Justia White Collar Crime Opinion Summaries

The case involves Salifou Conde, who was convicted of wire fraud, bank fraud, and conspiracy to commit both frauds. The fraudulent activities were related to the theft of rent assistance checks from New York City's Human Resources Administration (HRA). These checks, intended for qualifying individuals' landlords, were often returned as undeliverable and subsequently misappropriated by Conde and his co-conspirators. The fraudulent checks were deposited into various bank accounts, including Conde's, and used to pay for services such as cable and internet.In the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Conde was found guilty on all counts following a jury trial. He was sentenced to 55 months in prison and a five-year term of supervised release. The evidence against him included bank records, ATM surveillance footage, and an electronically generated record from a telecommunication company showing payments for services linked to the fraudulent bank accounts.Conde appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, arguing that the telecommunication company's record was improperly admitted as a self-authenticating business record, violating his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation. The appellate court reviewed the district court's decision for abuse of discretion and found no error. The court held that the record was admissible under Federal Rules of Evidence 803(6) and 902(11) as a business record, and its admission did not violate Conde's confrontation rights. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the district court's judgment. View "United States v. Conde" on Justia Law

Omotayo, along with at least eleven co-conspirators, participated in an international scheme aimed at defrauding businesses in the United States. For his role in the fraud, Omotayo was convicted by a jury on charges of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and money laundering. He concedes that substantial evidence supported those convictions. The sole question before the court was whether Omotayo also violated a federal law criminalizing “aggravated identity theft,” 18 U.S.C. § 1028A, which carries a mandatory consecutive two-year prison term. At trial, the government showed that Omotayo possessed and sent a co-conspirator two versions of a single counterfeit invoice, both of which included the real name of another person. The jury was instructed that it could find Omotayo guilty of aggravated identity theft if the invoice had “a purpose, role, or effect with respect to the [wire fraud conspiracy].” It convicted Omotayo on that count. Omotayo appealed.The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Omotayo’s motion for a judgment of acquittal as to the aggravated identity theft charge. The jury convicted Omotayo on all three counts, and the district court sentenced him to forty-eight months on Counts One and Two, and twenty-four months on Count Five, to be served consecutively. Omotayo timely appealed his conviction on Count Five, arguing that the government’s evidence was insufficient to establish that he used, transferred, or possessed Yulia Roytman’s name “during and in relation to” the wire fraud conspiracy, or that he acted “without lawful authority.”The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reviewed the case. Soon after Omotayo’s conviction, the Supreme Court decided Dubin v. United States, which established that Section 1028A applies only where a “defendant’s misuse of another person’s means of identification is at the crux of what makes the underlying offense criminal.” The court agreed with Omotayo that his conviction could not stand in light of Dubin. The jury was instructed to apply a legal standard that is now plainly incorrect. Even if the jury had been correctly instructed under Dubin, the government’s evidence was insufficient to show that Omotayo’s possession or transfer of the invoice played a key role in the wire fraud scheme. The court reversed Omotayo’s judgment of conviction as to the aggravated identity theft charge and remanded the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion. View "United States v. Omotayo" on Justia Law

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