Justia White Collar Crime Opinion Summaries

Christopher Carroll and Whiskey Dix Big Truck Repair, LLC (“WDBTR”) were charged with multiple offenses after Carroll, with an associate, falsely represented the use of Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) funds, which were instead used for personal expenses and to start WDBTR. Additional charges included tampering with Clean Air Act (CAA) monitoring devices on company trucks and witness tampering related to efforts to impede the investigation. Carroll’s prior parole status was relevant to the government’s allegation that he concealed this on the PPP application by omitting his name and submitting the application in his wife’s name.A United States Magistrate Judge recommended denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss the indictment, which argued that the grand jury had been improperly instructed to use a probable cause standard and that a higher standard should apply. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri adopted this recommendation, referencing Supreme Court precedent affirming probable cause as the standard for grand jury indictments. The district court also denied Carroll’s motion to exclude evidence of his prior conviction and parole status, determining it was relevant to Carroll’s intent to defraud and not unduly prejudicial. After trial, Carroll was convicted on multiple fraud, CAA, and witness tampering counts, and WDBTR was convicted on CAA charges.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed and affirmed the district court’s rulings. It held that the probable cause standard governs grand jury indictments, consistent with longstanding Supreme Court precedent. The court also found that the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of Carroll’s parole status, as it was probative of intent and any error would have been harmless given the strength of the government’s case. The convictions and sentences were affirmed. View "United States v. Carroll" on Justia Law

A man was charged with one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering and seven counts of money laundering after opening numerous bank accounts and using them to launder millions of dollars in fraud proceeds for a group operating romance and business email scams. He also recruited and supervised a co-conspirator, helping that person set up a similar laundering operation. The laundered funds were ultimately sent to Africa. Following his arrest, the defendant attempted to cooperate with the government but did not enter into a plea agreement. At his first change-of-plea hearing, he hesitated and the hearing was postponed. At the second hearing, with two lawyers present, he pleaded guilty to all charges, affirming he did so knowingly and voluntarily.Before sentencing, the defendant’s bond was revoked after he was arrested for assaulting his girlfriend. While in custody, he moved to withdraw his guilty plea, alleging one of his lawyers coerced him into pleading guilty and that he was not aware of a co-conspirator’s cooperation with the government. The United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia held an evidentiary hearing, found the attorneys credible and the defendant not credible, and denied the motion to withdraw the plea.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed the denial of the motion to withdraw the guilty plea, the calculation of the loss amount, several sentencing enhancements, the denial of a reduction for acceptance of responsibility, and the substantive reasonableness of the 120-month sentence. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to withdraw the plea, did not err in its application of sentencing enhancements and guidelines, and that the sentence imposed was substantively reasonable. The court affirmed the judgment. View "USA v. Mullings" on Justia Law

An individual who served as Executive Director of a local economic development authority in Virginia was indicted on thirty-four counts stemming from multiple fraudulent schemes. These included wire fraud, bank fraud, money laundering, and aggravated identity theft. The prosecution presented evidence that the defendant used forged documents and misrepresentations to divert public funds for personal gain. One scheme involved a $2 million wire transfer, where the defendant lied to both her employer and others, using another person’s identity to facilitate the movement of funds. The trial was repeatedly delayed due to health issues experienced by the defendant and her counsel, resulting in significant breaks and several motions for mistrial by the defense.The United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia presided over the trial, ultimately entering judgments of acquittal on four counts of bank fraud but allowing the remaining convictions to stand. The court denied the defendant’s motions for mistrial, a new trial, and to introduce certain grand jury testimony. After the jury returned guilty verdicts on the remaining counts, the defendant was sentenced accordingly. The defendant appealed, challenging the aggravated identity theft conviction, the handling of trial delays, evidentiary rulings, and a supplemental jury instruction given after closing arguments.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case. The court held that, under Dubin v. United States, the aggravated identity theft conviction could not stand because the use of another’s identity was not at the “crux” of the predicate wire fraud offense. The court vacated the conviction and sentence on that count and remanded for resentencing. However, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings on all other issues, including denial of a mistrial, exclusion of grand jury testimony, and the propriety of the additional jury instruction. View "United States v. McDonald" on Justia Law

Over a five-year period, the defendant participated in a conspiracy to manufacture and distribute 16.1 million counterfeit alprazolam pills, which were sold via the dark web and other channels. The pills imitated the appearance and markings of legitimate FDA-approved alprazolam, but often contained benzodiazepine-class substances that were not scheduled as controlled substances at the time. The defendant marketed these pills as indistinguishable from legitimate products, and received payment in cryptocurrencies.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky accepted the defendant’s guilty plea to conspiracy and counterfeiting charges. During sentencing, the court adopted the government’s proposed method for calculating loss under § 2B1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines, using the estimated street price of $2 per pill to determine a total loss amount of approximately $32 million. The court also applied enhancements for victim numerosity or mass-marketing and for conscious or reckless risk of death or serious bodily injury, resulting in a total offense level of 35. The defendant was sentenced to 90 months’ imprisonment. Both parties objected to the loss calculation and enhancements, but the court overruled the objections after a joint evidentiary hearing.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the district court’s sentence. The appellate court held that the district court properly interpreted and applied Application Note 3(E)(v) of the Sentencing Guidelines, which requires loss to include the amount paid by end-users for misrepresented goods. It found no clear error in using the street price to calculate loss, nor in applying the enhancements for ten or more victims and for conscious or reckless risk of death or serious bodily injury. The sentence was affirmed in full. View "United States v. Wala" on Justia Law

GEICO and its subsidiaries brought a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York against Dr. Bhargav Patel and his medical practice, alleging that the defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud GEICO by manipulating New York’s no-fault automobile insurance system. GEICO claimed that from 2019 to 2023, defendants submitted approximately $3.4 million in reimbursement claims for treatments that were unnecessary, experimental, excessive, illusory, or not provided at all. These claims allegedly resulted from a fraudulent scheme involving kickbacks for patient referrals and the provision of services by unlicensed individuals or contractors.After GEICO initiated its federal action, the defendants responded by filing over 600 collection actions in New York state courts and arbitration tribunals, seeking recovery for disputed or denied claims totaling more than $2 million. GEICO, facing the prospect of fragmented litigation and the risk of inconsistent judgments, sought a preliminary injunction from the district court to stay all pending state and arbitration proceedings and to prevent the defendants from filing new collection actions until the federal court resolved the RICO claims. The district court granted the injunction, finding that GEICO had demonstrated irreparable harm, serious questions going to the merits, and a balance of hardships tipping in GEICO’s favor. The court also determined it had authority under the “in aid of jurisdiction” exception to the Anti-Injunction Act to enjoin the parallel proceedings.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion and found none. The appellate court held that the preliminary injunction was justified by the real risk of irreparable harm to GEICO posed by inconsistent judgments and the inability to fully adjudicate the alleged fraudulent scheme in piecemeal state actions. The Second Circuit further held, consistent with its recent precedent in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Tri-Borough NY Medical Practice, P.C., that the injunction did not violate the Anti-Injunction Act because it was expressly authorized under RICO. The court affirmed the district court’s order. View "GEICO v. Patel" on Justia Law

The appellant in this case was the sole owner and operator of a clean energy startup. In order to attract investment, he provided prospective investors with forged business agreements, altered financial statements, and other documents that misrepresented the company’s assets, operational history, and business relationships. He also fabricated the signatures of various business partners and used personal information of others without authorization. Investors provided nearly $1 million based on these representations. The appellant then diverted a substantial portion of the funds for personal use, including the purchase of a residence, and obscured these transactions through rapid transfers among several accounts. He continued to mislead investors about the use of their funds and the status of the business. When questioned by federal agents, he made a series of false statements regarding his activities.A grand jury in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania indicted the appellant on multiple counts, including wire fraud, mail fraud, aggravated identity theft, money laundering, unlawful monetary transactions, obstruction of justice, and making false statements. After a nine-day jury trial, the jury found him guilty on all counts. The District Court sentenced him to 72 months’ imprisonment and ordered restitution of approximately $1.2 million, including attorneys’ fees incurred by victims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reviewed the case. On appeal, the appellant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the jury instructions, the constitutionality of the aggravated identity theft statute, denial of a good faith instruction, and the restitution order. The Court held that a general Rule 29 motion does not preserve all sufficiency arguments for appeal and found no plain error in the conviction. It also found the jury instructions and statute to be proper and the denial of the good faith instruction not to be an abuse of discretion. However, the Court held that the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act does not authorize restitution for attorneys’ fees, vacated that portion of the restitution order, and remanded for entry of an amended judgment. All other aspects of the conviction and sentence were affirmed. View "United States v. Abrams" on Justia Law

The defendant, a former employee of a tattoo studio, embezzled approximately $120,000 from her employer over a nine-month period. After being charged with first-degree theft, she pleaded guilty under a plea agreement in which both she and the State recommended a deferred judgment, with restitution payments as a condition of probation. Prior to sentencing, a presentence investigation report (PSI) was submitted, but it did not include any victim-impact statements. At the sentencing hearing, the business owner delivered an oral victim-impact statement detailing the emotional and financial harm caused by the theft. The district court declined to follow the parties’ joint recommendation and instead imposed the statutory maximum prison sentence of up to ten years.The defendant appealed to the Iowa Court of Appeals, arguing that the district court abused its discretion by sentencing her to prison and by allegedly relying on improper factors contained in the victim-impact statement, which she claimed included unproven allegations. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment, holding that the defendant had not preserved error regarding the victim-impact statement because she failed to object at the sentencing hearing. The appellate court also found no indication that the district court had relied on improper factors.Upon further review, the Supreme Court of Iowa vacated the Court of Appeals’ decision. The Supreme Court clarified that, with respect to previously unseen oral victim-impact statements delivered at sentencing, defendants are not required to object contemporaneously in order to raise claims on direct appeal about improper sentencing considerations. However, the Supreme Court concluded that the victim-impact statement in this case was largely appropriate and that the record did not indicate the district court relied on any improper factors. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s judgment and sentence. View "State of Iowa v. Hallock" on Justia Law

The case concerns a defendant who, after losing his law license, became involved in schemes such as romance scams and business email compromises, which defrauded victims of millions of dollars. He opened bank accounts for shell companies, received funds from victims deceived by his co-conspirators, and transferred or withdrew the money for personal or further illicit purposes. Even after being confronted by bank investigators, he continued these activities.Previously, the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts convicted him on charges including wire fraud and money-laundering conspiracy, but the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed only some of those convictions, vacated others, and remanded for resentencing. On remand, the district court imposed a new sentence of 87 months’ imprisonment—below the advisory guidelines range of 108 to 135 months—and reimposed more than $2 million in restitution. The defendant appealed again, challenging both the procedural and substantive reasonableness of his sentence and the amount and scope of restitution ordered.The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reviewed and rejected all of the defendant’s claims. The court held that the district judge correctly applied the sentencing guidelines, including the base offense level, loss amount calculation, and enhancements for money laundering and sophisticated means. The court also found that the district judge properly denied a reduction for zero-point offenders, reasonably found the sentence substantively appropriate given the facts, and correctly ordered restitution, including for losses suffered by a foreign victim through a domestic bank account. The First Circuit affirmed the new sentence and restitution order in full. View "United States v. Abbas" on Justia Law

Between 2019 and 2022, a bookkeeper for a family-owned machine and fabrication business misappropriated approximately $500,000 from her employer. She forged the co-owner’s signature on checks made out to herself and later confessed to the theft in a video-recorded interview with law enforcement. The bookkeeper admitted to taking funds for personal use and acknowledged the significant amount taken. She was charged with theft by unauthorized taking or transfer and forgery, pleaded not guilty, and proceeded to a jury trial.Prior to trial, the defendant sought access to the company’s QuickBooks password through a motion to compel discovery, which she later withdrew. She subsequently moved to suppress her confession as involuntary, but the Unified Criminal Docket (Piscataquis County, Roberts, J.) denied the motion after a hearing. Additional pretrial motions included a request for the trial judge’s recusal, based on his prior professional association with the prosecutor, and a motion to exclude financial evidence due to the State’s failure to produce the QuickBooks password. Both motions were denied. At trial, the prosecution presented testimonial, documentary, and video evidence, including the defendant’s confession. The jury found her guilty on both counts, and she was sentenced to concurrent prison terms, with part of the sentence suspended and probation imposed.On appeal, the Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed claims of prosecutorial error, denial of recusal, and alleged discovery violations. The Court held that although some prosecutorial statements constituted error, these were harmless in light of overwhelming evidence of guilt, including the defendant’s own confession. The Court also found no abuse of discretion in denying recusal or in rulings regarding discovery, concluding the State was not obligated to produce information it did not possess. The conviction was affirmed. View "State of Maine v. Moulton" on Justia Law

A group of affiliated pest-control companies discovered that employees of a competing firm, Aptive Environmental, LLC, had bribed members of their organization to obtain confidential sales data stored in a password-protected system. The misappropriated data was allegedly used by Aptive to recruit sales representatives for the competitive summer sales season, an activity crucial to both businesses’ revenue. Upon learning of these actions, the companies sued Aptive and several individual employees, asserting claims under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA), the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA), and Utah’s Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA).The United States District Court for the District of Utah initially dismissed the CFAA claim, concluding that the plaintiffs had not sufficiently pleaded the statutory loss requirement, specifically a loss from technological harm. The court denied motions to compel broad discovery into damages, limiting disclosures but allowing the possibility of further tailored discovery. On summary judgment, the district court found that the plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence of causation linking Aptive’s alleged misappropriation to unjust enrichment, granting judgment for Aptive on the RICO, DTSA, and UTSA claims.The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reviewed these decisions. It held that the district court erred in dismissing the CFAA claim, clarifying that the statute does not require loss from technological harm and that investigative costs can qualify as statutory losses. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s denial of broad discovery, finding no abuse of discretion. Regarding summary judgment, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the outcome for the RICO claim due to lack of causation evidence but reversed in part for the DTSA and UTSA claims, holding that reasonable royalties and injunctive relief do not require the same proof of causation as unjust enrichment. The CFAA, DTSA, and UTSA claims were remanded for further proceedings. View "Moxie Pest Control (Utah) v. Nielsen" on Justia Law