Justia White Collar Crime Opinion Summaries

Orillo, her husband (a doctor), and another owned Chalice, a home health care provider. Chalice was an enrolled provider with Medicare and could seek reimbursement of home health care through that program. Orillo falsified forms by altering the codes and information that had been completed by the Chalice nurses to make the patient’s condition appear worse and the health care needs greater than the actuality. Those alterations caused Medicare software to generate different reimbursement rates Orillo also aided her husband in paying kickbacks to a Chicago doctor in return for referrals of Medicare patients. Orillo pled guilty to healthcare fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1347 and paying kickbacks to physicians for patient referrals under a federal health care program, 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7b and 18 U.S.C. 2, and was sentenced to 20 months’ imprisonment. Orillo conceded that her scheme caused a loss, to Medicare, in excess of $400,000, and agreed to entry of a $500,000 forfeiture judgment.The district court determined that the loss amount for the healthcare fraud count was $744,481 and ordered her to pay that amount in restitution. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting Orillo’s argument that the loss and restitution amount should be limited to only those stemming from visible alterations. View "United States v. Orillo" on Justia Law

The Berkowitz family has a history of IRS problems. Yair began participating in his father’s schemes in 1999, acquiring the information of dead people and federal prisoners to prepare fraudulent tax returns. Between 2003 and 2009, 58 individuals received refund checks in a conspiracy that involved more than 3,000 false state and federal tax returns. Yair received tax returns from Marvin in Israel, mailed the returns from various U.S. postal codes to avoid IRS suspicion, and controlled accounts where proceeds were deposited. When refund checks issued, Yair traveled to pick them up and made payments to co‐conspirators. In 2006, IRS agents told Yair that money he received from Marvin was obtained by fraud. Yair denied knowledge of the scheme. He began to reduce his direct involvement, but continued to receive money from the scheme and met with an undercover IRS agent about expanding the fraud. The scheme was uncovered. Yair, Marvin, and others were charged with conspiracy to defraud the IRS, wire fraud, and mail fraud. Yair pleaded guilty only to wire fraud based on a 2006 PayPal transfer of $250. At sentencing, the district court followed the Presentence Report’s recommendation and ordered Yair to pay more than $4 million in restitution along with his prison sentence; his liability was joint and several with his co‐defendants. The Seventh Circuit found the award appropriate and affirmed.View "Unted States v. Berkowitz" on Justia Law

Investigation of Rabbi Fish began when Dwek, charged with bank fraud, informed law enforcement that several New York and New Jersey rabbis were laundering money through tax-exempt Jewish charities called gemachs. In a sting operation, Dwek approached Fish about laundering the claimed proceeds of fraudulent schemes. The “proceeds” were actually provided by the government. Fish participated in 12 money laundering transactions involving more than $900,000. Dwek would deliver bank checks made out to gemachs and rabbis and would receive cash in exchange, less a commission of about 10 percent. Fish gave Dwek SIM cards for his cell phone and warned Dwek to sweep his car and phones for detection devices and to use code when speaking to associates. In recordings made by Dwek, Fish stated that he had several money laundering connections, knew how much cash certain individuals had available at specified times, had met the “main guy” running the network, and that the cash came from the diamond and jewelry business. Fish pled guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering, 18 U.S.C. 1956(h). The parties agreed that Fish’s total offense level would be at least 21; the government reserved the right to argue for a two-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. 2S1.1(b)(3) for sophisticated money laundering. The district court applied the enhancement and sentenced Fish to 46 months. The Third Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Fish" on Justia Law

Defendants Jeffrey W. Edwards and Frontier Holdings appealed the district court's order of restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. 3663A. Edwards' convictions stemmed from his involvement in a scheme to solicit funds from investors by promising astronomical returns and then using the funds for extravagant personal expenditures. The court concluded that the district court correctly ignored Edwards' finances when determining the amount of restitution; the district court did not clearly err by ordering restitution to Camencita Jocson for losses caused by a related scheme; the district court properly found that Edwards owed restitution to victims whose related counts were dismissed at trial; and there was insufficient evidence supporting the restitution order to Teana Reece's alleged victims. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions; affirmed the restitution order generally; vacated the restitution order in respect to Reece's alleged victims; and remanded for a hearing to determine whether they were entitled to restitution. View "United States v. Edwards, et al." on Justia Law

Gray’s friend Johnson offered to act as co‐borrower to help Gray buy a house, if Gray promised that she would only be on the loan as a co‐borrower for two years. In return, Johnson received a finder’s fee from the daughter of the builder-seller (Hinrichs). Mortgage broker Bowling sent their application to Fremont, a federally insured lender specializing in stated‐income loans, with which the lender typically did not verify financial information supplied by applicants. Bowling testified that he told both women that they would be listed as occupants, that their incomes would be inflated, and what the monthly payment would be. The closing proceeded; Gray and Johnson received a $273,700 mortgage from Fremont and, on paper, a $48,300 second mortgage from Hinrichs. Gray and Johnson acknowledge that the application that they signed contained several false statements. Bowling became the subject of a federal investigation. Sentenced to 51 months’ imprisonment, he agreed to testify against his clients. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the convictions of Gray and Johnson under 18 U.S.C. 1014, which prohibits “knowingly” making false statements to influence the action of a federally insured institution. Rejecting an argument that the district court erred by denying an opportunity to present testimony to show Bowling’s history of duping clients, the court stated that his prior wrongdoing was not very probative of Gray’s and Johnson’s guilt. View "United States v. Gray" on Justia Law

The Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. 3006A(a), requires courts to furnish legal counsel to criminal defendants “financially unable to obtain adequate representation.” Konrad was appointed a federal defender based on information he provided in a financial disclosure affidavit. At sentencing, the district court found discrepancies between Konrad’s presentencing report and his financial disclosure and, after a hearing, found that Konrad had $70,463 in two individual retirement accounts so he was not financially unable to pay the cost of legal representation. Konrad had failed to disclose the value of his home , had significantly under-reported income, and had reported the value of the retirement accounts inaccurately. The court ordered Konrad to repay $6,000. The Third Circuit affirmed; individual retirement funds and jointly-held bank accounts can be available funds within the meaning of the Criminal Justice Act and the court acted within its discretion in ordering Konrad to repay the market value of his legal representation rather than the hourly rate paid to an attorney appointed under the Criminal Justice Act. View "United States v. Konrad" on Justia Law

After being rejected for a mortgage because Hall had a bankruptcy and their joint income was too low, Hall and Phillips applied with Bowling, a mortgage broker, under the “stated income loan program.” Bowling prepared an application that omitted Hall’s name, attributed double their combined income to Phillips, and falsely claimed that Phillips was a manager. Phillips signed the application and employment verification form. Fremont extended credit. They could not make the payments; the lender foreclosed. Bowling repeated this process often. He pleaded guilty to bank fraud and, to lower his sentence, assisted in prosecution of his clients. Phillips and Hall were convicted under 18 U.S.C. 1014. The district court prohibited them from eliciting testimony that Bowling assured them that the program was lawful and from arguing mistake of fact in signing the documents. The Seventh Circuit first affirmed, but granted rehearing en banc to clarify elements of the crime and their application to charges of mortgage fraud and reversed. The judge excluded evidence that, if believed, might have convinced a jury that any false statements made by the defendants were not known by them to be false and might also have rebutted an inference of intent to influence the bank. View "United States v. Phillips" on Justia Law

Wilson Lucom was an American expatriate who wished to bequeath assets worth more than $200 million to a foundation established for impoverished children in Panama. Plaintiff, Lucom's attorney, filed suit against the Arias Group/Arias Family, Lucom's wife and step-children, under the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968, alleging that the Arias Group participated in a criminal conspiracy to thwart plaintiff through acts of intimidation, extortion, corruption, theft, money laundering, and bribery of foreign officials, so that the Arias Group could steal the Estate assets for themselves. At issue on appeal was RICO's four-year statute of limitations on civil actions and the "separate accrual" rule. Under the rule, the commission of a separable, new predicate act within a 4-year limitations period permitted a plaintiff to recover for the additional damages caused by that act. The court concluded that none of the injuries in plaintiff's complaint were new and independent because all of his alleged injuries were continuations of injuries that have been accumulating since before September 2007. The court agreed with the district court that plaintiff had done little more than repackage his 2007 abuse of process complaint. Therefore, plaintiff's civil RICO complaint was untimely, and the district court did not err when it granted summary judgment in favor of the Arias Group. View "Lehman, et al. v. Lucom, et al." on Justia Law

Iacona worked as a process server for D&L, an investigation service owned by Clymer and agreed to purchase the business. Clymer structured the arrangement so that she would retain ownership of the business while Iacona paid $2000 per month for two years toward a purchase price of $95,000, with a balloon payment of the remaining balance. The agreement contemplated a line of credit to pay a recurring monthly expense for an investigative research service. In reality, Iacona established several lines of credit in the name of D&L and in Clymer’s name. He misrepresented his position with the company and the company’s income. He had his sister represent herself as Clymer, used Clymer’s social security number and personal information, and incurred significant debt unrelated to the business. Iacona was convicted of fraud in connection with an access device and aggravated identity theft, 18 U.S.C. 1029(a)(2) and 1028A. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting a claim of prosecutorial misconduct. Where the evidence supports an inference that the defendant has lied, then a comment in closing argument as to his credibility, is a hard but fair blow, as long as the argument is based on the evidence and not a comment on the prosecutor’s personal opinion . View "United States v. Iacona" on Justia Law

After losing his job as a stockbroker and financial advisor and his accompanying health insurance, Appellant applied for and received subsidized health insurance for several years. Russell represented on each application that he had no income to report and was unemployed, but Appellant was working under the table during those years. After a government investigation and an ensuing jury trial, Appellant was convicted of making false statements in connection with the payment of health care benefits. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed, holding (1) the jury instruction on the definition of willfulness was not error; (2) the government presented sufficient evidence that Appellant's false statements were material to support the conviction; (3) the district court did not err in excluding certain testimony as state-of-mind hearsay; and (4) neither the prosecutor's statements during closing arguments nor his questions in eliciting testimony from a witness necessitated reversal. View "United States v. Russell" on Justia Law