Justia White Collar Crime Opinion Summaries

Under the “Hyde Amendment,” a district court in criminal cases may award to a prevailing party a reasonable attorney’s fee and other litigation expenses, if the position of the United States was vexatious, frivolous, or in bad faith, unless the court finds special circumstances, 18 U.S.C. 3006A. The district court denied such an award in a case involving four counts of conspiring and attempting to commit extortion, 18 U.S.C. 951(a) & 2 (Hobbs Act), and two counts of traveling in interstate commerce to promote and facilitate bribery, 18 U.S.C. 1952(a)(3) & 2 (Travel Act). The government alleged that Manzo, a candidate for mayor of Jersey City, sought cash payments from Dwek, an informant posing as a developer, and that, in exchange, Manzo indicated he would help Dwek with matters involving Jersey City government. The district court dismissed each Hobbs Act count because Manzo was not a public official at the time of the conduct. The Third Circuit affirmed. The court later held that receipt of something of value by an unsuccessful candidate in exchange for a promise of future official conduct does not constitute bribery under the New Jersey bribery statute and dismissed all remaining charges. The Third Circuit affirmed the denial of fees. View "United States v. Manzo" on Justia Law

Anchor Mortgage Corporation and its CEO, Munson, were convicted under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729(a)(1), of making false statements when applying for federal guarantees of 11 loans. The district court imposed a penalty of $5,500 per loan, plus treble damages of about $2.7 million. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that defendants not have the necessary state of mind, either actual knowledge that material statements were false, or suspicion that they were false plus reckless disregard of their accuracy. The court noted that Anchor submitted bogus certificates that relatives had supplied the down payments that the borrowers purported to have made, when it knew that neither the borrowers nor any of their relatives had made down payments and represented that it had not paid anyone for referring clients to it, but in fact it paid at least one referrer. View "United States v. Munson" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant George David Gordon was a former securities attorney convicted of multiple criminal charges relating to his alleged participation in a "pump-and-dump" scheme where he (along with others) violated the federal securities laws by artificially inflating the value of various stocks, then turning around and selling them for a substantial profit. The government restrained some of his property before the indictment was handed down and ultimately obtained criminal forfeiture of that property. On appeal, Defendant raised multiple issues relating to the validity of his conviction and sentence, and the propriety of the government’s conduct (both before and after trial) related to the forfeiture of his assets. In the end, the Tenth Circuit found no reversible error and affirmed Defendant's conviction and sentence, as well as the district court’s forfeiture orders. View "United States v. Gordon" on Justia Law

In 2003, Congress created Health Savings Accounts to help people with high-deductible health plans save for health care costs by providing tax-preferred treatment for money saved for future medical expenses, 26 U.S.C. 223. Banas and others started a company that created a suite of software products that allowed savers to manage their Health Savings Accounts online. By 2009, the company had more than 100 employees. Venture capital and private equity firms thought the company was a solid investment and bought stock, but the company had provided counterfeit financial documents and had even “faked” customer calls. The owners started raiding clients’ Health Savings Accounts. By the time Banas and Blackburn were stopped, they had misappropriated more than $18,000,000 in client funds. Banas admitted his guilt, accepted responsibility for his actions, and has worked to secure some degree of restitution. The district judge sentenced Banas to 160 months of imprisonment for wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343, well below the Guidelines range. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, particularly noting the impact of the crime on victims. View "Unted States v. Banas" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to perpetrating a five-year, $3 million health care fraud scheme. In light of defendant's full restitution payment, his community service, and the rising costs of incarceration, the district court sentenced defendant to probation for the "time served" while awaiting his sentence, varying downward 20 levels. The government appealed defendant's sentence. The court concluded that the sentence did not reflect the seriousness and extent of the crime, nor did it promote respect for the law, provide just punishment, or adequately deter other similarly inclined health care providers. Therefore, the court found that the sentence was substantively unreasonable and an abuse of the district court's discretion. Accordingly, the court vacated and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Kuhlman" on Justia Law

The Federal Trade Commission secured a judgment of $10,204,445 against Sussman and his co-defendants and equitable relief, based on abusive debt collection activities. Sussman subsequently entered a safe deposit box and removed coins that had been “frozen” in connection with the earlier action; he was then convicted of theft of government property, 18 U.S.C. 641, and obstruction of justice, 18 U.S.C. 1503(a) and sentenced to 41 months on each count, to be served concurrently, followed by three years of supervised release. The court also imposed a $15,000 fine and a $200 special assessment. The Third Circuit affirmed, rejecting a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence and a clam that Sussman should be afforded a new trial because a portion of the trial transcript is unavailable, apparently because a court reporter lost the transcript. The court upheld the admission into evidence of redacted documents from the FTC’s prior civil case and jury instructions on the elements of obstruction of justice and Sussman’s theory of defense. View "United States v. Sussman" on Justia Law

Defendants Michael Nouri, Eric Nouri, and Anthony Martin appealed convictions stemming from their involvement with a market manipulation scheme with Smart Online, Inc. stock. On appeal, defendants contended that the district court erred in instructing the jury on fraud by deprivation of honest services, especially in the context of securities fraud, and that there was insufficient evidence to sustain convictions for securities fraud. Martin also contended that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of honest-services wire fraud, that the district court erroneously limited his examination of a witness, and that his sentence was unreasonable. The court affirmed the judgment, finding no merit in defendants' arguments. View "United States v. Nouri" on Justia Law

Defendants are MB, a registered investment adviser, and people affiliated with MB. A fraudulent scheme was perpetrated by Bloom while he was an employee and officer of MB, through a hedge fund called North Hills that Bloom controlled and managed outside the scope of his responsibilities at MB. Bloom was arrested and indicted in New York in 2009 on charges relating to the Ponzi scheme, by which time most of the money invested in North Hills was gone. Investors filed suit, alleging: controlling person liability under Section 20(a) of the Securities and Exchange Act; negligent supervision; violations of Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 10b-5; violations of the Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practice and Consumer Protection Law; and breach of fiduciary duty. The district court rejected all claims. The Third Circuit vacated and remanded with respect to MB on the claims for violations of Rule 10b-5 and the state UTPCPL, and otherwise affirmed. View "Belmont v. MB Inv. Partners, Inc." on Justia Law

Defendant, an engineer for battery producer Electric Vehicles Worldwide (EVW), was convicted of submitting false invoices and conspiring to defraud the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) in connection with federal grants to develop a battery for electric mass transit. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Defendant's convictions, holding (1) the government's evidence was sufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant intentionally submitted false or fraudulent claims or conspired to defraud the FTA; and (2) the trial court did not err in refusing to give Defendant's requested theory-of-defense jury instructions on condonation and reasonable interpretation of regulations. View "United States v. Willson" on Justia Law

Peppel, former President, CEO, and Chairman of the Board of Directors of MCSi, a publicly-traded communications-technology company, conspired with CFO Stanley to falsify MCSi accounting records and financial statements in order to conceal the actual earnings from shareholders, while laundering proceeds from the sale of his own shares in a public stock offering. Peppel pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit securities, mail, and wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1371 and 1349; willful false certification of a financial report by a corporate officer,18 U.S.C. 1350; and money laundering, 18 U.S.C. 1957. The parties stipulated to use of the 2002 Sentencing Guidelines Manual The district court heard testimony and received reports on five competing amount-of-loss theories and, based almost solely on its estimation of Peppel as “a remarkably good man,” varied downward drastically from this advisory range, imposing a custodial sentence of only seven days—a 99.9975% reduction. The Sixth Circuit vacated, holding that the district court abused its discretion by imposing an unreasonably low sentence, but did not err in calculating the amount of loss or number of victims. View "United States v. Peppel" on Justia Law