Justia White Collar Crime Opinion Summaries

Two defendants, Arturo Cuellar ("AC") and Ricardo Quintanilla, were involved in a scheme to bribe city commissioners in Weslaco, Texas, to secure contracts for an infrastructure project. The bribes were intended to influence the awarding of contracts to Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM) and Briones Consulting and Engineering, Ltd. Quintanilla bribed Commissioner Gerardo Tafolla, while AC bribed Commissioner John Cuellar (JC). Leo Lopez, a consultant for CDM and Briones, facilitated the bribes. The scheme involved multiple meetings and payments, with both commissioners taking actions to favor CDM and Briones. The city paid approximately $42.5 million to CDM, Briones, and LeFevre, with Lopez distributing funds to AC and Quintanilla.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas convicted Quintanilla and AC of various federal offenses, including conspiracy to commit honest-services wire fraud, honest-services wire fraud, federal program bribery, conspiracy to launder monetary instruments, and money laundering. Quintanilla was sentenced to 200 months in custody, while AC received 240 months. Both were also ordered to pay fines, special assessments, restitution, and forfeiture amounts. The defendants appealed their convictions and sentences.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the convictions and sentences. The court addressed several issues raised by the defendants, including claims of constructive amendment of the indictment, sufficiency of the indictment, recusal of the district judge, and evidentiary rulings. The court found that the government did not constructively amend the indictment and that the evidence supported the convictions. The court also held that the district judge did not need to recuse herself and that the evidentiary rulings were within the court's discretion. The court concluded that the defendants' arguments were either forfeited, not meritorious, or both. View "USA v. Quintanilla" on Justia Law

Richard Plezia, a Houston-based personal injury attorney, was charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States, making false statements, and falsifying records in a federal investigation. The charges stemmed from allegations that Plezia conspired with other attorneys and case runners to unlawfully reduce the federal income taxes owed by Jeffrey Stern. The scheme involved funneling illegal payments through Plezia to case runner Marcus Esquivel, which were then falsely reported as attorney referral fees.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas held a fifteen-day jury trial, where Plezia was convicted on all counts. Plezia challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the equitable tolling of the statute of limitations for one count, and the admission of certain witness testimonies. The district court denied his motions for acquittal and a new trial, and sentenced him to six months and one day in prison, followed by two years of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case. The court agreed with Plezia that the statute of limitations for the false statements charge was not subject to equitable tolling and vacated his conviction on that count, remanding with instructions to dismiss it with prejudice. However, the court affirmed the remaining convictions, finding sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict on the conspiracy and falsification charges. The court also held that any error in admitting witness testimonies was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of guilt. View "United States v. Plezia" on Justia Law

The defendant was convicted of four counts of fraud for submitting two fraudulent Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan applications during the COVID-19 pandemic. She misrepresented the number of employees and payroll expenses for her businesses, requesting nearly $4 million in total. One application was denied, and the funds from the other were frozen and seized before she could access them. Throughout the prosecution, the defendant had conflicts with multiple appointed attorneys, leading to several motions to substitute counsel, all of which were denied by the district court. The trial proceeded with the defendant absent on the first day after she refused to change out of her jail clothes and participate, but she was present for the remainder of the trial.The United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas denied the defendant's motions to substitute counsel, finding no substantial conflict or complete breakdown in communication that warranted new counsel. The court also determined that the defendant had voluntarily waived her right to be present at the trial by refusing to cooperate and change into street clothes. The jury found the defendant guilty on all counts, and the court sentenced her to 70 months of imprisonment and ordered her to pay over $2 million in restitution to the Small Business Administration (SBA).The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the district court's decisions. The appellate court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motions to substitute counsel, as the defendant's intransigence caused the communication breakdown. The court also found that the district court properly concluded the defendant voluntarily waived her right to be present at trial. Additionally, the appellate court upheld the district court's sentencing enhancement based on intended loss and the restitution order, finding no clear error in these determinations. View "United States v. Kasali" on Justia Law

The case involves Priscilla Yvette Cervantes, who was convicted of participating in a drug-trafficking conspiracy to possess and aid in the possession of a controlled substance with the intent to distribute. The conspiracy was orchestrated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as a reverse-sting operation targeting Cervantes's boyfriend and later husband, Alexsander Reyes, a former Harris County Precinct One Constable’s Deputy suspected of corruption and stealing drugs from law enforcement seizures. Cervantes accompanied Reyes on multiple occasions, including transporting money and escorting drugs for a fake cartel in exchange for cash payments.The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, where Cervantes was found guilty on both counts of conspiring and aiding and abetting possession with the intent to distribute a controlled substance. Cervantes moved for acquittal on both counts, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to show that she or Reyes ever actually or constructively possessed the cocaine, or that she knew, or reasonably should have known, that the weight of the cocaine was at least five kilograms. The district court denied the motion.On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, Cervantes raised three issues. She argued that the district court erred in denying her motion for acquittal, in failing to give a jury instruction that she could not be in a conspiracy alone with a government agent, and in excluding a video clip of Reyes's post-arrest interview with an FBI agent. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision, finding that there was substantial evidence for the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Cervantes and Reyes engaged in an agreement to possess with the intent to distribute a controlled substance. The court also found no error in the district court's refusal to give a specific jury instruction or in its decision to exclude the video clip. View "United States v. Cervantes" on Justia Law

The case involves Maria E. Garcia and Liang Guo Yu, who were convicted for money laundering. The charges stemmed from their involvement with the Villalobos drug trafficking organization (DTO) in Houston, Texas. The DTO was known for moving hundreds of kilograms of cocaine and making yearly profits in the millions. Garcia and Yu were implicated in the seizure of large sums of cash during two separate searches. They were charged with conspiring to launder monetary instruments and aiding and abetting money laundering. Both defendants appealed their convictions, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they committed the offenses.Prior to their trial, the defendants had their motions for a new trial and to suppress denied by the district court. At trial, the government presented testimony from ten witnesses and introduced dozens of exhibits. The jury found Garcia and Yu guilty of both charges. Post-trial, the district court denied all three motions for a new trial and for a judgment of acquittal. Garcia was sentenced to two concurrent 78-month terms of imprisonment and two concurrent 3-year terms of supervised release. Yu was sentenced to two concurrent 151-month terms of imprisonment and two concurrent 3-year terms of supervised release.The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the judgments of the district court. The court found that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to prove the defendants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also held that the district court did not err in assessing a sentencing enhancement for Garcia and in denying Yu's motion to suppress without conducting an evidentiary hearing. The court further held that the district court did not err in denying Yu's motion for a new trial as untimely. View "USA v. Garcia" on Justia Law

A group of individuals, including D&T Partners LLC and ACET Global LLC, alleged that Baymark Partners Management LLC and others attempted to steal the assets and trade secrets of their e-commerce company through shell entities, corrupt lending practices, and a fraudulent bankruptcy. The plaintiffs claimed that Baymark had purchased D&T's assets and then defaulted on its payment obligations. According to the plaintiffs, Baymark replaced the company's management, caused the company to default on its loan payments, and transferred the company's assets to another entity, Windspeed Trading LLC. The plaintiffs alleged that this scheme violated the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).The case was initially heard in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas. The district court dismissed all of the plaintiffs' claims with prejudice, finding that the plaintiffs were unable to plead a pattern of racketeering activity, a necessary element of a RICO claim.The case was then taken to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The appellate court agreed with the district court, holding that while the complaint alleges coordinated theft, it does not constitute a "pattern" of racketeering conduct sufficient to state a RICO claim. This is because the alleged victims were limited in number, and the scope and nature of the scheme was finite and focused on a singular objective. Therefore, the appellate court affirmed the district court’s judgment. View "D&T Partners v. Baymark Partners" on Justia Law

A jury convicted United Development Funding (“UDF”) executives (collectively “Appellants”) of conspiracy to commit wire fraud affecting a financial institution, conspiracy to commit securities fraud, and eight counts of aiding and abetting securities fraud. Jurors heard evidence that Appellants were involved in what the Government deemed “a classic Ponzi-like scheme,” in which Appellants transferred money out of one fund to pay distributions to another fund’s investors without disclosing this information to their investors or the Securities Exchange Commission (“SEC”). Appellants each filed separate appeals, challenging their convictions on several grounds. Considered together, they argue that (1) the jury verdict should be vacated because the evidence at trial was insufficient to support their convictions or, alternatively, (2) they are entitled to a new trial because the jury instructions were improper. Appellants also argue that the district court erred in (3) limiting cross-examination regarding a non-testifying government informant; (4) allowing the Government to constructively amend the indictment and include certain improper statements in its closing argument; (5) imposing a time limit during.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed the jury verdict in its entirety. The court explained that considering the evidence and drawing all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the verdict, a reasonable juror could have determined that Appellants made material misrepresentations in UDF III and UDF V’s filings that were sufficient to uphold their convictions. The court explained that multiple witnesses testified that the industry had shifted away from affiliate transactions because they were disfavored and that a no-affiliate-transaction policy in UDF V would enable it to participate in a larger network of brokers, dealers, and investors. View "USA v. Greenlaw" on Justia Law

Seven codefendants appeal their various convictions stemming from a multi-million-dollar healthcare conspiracy involving surgery-referral kickbacks at Forest Park Medical Center in Dallas, Texas. They challenge convictions under the Anti-Kickback Statute (“AKS”), the Travel Act, and for money laundering. The defendants in this case are, with three exceptions, the surgeons whom Forest Park paid to direct surgeries to the hospital—Won, Rimlawi, Shah, and Henry. One exception is Forrest— she is a nurse. Another is Jacob—he ran Adelaide Business Solutions (Adelaide), a pass-through entity. The other is Burt—he was part of the hospital’s staff. Defendants raise many of the same issues on appeal, often adopting each other’s arguments.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court wrote that the state law at issue here is the Texas Commercial Bribery Statute (TCBS). Here, it does not matter if the physician was acquitted because there could still be sufficient evidence in the record that defendants “offer[ed]” a benefit in violation of the TCBS regardless of whether any physician accepted it.  Further, the court explained that even assuming no rational jury could have found a single conspiracy, the surgeons fail to show that this error “prejudiced their substantial rights.” Henry and Forrest do not raise this point at all. Won and Shah address it only briefly and fail to provide any record citations to support the proposition that “clear, specific, and compelling prejudice” resulted in an unfair trial. View "USA v. Shah" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to conspiracy to participate in racketeering activity. In the plea agreement, Defendant and the government agreed, pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C), that a sentence of 360 months imprisonment was appropriate. However, Defendant also filed a sentencing memorandum arguing that the district court should depart or vary downwards by 60- months from the agreed-upon 360-month sentence to account for five years that Defendant was detained in administrative segregation prior to his plea. The district court accepted Defendant’s plea, which bound the district court under Rule 11(c)(1)(C) to sentence Defendant to the agreed-upon sentence. The district court sentenced Defendant at the same hearing to the 360-month term of imprisonment specified in the plea agreement. Before doing so, the district court denied Defendant’s request for the 60-month downward variance. On appeal, Defendant argued that his 360-month sentence is unreasonable because the district court failed to properly “account for the five years of solitary confinement” that Defendant endured before his rearraignment.   The Fifth Circuit affirmed. The court explained that at the sentencing hearing, the district court noted Defendant’s motion for a downward variance based on his time spent in administrative segregation and denied the motion because of “the defendant’s role in the offense.” Given Defendant’s involvement in attempted and completed murders in the course of the racketeering conspiracy, the court wrote that it cannot say that the district court imposed a substantively unreasonable sentence. Moreover, Defendant’s argument on appeal ignores that he got the benefit of his bargain with the government. View "USA v. Gonzalez" on Justia Law

According to the indictment, Defendant, a citizen of Switzerland and a partner in a Swiss wealth-management firm, and co-Defendant, a citizen of Portugal and Switzerland and an employee of a different Swiss wealth-management firm (together, “Defendants”), engaged in an international bribery scheme wherein U.S.-based businesses paid bribes to Venezuelan officials for priority payment of invoices and other favorable treatment from Venezuela’s state-owned energy company. A grand jury returned a nineteen-count indictment charging Defendants with various offenses stemming from their alleged international bribery scheme. The district court granted Defendants’ motions to dismiss.   The Fifth Circuit reversed and remanded. The court held that the district court’s grant of Defendants’ motions to dismiss was improper because the indictment adequately conforms to minimal constitutional standards. Further, the indictment did not violate co-Defendant’s due process rights. Moreover, the court wrote the district court’s conclusion that Section 3292 failed to toll the statute of limitations is erroneous. The court explained that the totality of the circumstances indicates that a reasonable person in co-Defendant’s position would not have equated the restraint on his freedom of movement with formal arrest. View "USA v. Murta" on Justia Law