Justia White Collar Crime Opinion Summaries

Defendant pled guilty to one count of securities fraud, alleged in the indictment to be a violation of 15 U.S.C. 78j(b), 78ff, and 17 C.F.R. 240.10(b)-5. At issue was whether the district court erred in holding that defendant was not entitled to the protection of section 78ff(a) because he pled guilty to a statutory offense and the no-knowledge provision was inapplicable to people convicted of violating criminal securities law. The court, reading the plain language of the statute, held that the district court erred when it determined that defendant's guilty plea to a violation of section 78j(b) prevented him from asserting the no-knowledge defense. Thus, defendant was entitled to assert the no-knowledge defense to imprisonment at sentencing. The court held, however, that the district court did not reach the question of whether defendant had met his burden of showing no knowledge under Rule 10(b)-5 and as such, the issue was remanded to the district court for consideration.

Defendant Catherine Senninger was convicted on six counts of mail fraud and one count of making a false claim against the Government. She was acquitted on several other counts, including conspiracy and additional mail fraud counts. At trial, the Government presented evidence that Defendant, through her involvement with Olympia Financial and Tax Services, participated in a scheme to defraud the Internal Revenue Service and the Colorado Department of Revenue by preparing false tax returns. Defendant was sentenced to 36 months' imprisonment, which was an upward departure from the advisory guidelines range. Defendant challenged her sentence and subsequent restitution order. Upon review, the Tenth Circuit found the district court "properly rejected" Defendant's arguments. Accordingly, the Court affirmed Defendant's sentence.

Defendant was convicted of charges under 18 U.S.C. 1956 and 31 U.S.C. 5324 where Toros Seher sold jewelry in cash-based transactions to people he knew to be drug dealers. These sales were often structured to avoid any individual payments in excess of $10,000, which would have required Seher, as a jewelry store agent and recipient of the cash, to file a report with the government (Form 8300), containing information about the buyer. At issue was whether the forfeiture of the jewelry store's inventory was an excessive fine in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court held that the forfeiture order was not grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the crime in light of the factors in United States v. Browne, the interplay between the forfeiture order and the fine imposed by the district court, the value of the forfeited property, and the seriousness of the criminal conduct. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.

Ernestine Girod, Una Favorite Brown, and Melinda Langley were each indicted on one count of conspiracy and multiple counts of healthcare fraud, and Brown and Girod were charged with three counts each of making false statements to law enforcement officers, all in relation to fraudulent Medicaid reimbursement claims made through A New Beginning of New Orleans, a Medicaid Early Periodic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment organization that provided minor, disabled Medicaid recipients with Personal Care Services. A jury convicted defendants on all but three of Langley's healthcare fraud counts. Brown, Girod, and Langley separately appealed their convictions and sentences on various grounds. The court discussed Brown's motion to dismiss the indictment due to prosecutorial misconduct; the sufficiency of the evidence supporting Girod's convictions; Girod's sentencing enhancements; and testimony of Langley's other acts. Accordingly, the court held that all the convictions and sentences were affirmed.

Fabian Muyaba, Joseph Mudekunye, and three co-defendants were charged in a 39-count indictment stemming from their tax-fraud conspiracy. Muyaba, Mudekunye, and one co-defendant were convicted in a joint jury trial. Muyaba challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions; the district court's applying two Sentencing Guidelines enhancements; and its ordering part of his sentence to run consecutively. Mudekunye challenged the district court's failure to sever his trial from Muyaba's and his sentence as being procedurally unreasonable. The court held that, in light of the significant disparity between Mudekunye's sentence and the top of the correct Guidelines range and the absence of any evidence suggesting that the court would have sentenced him to 97 months imprisonment irrespective of the correct Guidelines range, Mudekunye had shown a reasonable probability of a lesser sentence and therefore, demonstrated that the district court's clear error affected his substantial rights. The court also held that the substantial disparity between the imposed sentence and the applicable Guidelines range warranted the exercise of the court's discretion to correct the error and Mudekunye's sentence was vacated and remanded for resentencing. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's judgment on every ground with the exception of Mudekunye's sentence.

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.

Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering related to a massive Ponzi scheme and was sentenced to 130 months imprisonment. At issue was whether the district court failed to adequately explain the sentence, failed to properly consider the sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a), assigned too much significance to irrelevant factors, and imposed a sentence greater than necessary to achieve federal sentencing goals. The court held that the district court engaged in a sufficiently detailed explanation of its reasons for imposing the sentence and did not commit procedural error. The court also held that the district court properly considered and weighed the evidence and therefore, defendant's sentence was not substantively unreasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence.

Defendant Herman Ransom appealed a district court's denial of his motion for acquittal or for a new trial after he was convicted on wire fraud and theft of public money. Defendant was accused of falsifying his time sheets from work at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). When Defendant took full-day leaves, he listed "8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m." as his working hours. Though an assistant prepared the time sheets, he signed them and a supervisor approved them. The records were then forwarded via wire to a central processing unit. HUD received an anonymous complaint about Defendant's frequent absences from the office, and an internal investigation would reveal the discrepancy in his time sheets. On appeal to the Tenth Circuit, Defendant challenged the validity of the evidence presented against him at trial. Upon review of the record and the applicable legal standard, the Tenth Circuit found sufficient evidence to support Defendant's conviction on wire fraud and theft charges. The Court affirmed the lower court's decision and Defendant's conviction.

Former Arizona Congressman Richard G. Renzi sought to invoke the Speech or Debate Clause ("Clause") of the Constitution to preclude his prosecution for allegedly using his public office to benefit himself rather than his constituents. Renzi denied the charges against him but argued on interlocutory appeal that he was protected by the Clause from even the burden of defending himself. Specifically, Renzi claimed that the public corruption charges against him amounted to prosecution on account of his privileged "legislative acts"; that "legislative act" evidence was improperly presented to the grand jury; that the United States must show that its investigation did not benefit from its review of "legislative act" evidence; and that the district court erred by declining to wholly suppress all of the evidence against him relating to his illicit "negotiations." The court held that it lacked jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to consider Renzi's suppression claim and therefore, dismissed that part of his appeal. The court also held that the Clause was a privilege that "had enabled reckless men to slander and even destroy others with impunity," but the Supreme Court had made equally clear that the Clause did not "make Members of Congress super-citizens, immune from criminal responsibility." Accordingly, the court held that Renzi's actions fell beyond the Clause's protections and denied him the relief that he sought.

Defendant appealed from a judgment of conviction for securities fraud and conspiracy to commit securities fraud and wire fraud. At issue, among other things, was whether venue was proper in the Eastern District of New York. The court held that venue in the Eastern District was proper for the conspiracy counts where defendant committed overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracies in the Eastern District. Accordingly, the court did not find venue for the conspiracy charges to be unfair or prejudicial. The court held, however, that venue in the Eastern District was improper for the substantive securities fraud count where no conduct that constituted the offense took place in the Eastern District. Accordingly, nothing in United States v. Svoboda called into question the principle that preparatory acts alone were insufficient to establish venue. Therefore, the court affirmed in part and reversed in part.