Justia White Collar Crime Opinion Summaries

Defendant, a member of the New York City Council, was convicted of two counts of wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343, 1346; two counts of violating the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. 1952; and one count of conspiracy to commit both substantive offenses, 18 U.S.C. 371. Defendant's convictions stemmed from his participation in two bribery schemes: 1) defendant accepted bribes in exchange for promising to funnel City funds to the bribe payers (Discretionary Funds Scheme) and 2) defendant was paid to help his co‐defendant, Malcolm A. Smith, bribe Republican Party officials to obtain what is known in New York as a Wilson‐Pakula certificate or authorization, which would have enabled Smith, a Democrat, to compete for the nomination of the Republican Party in the New York mayoral election (Wilson-Pakula Scheme). The court held that there was sufficient evidence to support a finding that defendant took part in the Discretionary Funds Scheme with the intent required to sustain his convictions, and that defendant’s Wilson‐Pakula Scheme conduct violated both the Travel Act and the honest services fraud statute. The court considered defendant's remaining arguments and found them to be without merit. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Halloran" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to wire fraud conspiracy and aggravated identity theft. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's application of a six-level enhancement under USSG 2B1.1(b)(2)(C) because the offense involved 250 or more victims, and a four-level enhancement under USSG 3B1.1(a) because defendant was an organizer or leader of a criminal activity that involved five or more participants or was otherwise extensive. The court concluded that defendant's sentence is procedurally reasonable and the district court properly applied the enhancements at issue. The court remanded for the limited purpose of allowing the district court to amend the written judgment to conform it to the oral sentence. The court otherwise affirmed. View "United States v. Jesrum" on Justia Law

Defendant, a lawyer and real estate broker, appealed the district court's imposition of criminal forfeiture in the amount of $1,273,285.50, arguing that the district court erred when it declined to consider defendant’s age, health, and financial condition when it issued the forfeiture order. Defendant was convicted of charges related to his participation in a kickback scheme involving the construction of new Dick Sporting Goods stores. The court held that the court reviewing a criminal forfeiture under the Excessive Fines Clause may consider - as part of the proportionality determination required by United States v. Bajakajian - whether the forfeiture would deprive the defendant of his future ability to earn a living. However, the court held that courts should not consider a defendant’s personal circumstances as a distinct factor. In this case, the court concluded that the challenged forfeiture is constitutional because it is not “grossly disproportional” to the gravity of defendant’s offenses. View "United States v. Viloski" on Justia Law

Defendants Binday, Kergil, and Resnick, insurance brokers, appealed their convictions stemming from their involvement in an insurance fraud scheme where they induced insurers to issue life insurance policies that defendants sold to third‐party investors, by submitting fraudulent applications indicating that the policies were for the applicants’ personal estate planning. The court concluded that there was sufficient evidence that defendants contemplated a cognizable harm under the mail and wire fraud statutes; the indictment was not constructively amended because the allegations in the indictment and the government’s proof at trial substantially correspond; and some aspects of the defendants’ challenge to the jury instruction are waived, while the remainder fail on the merits. The court rejected defendants' remaining challenges to their sentences and to the obstruction of justice convictions. The court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Binday" on Justia Law