Justia White Collar Crime Opinion Summaries

In 2007, Suarez, a 75-year-old widower from Mexico, opened a checking account at an Illinois Chase Bank. DeMarco, the branch manager, assisted him. The two became friends. Suarez was trying to sell his three acre property, listed for $1.8 million. DeMarco convinced Suarez to break his listing contract, indicating that he had a buyer. DeMarco told Suarez that he needed a home equity line of credit (HELOC) to complete the sale. DeMarco obtained a $250,000 HELOC, under Suarez’s name, secured by Suarez’s property. DeMarco caused the lender to transfer the proceeds into a joint checking account, which he opened in his and Suarez’s name. After the transfer, DeMarco withdrew $245,000 and deposited the funds into his personal account. After Chase terminated his employment, DeMarco transferred the funds into new accounts and spent most of the proceeds to pay off his credit card debt, improve his home and on cars and vacations. He used a small fraction of the money to pay off Suarez’s debts. Suarez later noted irregularities in his bank statement and contacted the FBI. DeMarco was convicted of wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343 and sentenced to 48 months in prison. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to evidentiary rulings and to the sentence, claiming that the court erred by applying a two-level increase to his base offense level for abuse of a position of trust, U.S.S.G. 3B1.3, and the use of sophisticated means, U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(1). View "United States v. DeMarco" on Justia Law

In 2005, Lee, a Sevierville contractor, owed a substantial debt to Whaley, for loans that financed houses being built by Lee. Whaley proposed to recruit straw buyers for sham purchases of the properties. Eight straw buyers were referred to Bevins, a mortgage broker with whom Whaley had previously dealt. Whaley prepared the contracts and set the prices. Bevins prepared loan applications that falsely inflated the buyers’ incomes and assets and stated that they would bring funds to closing. The closings were conducted by Kerley’s title company. Although none of the buyers brought funds to the closings, Kerley signed HUD-1 forms, indicating that they did. The properties later went into foreclosure. The lenders incurred substantial losses. Lee and Bevins pled guilty and agreed to cooperate. The judge denied Kerley’s motion to sever, concluding that proposed redactions to Whaley’s statement remedied potential violation of Kerley’s Confrontation Clause rights and held that Whaley was not entitled to introduce his own hearsay statements. Both were convicted of money laundering, conspiracy to commit wire fraud affecting a financial institution and bank fraud, wire fraud affecting a financial institution, bank fraud, and making a false statement to a financial institution. They were sentenced to 60 months and 48 months imprisonment, respectively, and ordered to pay $1,901,980.31 in restitution. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the convictions and Kerley’s sentence, rejecting challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, evidentiary rulings, and the court’s refusal to sever. View "United States v. Whaley" on Justia Law

Roy was convicted of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1349; three counts of wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343; and conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1349. The Second Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the district court erred by failing to instruct the jury that proof of an overt act is required for a conviction under the two section 1349 conspiracy charges. Proof of an overt act is not required for a conspiracy conviction under 18 U.S.C. 1349. View "United States v. Roy" on Justia Law

In 2008, an explosion and fire substantially damaged the Hereford House, a well-known restaurant in downtown Kansas City. Surveillance footage from immediately before the incident showed individuals entering with containers of gasoline and setting an ignition device. The suspects used the security code of a former Hereford House employee to deactivate the security system. Between the employee’s firing and the fire, the same code had been used twice by Anderson, a part owner of the Hereford House, in what appeared to be practice for the arson. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives investigated Anderson, who had infused $380,000 into the business, from cash advances on personal and business credit cards, withdrawals from his mother’s IRA and his 401(k), and a loan from his brother-in-law. In an email, Anderson had stated: “We were unable to pay our payroll taxes of $50,000. Things are not getting any better.” Anderson, Pisciotta, and Sorrentino were convicted and sentenced to 180, 240, and 180 months’ imprisonment, respectively. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that conspiracy to commit arson cannot be a predicate to convictions for the use of fire to commit another felony under 18 U.S.C. 844(h); that the convictions constituted double jeopardy; that the trials should have been severed; and challenging evidentiary rulings. View "United States v. Anderson" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted and sentenced for conspiracy to obstruct justice, accessory after the fact to mail fraud and securities law violations, altering documents to influence a federal investigation, and aiding and abetting false testimony at an SEC deposition. A panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the district court did not err at sentencing by applying both the “Broker-Dealer” enhancement and the “Special Skill” enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines; (2) the district court did not err in calculating loss and victim amounts, as required under the Sentencing Guidelines; (3) Defendant was competent to waive his right to a jury trial, and his waiver was knowing and intelligent; and (4) the district court did not plainly err in (a) excluding a non-lawyer’s testimony reciting facts and the legal conclusion that Defendant did not break the law; (b) determining that the district court was capable of understanding an expert’s opinion regarding Defendant’s professional and ethical duties as an attorney; and (c) admitting coconspirator nonhearsay testimony. View "United States v. Tamman" on Justia Law

California posts information about unclaimed property on a public website. Bolt made claims in 2011 and 2012 in the name of his company, Situs Cancer Research Center,. Bolt created fraudulent donation agreements which purported to transfer the unclaimed assets from their lawful owners to Situs. In some instances Bolt created fictitious employees of the companies and signed their names; in others he forged the signatures of actual people. He also fabricated notary stamps and used interstate mail and wire systems to transmit the fraudulent documents to California. The assets transferred to Situs totaled approximately $2,400,000. Bolt bought cars and real estate with funds from the Situs bank account. In another scheme, Situs similarly acquired unclaimed funds from a trust account ($108,251.78) held by the state of Nevada, which were a woman's life savings. Bolt pled guilty to wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343; mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1341; and money laundering, 18 U.S.C. 1957. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the sentence of 100 months, calculated by applying an enhancement for the use of sophisticated means and concluding that an upward departure was warranted based on the inadequacy of his criminal history category under the guidelines. View "United States v. Bolt" on Justia Law

Curtis, a lawyer, filed 1996-1997 returns reporting tax obligations of $218,983 and $248,236, but made no payments. His partner had taken $600,000 from the practice and declared bankruptcy; Curtis underwent an expensive divorce. Curtis failed to file a return for 1998. Curtis entered into an installment agreement. He filed a return for 2000 but failed to pay $90,000. He entered into a second agreement, but filed returns for 2003 and 2004 reflecting unpaid tax liabilities of $176,802 and $61,000. Curtis did not make estimated payments and stopped making installment payments. He filed returns for 2007, 2008 and 2009, but paid nothing. Curtis was charged with misdemeanor willfully failing to pay taxes owed for 2007, 2008 and 2009, 26 U.S.C. 7203. The court allowed evidence under Rule 404(b), of Curtis’s history of failing to pay his taxes and his withdrawals of money from his law practice for personal expenses. Curtis did not object, but objected to the government’s proposed evidence that he failed to pay payroll taxes for his employees in 2013, arguing that any violations after the charged years did not bear on his state of mind during the time of the charged offenses. Although the court gave Curtis’s proposed instruction on good faith, it declined to modify the pattern instruction to include a requirement for bad motive, with respect to willfulness. The Seventh Circuit affirmed his convictions. View "United States v. Curtis" on Justia Law

DiFoggio worked as an FBI cooperating witness and introduced Medrano to a man purporting to be Castro, a health care consultant. Castro told Medrano that by bribing a corrupt official he could obtain contract approval from Los Angeles County for the purchase of bandages for its hospital system. Castro was an undercover FBI agent. There was no corrupt official. When the medical bandages deal was concluded, Medrano approached Castro about making another deal to involve his friend, Buenrostro. Buenrostro and Castro brought Barta into the discussions; A bribe would be paid to the corrupt official by Castro to obtain a county contract for Sav‐Rx, a company founded by Barta, to provide pharmaceutical dispensing services. Sav‐Rx would service the contract through a business started by Buenrostro and Medrano. Barta wrote a check for $6,500 to Castro. Buenrostro and Medrano were to pay their 35 percent share after that last meeting. Before that happened, they were arrested. In a separate opinion, the Seventh Circuit held that Barta was entrapped as a matter of law. Neither Buenrostro nor Medrano argued entrapment. The Seventh Circuit affirmed their convictions for conspiracy to commit bribery, rejecting challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and the sentences. View "United States v. Buenrostro" on Justia Law

In 2006, Robinson opened Paideia Academy, a non-profit charter St. Louis charter school. State and federal monies, disbursed through the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, exclusively funded the school, and were restricted to operating kindergarten through eighth grade. Robinson directed $242,533 from Paideia to develop a pre-kindergarten child care center. Robinson also worked, beginning in 1990, purporting to inspect parking meters. On weekly timesheets, he always recorded 40 hours, regardless of holidays, and even after parking meter services were outsourced. In 2009, the FBI investigated his “employment,” interviewing former Parking Division employees and watching Robinson’s car. They reasonably suspected that Robinson did not inspect meters. The agents installed, without a warrant, a GPS device on his car while parked on a public street. Tracking confirmed that Robinson did not inspect meters. The government charged Robinson with Paideia-related wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343; two Paideia-related counts of federal program theft, 18 U.S.C. 666(a)(1)(A); and five parking-related counts of federal program theft. The district court denied Robinson’s motion to suppress the GPS evidence, motion to sever counts 1-3 from counts 4-8, and Batson objection to the jury’s composition. At trial, the court rejected his challenges to certain testimony and parking-related jury instructions. The court sentenced him to 24 months’ imprisonment and awarded $419,333 in restitution. The Eighth Circuit affirmed View "United States v. Robinson" on Justia Law

Singer, a Muskegon, Michigan landlord who claimed insurance proceeds for nine rental units that were burned, was convicted of 12 counts of mail fraud, use of fire to commit mail fraud, arson, tax fraud, and obstruction of the administration of the internal revenue laws, and was sentenced to a total term of 55 years in prison. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that: the mail-fraud count of his indictment was duplicitous; the district court should have severed the tax-fraud counts from the other charged offenses; certain counts in the indictment were outside of the relevant statute of limitations or brought within an improper venue; and the district court erred by imposing consecutive sentences under 18 U.S.C. 844(h). View "United States v. Singer" on Justia Law