Justia White Collar Crime Opinion Summaries

In 2001, Appellant Daniel Goodson was involved in a car accident. His insurance company paid $6,300 for the loss to the bank which still held title to the Appellant's car; Appellant received $135. Appellant, dissatisfied with his "meager" share of the insurance proceeds, presented a forged check for $6,300 to his bank with which to open a new account. The bank permitted Appellant to withdraw several thousand dollars before learning that the check was forged. The insurance company confirmed that it had not paid Appellant $6,300. Appellant paid back all the money he had withdrawn, but the State still pressed charges for forgery, insurance fraud and theft. Defendant challenged his sentence and conviction, arguing that he was not guilty of insurance fraud, and that his sentence was accordingly unreasonable. Finding that the trial court erred in convicting Appellant on insurance fraud charges, the Supreme Court remanded the case for resentencing based on forgery and theft. View "Pennsylvania v. Goodson" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted for the state-jail felony of debit card abuse. At issue was whether the terms "use" and "present" in the debit-card-abuse statute were mutually exclusive so that there was no overlap in the meaning of the words. Based on the ordinary meaning of the words as used in the statute, the court concluded that the statutory terms "use" and "present" could overlap in meaning, that a transaction need not be consummated to support a jury finding that a defendant used a debit card, and that the court of appeals erred in determining that the evidence was insufficient to establish debt card abuse. Because the court reinstated the trial court's judgment, the court concluded that defendant's petition regarding the reformation of the judgment was improvidently granted.View "Clinton v. State" on Justia Law

In connection with operation of a medical transport company, defendant was convicted of theft (720 ILCS 5/16-1), vendor fraud (305 ILCS 5/8A-3), and money laundering (720 ILCS 5/29B-1), sentenced to 66 months' imprisonment, and ordered to pay$1.2 million in restitution. The appellate court upheld the theft and vendor fraud convictions, but reversed the money laundering conviction. The Illinois Supreme Court reversed with respect to the money laundering conviction. The trial court properly allowed the state establish guilt of money laundering with evidence of receipts rather than profits.View "People v. Gutman" on Justia Law

First National Keystone Bank retained an independent accounting firm to audit its records at a time that members of the bank's management were fraudulently concealing the bank's financial condition. The accounting firm issued a clean audit concerning the bank. It was later discovered that the bank had overstated its assets by over $500 million. Upon investigation, the FDIC concluded that the law firm that represented the bank had engaged in legal malpractice. The FDIC settled its claims against the law firm. The accounting firm was later found liable to the FDIC in federal district court for a negligent bank audit. The accounting firm subsequently sued the law firm, alleging fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and tortious interference with the accounting firm's contract to perform the audit. The circuit court granted summary judgment in favor of the law firm. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the claims of the accounting firm against the law firm were, in reality, contribution claims rather than direct or independent claims and were, therefore, barred by the settlement agreement between the law firm and the FDIC. View "Grant Thornton, LLP v. Kutak Rock, LLP" on Justia Law

Defendant Debbie Cruz was convicted of issuing payroll checks with insufficient funds to cover them.  Defendant was charged with four counts of issuing worthless checks, pursuant to the "Worthless Check Act."  Convicted on each count, Defendant argued on appeal, among other issues, the lack of sufficient evidence to prove that she had issued a check "in exchange for anything of value." Because the worthless checks were issued a week after the last day of the pay period, the Court of Appeals reversed the convictions, relying on previous opinions of the Supreme Court to conclude that the Act applied only to a "contemporaneous exchange" and not to pre-existing or antecedent debts.  Upon its review, the Supreme Court rejected that distinction as inconsistent with the clear legislative intent and purpose of the Act.  Accordingly, the Court reversed and remanded the case back to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. View "New Mexico v. Cruz" on Justia Law

This case arose from a Ponzi scheme perpetrated by Marsha Schubert, operating as "Schubert and Associates" (Schubert). Defendants Marvin and Pamela Wilcox were among the appellants in an earlier case that appealed summary judgments obtained by the plaintiffs on the theory of unjust enrichment against 158 "relief" defendants who had received more money than they invested in the scheme. Plaintiffs had sought to recover all amounts the relief defendants had received from the scheme in excess of their original investment. On remand, the state Department of Securities and the Receiver (Department) moved for summary judgment against the Wilcoxes on grounds that they were not entitled to the equitable relief provided for innocent investors because they were partners with Schubert and were actively involved in the check-kiting scheme operated by Schubert that supported the Ponzi scheme. In response, the Wilcoxes disputed that they were partners with Schubert. They stated that they were not aware of the existence of a Ponzi scheme in their dealings with Schubert. The trial judge granted partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs on the issue of liability, finding that there was no genuine issue of material fact pertaining to the liability of the Wilcoxes on the Department's unjust enrichment claim. The trial judge found that by virtue of their participation in the Schubert check-kiting scheme, the Wilcoxes were not innocent investors. The trial court found that the Wilcoxes were unjustly enriched by all monies netted from their association with Schubert's Ponzi and check-kiting schemes. The Wilcoxes appealed to the Supreme Court. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the evidentiary material provided by the Wilcoxes failed to raise disputes to meet their burden to overcome the motion for summary judgment. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the trial court's decision. View "Depart. of Securities ex rel. Faught v. Wilcox" on Justia Law

Defendant Money & More Inc. (M&M) allegedly maintained and operated a Ponzi scheme. Pursuant to a petition filed by the State, the district court issued a temporary restraining order freezing Defendants' assets and later entered a preliminary injunction. Several hundred individuals and dozens of corporations that made fraudulent investments formed Money & More Investors LLC (MMI) and assigned to it their rights, interests, and claims against Defendants, who included the individuals comprising M&M. After reaching a settlement agreement with Defendants, MMI filed a motion to intervene in the State's preservation action. The district court granted MMI both intervention as of right under Utah R. Civ. P. 24(a) and, in the alternative, permissive intervention under Utah R. Civ. P. 24(b). The Supreme Court affirmed the grant of intervention as of right, holding that MMI met all the elements of rule 24(a) where (1) MMI's motion to intervene was timely; (2) MMI had a direct interest relating to the property; (3) MMI sufficiently established that the original parties to the suit would inadequately represent MMI's interests; and (4) MMI would be bound by the judgment.View "State v. Bosh" on Justia Law

In 2005, Weight Watchers discovered that its bookkeeper, Dianne Belk, had embezzled nearly $1,000,000 from the business over a six-year period. Belk embezzled the money by writing checks to herself from Weight Watchers accounts. She concealed her writing of unauthorized checks by inputting legitimate vendors' names in the computerized bookkeeping system as the ostensible payees. However, Belk would type her name as payee on the paper checks. Belk then would cash the checks at local banks and casinos, including the Rainbow Casino, and she often would gamble with the embezzled money. Belk reported her winnings to the Internal Revenue Service via W-2G forms provided by the casino, and she paid taxes on those winnings. According to the complaint, Belk lost roughly $240,000 of the stolen funds to Rainbow Casino. More than three years after first learning of Belk's embezzlement activities, Weight Watchers filed suit against Belk, Robert Belk, Jr. (Dianne's husband), Rainbow Casino-Vicksburg Partnership, L.P., Bally Technologies Inc. (the casino's management company),and five John Doe defendants. Weight Watchers' claims against Rainbow Casino and Bally Technologies were based on fraud, unjust enrichment, conversion, and negligence. Rainbow moved for summary judgment, arguing that the three-year statute of limitations had begun to run in 2005 when Weight Watchers first learned that Belk had been cashing unauthorized checks at the casino. Rainbow also argued, in the alternative, that summary judgment was appropriate because the casino was a holder in due course and that it did not have a legal duty to investigate the circumstances surrounding issuance of the checks. In this appeal, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether the statute of limitations barred an action against a casino for its alleged involvement in an embezzlement scheme. Finding that the Weight Watchers failed to provide any evidence of fraudulent concealment by the casino, the Court agreed with the trial court that the statute of limitations had run at the time the suit was filed.View "WW, Inc. v. Rainbow Casino-Vicksburg Partnership, LP" on Justia Law

This case involved serious allegations against Robert E. Stark, the auditor-controller of Sutter County where the Sutter County District Attorney's Office claimed that Stark violated statutes, county rules, and Sutter County Board of Supervisors (Board) resolutions detailing the requirements of his office. At issue were four provisions of Penal Code section 424, all of which proscribe general intent offenses. Three of those provisions criminalize acting without authority or failing to act as required by law or legal duty. The court held that those offenses additionally required that defendant knew, or was criminally negligent in failing to know, the legal requirements that governed the act or omission. The court also held that a claim of misinstruction on the mens rea of a crime could be challenged under Penal Code section 995, subdivision (a)(1)(B) where it raised the possibility that, as instructed, the grand jury could have indicted on less than reasonable or probable cause. The court further held that based on the record, the court need not decide the question of whether willful misconduct under Government Code section 3060 required a knowing and purposeful refusal to follow the law. Stark did not disagree with the instruction on mental state given by the district attorney and accompanying PowerPoint slides invalidated the instruction on mental state, requiring that the accusation be set aside. The court addressed these claims as to the district attorney's argument and PowerPoint slides and concluded that it was without merit. The court finally held that, in a motion to set aside an indictment or accusation, a defendant claiming that the district attorney suffered from a conflict of interest during the grand jury proceeding must establish that his right to due process was violated. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court was affirmed.View "Stark v. Superior Court of Sutter County" on Justia Law

Helen Holton, a member of the Baltimore City Council, was charged with bribery, malfeasance in office, nonfeasance in office, and perjury. The circuit court granted Holton's motion to dismiss those charges on the ground of legislative privilege. The court of special appeals affirmed the ruling. At issue was whether Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. 5-501, which protects local legislators from civil or criminal actions based on words spoken at a board or committee meeting, provided Holton with immunity. The Court of Appeals granted the State's petition for writ of certiorari. The Court affirmed the judgment of the court of special appeals, holding that the lower court did not err in holding that section 5-501 provides legislative immunity to local officials in state criminal prosecutions other than prosecutions for defamation. View "State v. Holton" on Justia Law