Justia White Collar Crime Opinion Summaries

Martin J. Bradley III and his father, Martin J. Bradley, Jr. (collectively, the Bradleys), owned Bio-Med Plus, Inc. (Bio-Med), a Miami-based pharmaceutical wholesaler that purchased and sold blood-derivatives. This case stemmed from multiple schemes to defraud the Florida and California Medicaid programs by causing them to pay for blood-derivative medications more than once. The Government chose to prosecute the schemes and a grand jury indicted eight individuals, including Albert L. Tellechea, and two companies, Bio-Med, and Interland Associates, Inc. The Bradleys, Bio-Med, and Tellechea subsequently appealed their convictions and raised several issues on appeal. The court affirmed the Bradleys', Bio-Med's, and Tellechea's convictions, and Bradley III's and Bio-Med's sentences. The court vacated Bradley, Jr.'s sentences on Counts I and 54 and Tellechea's sentence on Count 3, and remanded those counts for resentencing. The court reversed the district court's October 4, 2006 order appointing the receiver and monitor, and its supplemental receivership order of May 17, 2007. The court finally held that, as soon as circumstances allowed, the receivership should be brought to an immediate close.

AdSurfDaily, Inc., an internet marketing company incorporated and controlled by appellant, appealed a default judgment and final order of forfeiture after they withdrew their claims in this civil forfeiture action where federal agents seized $80 million of the company's bank account funds as part of an investigation of the company for wire fraud and money laundering. The government filed a complaint for forfeiture in rem against the funds and two pieces of real property that had been purchased with AdSurfDaily money. At issue was whether the district court violated appellants' due process rights when it failed to stay the forfeiture action pending the outcome of a parallel criminal proceeding and when the district court denied them an opportunity to challenge the forfeiture on the merits when it refused to reinstate their withdrawn claims. The court held that the district court did not violate appellants' due process rights when they never asked for a stay and where due process did not require the government to provide a person with the opportunity to challenge the seizure of property he had voluntarily forfeited. The court also held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion to reinstate withdrawn claims when the withdrawal was the product of a free, deliberate choice.