Justia White Collar Crime Opinion Summaries

A postal service employee in Fayetteville, North Carolina, was stopped by police for a traffic violation. During the stop, officers discovered drug paraphernalia and, upon searching the vehicle, found 48 United States Treasury checks not made out to him, with 47 checks in the trunk and one, which had been altered, in his backpack. The backpack also contained marijuana, a large amount of cash, and a loaded firearm. A subsequent traffic stop and a search of his home uncovered further evidence of altered and stolen checks. In total, he was linked to 51 stolen checks, with a significant intended loss, and was later indicted on charges of theft of mail matter by a postal service employee and possession of stolen mail. He pleaded guilty to both charges.The United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, relying on the Presentence Report, calculated his Sentencing Guidelines range and applied a two-level firearm enhancement under USSG § 2B1.1(b)(16)(B), finding that his offense involved possession of a firearm in connection with the offense. The court sentenced him to 48 months’ imprisonment, above the bottom of the applicable range. The defendant did not object to the firearm enhancement at sentencing.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed only the procedural reasonableness of the sentence. The Fourth Circuit held that the district court erred by applying the firearm enhancement without making required factual findings linking the firearm to the theft or possession offenses. The appellate court found that this error was plain, affected the defendant’s substantial rights, and seriously affected the fairness of the proceedings because it could not determine if the district court would have imposed the same sentence absent the error. The Fourth Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing with instructions for the district court to make specific factual findings regarding the firearm enhancement. View "US v. Franklin" on Justia Law

A licensed physician assistant accepted a remote, part-time position with a telehealth company. His role was to review files sent by the company and sign orders for genetic tests for Medicare beneficiaries. Over approximately ten months, he signed orders for more than 600 beneficiaries, despite having spoken with only about 20 of them. For each file, regardless of test approval, he was compensated. These signed orders led laboratories to bill Medicare for over 14,600 tests, totaling more than $10 million. The physician assistant did not personally bill Medicare and resigned after raising concerns about the company’s practices.A grand jury indicted him on healthcare fraud and making false statements related to healthcare matters. In the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, a jury convicted him on all counts. The court sentenced him to 72 months in prison. On appeal, the defendant argued that the district court erred by excluding documents about the company’s internal compliance, quashing subpoenas for witnesses who invoked the Fifth Amendment, allowing a prosecutorial rebuttal he claimed was improper, giving flawed jury instructions, and miscalculating the sentencing guidelines.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed and rejected all of the defendant’s challenges. The court held that the exclusion of compliance documents was not an abuse of discretion under Rule 403, that the district court properly quashed subpoenas after a sufficient inquiry into the witnesses’ privilege against self-incrimination, and that any arguably improper prosecution remarks did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial. Additionally, the court found no reversible error in the jury instructions, determined that the evidence sufficiently supported the convictions, and affirmed the sentencing methodology. The appellate court affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "US v. Joyner" on Justia Law

A group of former students who attended ITT Technical Institute, a for-profit college, brought suit against companies and individuals involved in servicing and collecting on certain private student loans known as the PEAKS loans. After the 2008 financial crisis, ITT, needing to comply with federal regulations limiting reliance on federal funds, established the PEAKS loan program with the backing of Deutsche Bank to generate non-federal revenue. The loans were internally backed by guarantees from ITT, and as default rates rose, ITT concealed the program’s financial troubles from investors and regulators. The PEAKS loans continued to be serviced by Vervent, Inc. and its affiliates, even after ITT’s collapse and bankruptcy in 2016. Students alleged that they were not aware that their loan payments were induced by fraud until after ITT’s public downfall.In the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, the plaintiffs, as a putative class, alleged violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and various state-law claims. The defendants argued that the RICO claims were untimely, asserting that the statute of limitations began when the students received or began paying the loans, and also challenged proximate causation. The district court denied summary judgment on both grounds, finding fact issues precluded judgment as a matter of law. A jury found in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding damages that were trebled under RICO. The district court denied defendants’ post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law.The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. It held there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that the students neither knew nor reasonably should have known of their fraud-based injuries more than four years before suit was filed, so the claims were timely under RICO’s four-year statute of limitations. The court also concluded that defendants did not preserve their proximate cause argument for appeal because they did not properly raise it after trial. The judgment was affirmed. View "TURREY V. VERVENT, INC." on Justia Law

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