Justia White Collar Crime Opinion Summaries

Edward Mangano, the former County Executive of Nassau County, New York, and his wife, Linda Mangano, were involved in a public corruption case. Edward Mangano was accused of accepting bribes from Harendra Singh, a businessman, in exchange for using his influence to secure loan guarantees from the Town of Oyster Bay for Singh's businesses. Singh provided various gifts and a no-show job for Linda Mangano, paying her approximately $100,000 annually. The Manganos were also accused of conspiring to obstruct a federal grand jury investigation into these bribes by fabricating stories about Linda's employment.In the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, Edward Mangano was convicted of conspiracy to commit federal programs bribery, honest services fraud, and related substantive offenses. Linda Mangano was convicted of conspiracy to obstruct justice, obstruction of justice, and making false statements to federal officials. The district court sentenced Edward Mangano to 12 years in prison and Linda Mangano to 15 months.On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court properly instructed the jury on the conspiracies to commit honest services fraud and obstruction of justice, and that the evidence was sufficient to convict the Manganos on those charges. However, the court concluded that the evidence was insufficient to convict Edward Mangano of conspiracy to commit federal programs bribery or the related substantive offense. Consequently, the Second Circuit reversed the district court's judgment in part, affirming the convictions related to honest services fraud and obstruction of justice, but reversing the convictions related to federal programs bribery. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with the appellate court's opinion. View "United States v. Mangano" on Justia Law

Oladayo Oladokun was convicted in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York after pleading guilty to conspiracy to commit bank fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering. His involvement included directing others to open bank accounts to receive stolen or forged checks and launder money. He was sentenced to 125 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release.Oladokun appealed, challenging the district court's calculation of his offense level under the United States Sentencing Guidelines. He argued against the application of an eighteen-level enhancement based on the loss amount, a two-level enhancement for ten or more victims, and a four-level enhancement for his role in an offense involving five or more participants. Additionally, he claimed ineffective assistance of counsel for not requesting a Franks hearing to suppress evidence obtained from his residence.The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. The court found that the district court did not err in its factual basis for the Guidelines enhancements. It upheld the eighteen-level enhancement for the intended loss amount, the two-level enhancement for ten or more victims, and the four-level enhancement for Oladokun's role in the offense. The court also rejected Oladokun's ineffective assistance claim, noting that even if his counsel had been ineffective, Oladokun failed to show the requisite prejudice because the warrant application was supported by probable cause without the challenged evidence.The Second Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court. View "United States v. Oladokun" on Justia Law

Plaintiff challenged the dismissal of his Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and state law claims against the principals of a Venezuelan energy company. The Second Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the RICO claims because plaintiff failed to allege that defendants engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity. Plaintiff's first theory failed because the predicate acts posed no continuing threat of racketeering. Plaintiff's second theory failed because the predicate acts he chose were insufficiently related to each other. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the state law claims because plaintiff failed to establish personal jurisdiction over either defendant. View "Reich v. Betancourt Lopez" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed her conviction of one count of embezzling funds from her company's 401(k) plan, and the forfeiture order entered against her. The court affirmed the conviction in a summary order issued contemporaneously with this opinion. At issue here was the amount of defendant's forfeiture order. The court held that mandatory criminal forfeiture amounts may not be reduced by the amount of restitution in the absence of specific statutory authorization for such an offset. Because the district court lacked the discretion to reduce defendant's forfeiture order in this case, the court affirmed as to this issue. View "United States v. Bodouva" on Justia Law

Defendants Dey and Finazzo were involved in a conspiracy to use South Bay as a supplier of Aeropostale apparel in exchange for secret payments. Finazzo was a former merchandising executive for Aeropostale, and Dey controlled South Bay, a clothing vendor. Dey plead guilty to conspiracy, and a jury convicted Finazzo of one count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and to violate the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. 371, fourteen counts of mail fraud, and one count of wire fraud. The court affirmed the district court's jury instructions regarding the "right to control" property under the mail and wire fraud statutes; concluded that there was sufficient evidence to support the challenged portions of the jury verdict; but, vacated and remanded the district court's restitution order as to Finazzo and Dey. In a simultaneously issued summary order, the court affirmed the remaining issues on appeal. View "United States v. Finazzo" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. The district court sentenced defendant to 120 months in prison, entered an order of forfeiture in the amount of $2.4 million, and ordered restitution in the amount of $2.4 million. The court concluded that the district court erred in applying the two sentencing enhancements for receiving gross receipts in excess of $1 million from a financial institution pursuant to U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(16)(A) and for abuse of a position of trust pursuant to U.S.S.G. 3B1.3. In a summary order published contemporaneously with this opinion, the court affirmed the district court’s judgments on the indictment and sentencing enhancement for a loss figure of $8.1 million, and declined to resolve defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim. View "United States v. Huggins" on Justia Law

Defendants Ahmed A. Algahaim and Mofaddal M. Murshed appealed their convictions for offenses concerning the misuse of benefits under the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly food stamps). The court affirmed the convictions and sentence. The court remanded to permit the sentencing judge to consider non-Guidelines sentences in view of the significant effect of the loss enhancement in relation to the low base offense level. View "United States v. Murshed (Algahaim)" on Justia Law

Defendant, the owner and operator of a freight service that couriered items to and from the United States and Canada, was found guilty of nine counts of tax-related offenses. Defendant was charged with violating 26 U.S.C. 7212(a), which imposes criminal liability on one who ʺcorruptly or by force or threats of force . . . endeavors to intimidate or impede any officer or employee of the United States acting in an official capacity under this title.” Another portion of the statute, often referred to as the ʺomnibus clause,ʺ imposes criminal liability on one who ʺin any other way corruptly . . . obstructs or impedes, or endeavors to obstruct or impede, the due administration of this title.ʺ On appeal, defendant argued that the court, like the Sixth Circuit, should construe the phrase ʺthe due administration of this titleʺ in the omnibus clause to include only a pending IRS action of which a defendant was aware. The court rejected defendant's argument and joined three of its sister circuits in concluding that section 7212(a)ʹs omnibus clause criminalizes corrupt interference with an official effort to administer the tax code, and not merely a known IRS investigation. The court also concluded that an omission may be a means by which a defendant corruptly obstructs or impedes the due administration of the Internal Revenue Code under section 7212(a). Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not commit procedural error by using the manner of calculating the tax loss and restitution amounts that it did, or by deciding not to apply a two‐level reduction to defendant's base offense level for acceptance of responsibility. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Marinello" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction for one count of conspiracy to defraud the IRS, four counts of client tax evasion, one count of IRS obstruction, and one count of mail fraud. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions; the indictment was not constructively amended; the indictment was not duplicitous; defendant's due process right to a fair trial was not violated; the district court did not commit prejudicial error in giving a supplemental instruction about the Annual Accounting Rule; defendant's sentence was procedurally and substantively reasonable; and the court rejected defendant's claims of error as to the forfeiture order. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Daugerdas" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction of wire fraud, access device fraud, aggravated identity theft, and money laundering in connection with a scheme to make unauthorized credit card charges to the credit cards of customers of defendant's digital retail company. The court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss the Superseding Indictment for spoliation of evidence where, pursuant to Arizona v. Youngblood, there is no evidence of the government's bad faith. The court joined its sister circuits and held that wire fraud does not require convergence between the parties intended to be deceived and those whose property is sought in a fraudulent scheme. Therefore, the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss the wire fraud counts in the Superseding Indictment for failure to plead a legally cognizable scheme. That the Superseding Indictment alleges that defendant's misrepresentations were directed at acquiring banks and others, but that the credit card holders were the intended victims of the scheme, is irrelevant. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Greenberg" on Justia Law