D.R. found he was delinquent on property taxes and confronted Ketcher, who attempted to cover up her actions with forged documents.The United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas handled Ketcher’s guilty plea to one count of money laundering and one count of filing a false federal income tax return. The Presentence Investigation Report calculated an advisory guidelines range of 92 to 115 months. At sentencing, after hearing victim impact statements and arguments from both sides, the court imposed an upward variance, sentencing Ketcher to a total of 156 months in prison—120 months for money laundering and a consecutive 36 months for the tax offense. The court cited the egregiousness of the offense and Ketcher’s repeated similar crimes as aggravating factors, outweighing her mitigating circumstances.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, Ketcher argued that her sentence was substantively unreasonable, asserting that the district court gave insufficient weight to mitigating factors, imposed a harsher sentence than similarly situated defendants, and was motivated by personal animosity. The Eighth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in imposing the upward variance, found the court’s reasoning and weighing of factors appropriate, and affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Ketcher" on Justia Law

An individual, born in 1937, assumed the identity of his younger brother, who died in infancy, to fraudulently obtain a second Social Security number and collect retirement benefits under both his own and his brother’s identities. Over the course of nearly two decades, he received Social Security payments in both names and also procured and used U.S. passports issued under his deceased brother’s identity. His scheme unraveled after a state motor vehicle official noticed similarities between two identification cards with different names but similar photos and addresses. Subsequent investigation revealed the use of both identities for benefits and travel, as well as submission of multiple passport applications with false information.A grand jury in the United States District Court for the District of Maine indicted the defendant on six counts, including identity theft, passport fraud, Social Security fraud, and mail fraud. At trial, the defendant contested the propriety of venue in Maine for two passport fraud counts and challenged the calculation of restitution. The district court submitted the venue question to the jury, which found venue proper for both passport counts and convicted him on all charges. He was sentenced to probation and ordered to pay $175,757 in restitution.Upon appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed the jury’s venue determinations and the restitution order. The court held that sufficient circumstantial evidence supported venue in Maine for both the false statement in the passport application and the use of a fraudulently obtained passport, applying the appropriate legal standards for each count. The court also found no abuse of discretion in the district court’s method for calculating restitution, concluding that the government met its burden of proof regarding the loss amount. The First Circuit affirmed both the convictions and the restitution order. View "US v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

Five individuals obtained over $1.8 million in workplace sexual harassment judgments against various related business entities and individuals. When these judgments went unpaid, they brought a civil suit under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) against fifteen defendants, alleging a scheme to evade collection of the judgments. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants orchestrated fraudulent asset transfers and used a sham consignment scheme involving false customs forms to prevent the plaintiffs from seizing assets to satisfy their judgments.Previously, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa dismissed the plaintiffs’ RICO claims based on predicate acts of bankruptcy crimes, money laundering, and obstruction of justice, as well as their claim for declaratory relief regarding alter ego liability. However, the court allowed the RICO claims predicated on wire fraud related to the consignment scheme to proceed. After discovery, the defendants moved for summary judgment. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants, holding that the plaintiffs failed to show proximate causation between the alleged wire fraud and their inability to collect on their judgments, and that they were not entitled to adverse inference sanctions for alleged discovery misconduct.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment. The Eighth Circuit held that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the consignment scheme was a but-for cause of their injury, as they did not show that any assets subject to seizure belonged to the judgment debtors. The court further concluded that claims based on other predicate offenses failed due to insufficient evidence and lack of particularity. The appellate court also found no error in the district court’s refusal to draw adverse inferences or to allow amendment of the complaints at this stage. The court affirmed summary judgment for all defendants on all claims. View "Rennenger v. Aquawood, LLC" on Justia Law

The defendant, convicted by a jury of conspiracies to commit wire and securities fraud in connection with a scheme to defraud investors, was ordered to pay over $10 million in restitution to the victim company. To enforce this restitution order, the government sought to garnish the defendant’s 401(k) retirement accounts. The defendant objected, arguing that various legal provisions, including plan terms and federal statutes, either prohibited or limited garnishment of his accounts. The victim, the financial institutions holding the accounts, and the government ultimately reached a settlement on how the garnishment and tax consequences would be handled.After the conviction and sentence were affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York considered the government’s application for writs of garnishment. The district court rejected the parties’ proposed stipulated orders of garnishment, reasoning that the proposal exceeded the scope of the Second Circuit’s prior mandate by not resolving specific tax issues, and ordered its own procedure for liquidation and distribution of the funds. The district court also denied a stay of distribution, holding that the defendant lacked standing because the funds had been liquidated.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the controversy remained live despite the liquidation of the accounts, and that its previous mandate did not bar the district court from approving the parties’ stipulated orders of garnishment. The court found that the district court erred in its application of the mandate rule and in concluding that the defendant lacked standing. Accordingly, the Second Circuit reversed the district court’s order and remanded the case with instructions to approve the parties’ proposed stipulated orders of garnishment. View "United States v. Greebel" on Justia Law