Justia White Collar Crime Opinion Summaries

Hunter was charged with ten counts of bank and wire fraud, involving a scheme that cost financial institutions approximately $500,000. He entered a written plea agreement with the government, pleading guilty to one count of aiding and abetting wire fraud. In exchange, the government dismissed the other nine charges and agreed not to prosecute Hunter for related conduct in the future. The plea agreement contained an appeal waiver, barring him from appealing his conviction and sentence, except for claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The agreement stipulated that any modification must be in writing and signed by all parties. At sentencing, the District Court imposed 51 months’ imprisonment and three years of supervised release, including a requirement that Hunter participate in a mental-health treatment program and take any prescribed medications. Hunter objected to the medication condition, but the District Court stated he could address any disputes with the probation officer or the court. At the conclusion of sentencing, the court erroneously informed Hunter that he had a right to appeal, without objection from either party.Hunter appealed, challenging the mandatory-medication condition as violating his fundamental due process rights. The government moved to dismiss the appeal based on the plea agreement’s waiver. Hunter conceded he had knowingly and voluntarily signed the waiver, but argued it was unenforceable because the sentence allegedly infringed on a fundamental constitutional right and that the District Court’s statement at sentencing, coupled with the prosecutor’s silence, voided the waiver. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dismissed the appeal, holding that the District Court’s misstatement did not invalidate the waiver and that Fifth Circuit precedent permitted appeals despite a waiver only in cases of ineffective assistance of counsel or sentences exceeding the statutory maximum.The Supreme Court of the United States held that an appeal waiver is unenforceable when its enforcement would result in a miscarriage of justice—specifically, when it would leave in place an egregious error undermining the judicial system’s integrity. The Court vacated the Fifth Circuit’s judgment and remanded the case for consideration under this miscarriage-of-justice standard. View "Hunter v. United States" on Justia Law

Three physicians—Evann Herrell, Mark Grenkoski, and Keri McFarlane—worked at Express Health Care, a clinic claiming to treat opioid addiction but operating as a pill mill. The clinic prescribed controlled substances in high volumes for cash, disregarding legitimate medical standards. Doctors spent minimal time with patients, ignored signs of diversion, and falsified records. EHC also submitted fraudulent Medicare claims by ordering unnecessary drug tests. McFarlane eventually cooperated with the FBI. Herrell, Grenkoski, and McFarlane were among the few who went to trial after most other clinic staff pleaded guilty.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky conducted a 30-day jury trial, resulting in convictions for conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, falsifying medical records, wire and health care fraud, and money laundering. The defendants filed post-trial motions for acquittal and new trials, which the district court denied. Each defendant was sentenced to prison and filed timely appeals, raising challenges related to sufficiency of the evidence, evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, trial severance, and sentencing.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the case. Applying the appropriate standards of review—including abuse of discretion for evidentiary and severance decisions and de novo review for legal questions—the court found sufficient evidence to support all convictions. It held the challenged evidentiary rulings were either correct or harmless. The jury instructions appropriately conveyed the required mens rea under Supreme Court precedent. The court determined that denial of severance for McFarlane was not an abuse of discretion and that cumulative error did not warrant reversal. Grenkoski’s challenge to sentencing correction was rejected due to jurisdictional limits. The Sixth Circuit affirmed all convictions and sentences. View "United States v. Herrell" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted in 2014 of multiple counts of fraud and sentenced to nearly 24 years in prison and ordered to pay approximately $3.8 million in restitution. Years later, the government sought to enforce the restitution order by pursuing a writ of garnishment against funds expected from a September 11th Victims Compensation Fund award, which were to be received by a law firm on the defendant’s behalf. After being notified of the garnishment, the defendant, acting pro se, objected and requested, among other things, that proceedings be transferred to the federal district where he resided, as provided for under the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied his objections, including the transfer request. The court held that the September 11th funds were not exempt from garnishment, that the defendant was not entitled to a hearing since his objections were meritless, and that transfer of venue was not mandatory but discretionary. The district court relied on its interpretation of the statute and on prior case law, concluding it retained authority to deny transfer requests for good cause.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. It held that the statutory language of the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act makes transfer of a garnishment proceeding mandatory when timely requested by the debtor. The court found that the district court erred by treating transfer as discretionary, and further held that failure to transfer is not subject to harmless error review. Accordingly, the Second Circuit vacated the district court’s judgment and remanded the case for the district court to consider a renewed motion to transfer the proceedings to the district in which the defendant currently resides. View "United States v. Liounis" on Justia Law

The case centers on two former executives, one the CEO of an Illinois utility company and the other a lobbyist, who were involved in a series of transactions with the Speaker of the Illinois House of Representatives and his associates. These transactions included setting up contracts, some of which were for no-show jobs, that funneled over $1.3 million to the Speaker's associates over several years. The prosecution alleged that these payments were made in exchange for favorable legislative actions, and that the defendants falsified corporate books and records to conceal these arrangements, in violation of federal statutes including the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.In the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, the jury convicted both defendants on all counts, including conspiracy, bribery under 18 U.S.C. § 666, and falsification of books and records. The jury’s verdict was general, without specifying which object of the conspiracy formed the basis for conviction. After the trial, but before sentencing, the Supreme Court decided Snyder v. United States, which limited the scope of § 666 to quid pro quo bribery, excluding illegal gratuities. Based on Snyder, the district court vacated the § 666 convictions and denied the defendants' motions for acquittal or a new trial on the remaining conspiracy and FCPA counts.The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reviewed the case and vacated the conspiracy and FCPA convictions. The court held that because the jury instructions allowed conviction based on legally invalid objects (now invalid under Snyder), and it was unclear on which theory the jury relied, the convictions could not stand. The court further rejected the argument that recent case law required acquittal on the FCPA counts, finding sufficient evidence for a properly instructed jury to convict. The court remanded for possible retrial at the government’s discretion. View "USA v Pramaggiore" on Justia Law

The United States initiated a lawsuit against Dr. Dongxin Ma and Ma Acupuncture Center, P.C., alleging violations of the False Claims Act. The government claimed that the defendants submitted inflated reimbursement requests for acupuncture services provided to veterans, resulting in improper payments from the Department of Veterans Affairs. The United States sought substantial damages and civil penalties, while the defendants denied liability and asserted they acted in good faith.Following mediation, the parties reached significant agreement regarding the terms of settlement. The mediation resulted in an oral agreement that included payment by the defendants of $2.3 million over 42 months, an initial $100,000 payment, dismissal and release of civil claims by the government, reasonable efforts by Dr. Ma to sell certain property, and the government’s right to place liens if obligations were not met. The United States filed a notice of settlement and submitted a written agreement containing additional standard terms. The defendants, later represented by new counsel, contested the validity of the settlement, arguing that the written agreement included material terms not discussed at mediation and that Dr. Ma had not authorized settlement above $1 million.The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas held an evidentiary hearing, ultimately concluding that the parties had orally agreed to all material terms at mediation and that the additional terms in the written agreement were immaterial. The court amended its judgment to enforce only the material terms agreed orally. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion and affirmed. The Fifth Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in enforcing the oral settlement agreement, finding that all material terms were agreed to at mediation and that additional terms in the written agreement were not material. The court also found that the defendants had forfeited certain arguments on appeal. View "USA v. Ma" on Justia Law

The case concerns actions taken by the former CEO of a prominent cryptocurrency exchange and a related trading firm. The defendant, who exercised substantial control over both entities, was accused of misappropriating billions of dollars of customer funds. These funds, which customers believed would be safely held and used only for authorized transactions, were instead funneled to the trading firm and used for various unauthorized purposes, including investments, political contributions, and purchases of real estate. The collapse of cryptocurrency markets in 2022, followed by a rapid loss of customer confidence and mass withdrawals, ultimately led to the bankruptcy of both the exchange and the trading firm.After the bankruptcy, the defendant was indicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on several counts of fraud and conspiracy. The government’s case was supported by testimony from the defendant’s close associates, who described how the defendant orchestrated the transfer and misuse of customer funds, and by business records and communications. The defendant argued that he believed all customers would ultimately be repaid and that he acted in good faith. The jury found the defendant guilty on all counts, and the district court sentenced him to 25 years in prison, imposed a three-year term of supervised release, and ordered a forfeiture of approximately $11 billion.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the defendant challenged the district court’s evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, discovery-related decisions, and the forfeiture order. The Second Circuit held that the district court did not err in its evidentiary rulings, instructions, or discovery decisions, and that the forfeiture was authorized and not constitutionally excessive. The judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "U.S. v. Bankman-Fried" on Justia Law

Several pharmacists in Michigan and Ohio operated independent pharmacies where they engaged in fraudulent billing practices. Rather than reversing insurance claims for prescriptions that were never picked up by patients, these pharmacists intentionally left the claims uncorrected, thereby receiving payments for medications that were not actually dispensed. They also increased the volume of such claims by waiving copays and substituting generic drugs for brand-name ones while billing for the more expensive medication. An audit by Qlarant, a government contractor, uncovered that the pharmacies had billed Medicare and Medicaid for far more medication than they had purchased, resulting in significant financial losses to insurers.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan tried four of the charged pharmacists after their co-defendants pleaded guilty. A jury convicted all four of conspiracy to commit healthcare and wire fraud, with additional healthcare fraud convictions for two defendants. The district court granted a motion for acquittal on some substantive counts, sentenced the defendants to terms ranging from 24 to 120 months, and imposed restitution obligations commensurate with their roles in the scheme. The defendants appealed, raising issues about the admission of expert testimony, evidentiary rulings, variance from the indictment, jury polling, sentencing enhancements, and restitution orders.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reviewed the convictions and sentences. It held that the admission of the government’s expert testimony did not violate the Confrontation Clause, that the district court properly excluded certain defense evidence and did not err in qualifying the expert in front of the jury, and that the evidence supported a single overarching conspiracy. The court also found no error in the calculation of loss amounts, enhancements for sophisticated means, or the procedure and amount of restitution. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the judgments of the district court. View "United States v. Hamaed" on Justia Law

Three individuals—two tax attorneys, who were partners in a Missouri law firm, and an insurance broker from North Carolina—created and marketed a “Gain Elimination Plan” (GEP) to clients across various states, including North Carolina. The plan purported to enable clients to reduce taxable income by paying business expenses to limited partnerships largely owned by charities. In practice, the government established that these partnerships never actually existed, no services were provided, and the deductions claimed were based on fabricated transactions. The attorneys and the broker helped clients file tax returns with false deductions, resulting in over $22 million in unpaid taxes. The insurance broker also supplied false information to obtain life insurance policies for the plan, sharing commissions with the attorneys. One of the attorneys used the plan to reduce her own reported income, and the attorneys prepared tax returns for the broker that underreported his income.A jury in the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina convicted all three defendants of conspiracy to defraud the government and multiple counts related to the preparation and filing of false tax returns. The district court sentenced them to imprisonment, supervised release, and restitution. The defendants appealed, challenging the prosecution’s authorization, venue, evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, and sufficiency of the evidence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentences. The court held that the prosecution was properly authorized under the Appointments Clause and relevant statutes, venue in the Western District of North Carolina was proper because conduct elements of the offenses occurred there, and the “literal truth” defense did not apply to false totals derived from fabricated deductions. The appellate court also found no reversible error regarding evidentiary rulings, jury instructions, or the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the conspiracy and false return charges. View "United States v. Chollet" on Justia Law

From 2011 to 2019, four individuals—Roy Franklin Jr., Ladele Smith, Gary Toombs, and David Duncan IV—participated in a drug-trafficking conspiracy in Kansas City, Missouri. They operated from a house rented by Toombs, storing firearms and distributing various drugs, including heroin, cocaine, oxycodone, and marijuana. The group, known as "246," also produced music that referenced drugs and violence. In September 2019, Franklin and Smith carried out a drive-by shooting in response to a perceived threat against Duncan. Law enforcement gathered evidence through social media, surveillance, controlled buys, and wiretaps. Searches uncovered significant quantities of drugs, firearms, and cash, and financial records revealed lavish spending inconsistent with reported income.The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri denied motions to suppress social media and wiretap evidence, and admitted evidence regarding the group’s music and affiliations. The court declined to give requested jury instructions on entrapment and buyer-seller relationships. After a three-week trial, a jury convicted all four defendants of various drug, firearm, and money-laundering offenses. The district court imposed sentences ranging from 151 to 420 months.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reviewed the convictions and sentences. The court held that the search warrants and wiretap authorizations were supported by probable cause and particularity, and that the necessity requirement for wiretaps was met. The court found no error in the admission of rap lyrics and evidence of gang affiliation, and ruled that statements made by conspirators were admissible under the co-conspirator exception to hearsay. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support all convictions and that the upward variances in sentencing were not substantively unreasonable. The judgments of conviction and sentences were affirmed. View "United States v. Franklin" on Justia Law

Between 2007 and 2016, a group operating from Romania, including the defendant, engaged in a range of cybercrimes targeting U.S. victims. Their activities included an eBay auction fraud scheme, cryptocurrency mining, and identity theft, which together infected tens of thousands of computers and resulted in millions of dollars in losses. The defendant, along with two co-conspirators, was indicted on multiple counts, including conspiracy to commit wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, and money laundering. One co-conspirator pleaded guilty, while the defendant and another went to trial and were convicted on all counts except for a sentencing enhancement.The United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio initially sentenced the defendant to 216 months' imprisonment and did not impose restitution, after the government stated it was not seeking restitution at that time. In contrast, the co-conspirator who pleaded guilty was ordered to pay substantial restitution. The defendant appealed certain sentencing enhancements, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed some enhancements, reversed others, and remanded the case for resentencing. On remand, the district court treated the remand as a general one, held a de novo resentencing, and imposed restitution for the first time in the amount of $853,651.99, to be shared jointly and severally with co-defendants. The defendant did not object to restitution at resentencing but subsequently appealed, arguing that restitution had been waived, that he was denied access to the underlying restitution information, and that the imposition of restitution was vindictive.The United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that, under its precedent, a general remand permits the government to seek restitution even if it was previously waived, and that restitution was mandatory under the relevant statute. However, the court found plain error in the process used, as the defendant was not provided with the underlying restitution information as required. The court affirmed the imposition of restitution but vacated and remanded for resentencing on the restitution amount. View "United States v. Miclaus" on Justia Law