Justia White Collar Crime Opinion Summaries

Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against several defendants, including Alfredo Moreno and Ronald Pucek, seeking injunctive relief and damages pursuant to the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961-1968, and Texas law. On appeal, defendants challenged the district court's grant of summary judgment and order denying the withdrawal of their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The court affirmed the district court's denial of Pucek's withdrawal of his Fifth Amendment privilege where Pucek's withdrawal appeared more likely to be an attempt to abuse the system or gain an unfair advantage. However, the court reversed the district court's denial of Moreno's withdrawal of his Fifth Amendment privilege where the district court erred in denying Moreno's attempt to withdraw his assertion of the privilege more than a month before the discovery deadline. The court also reversed and remanded summary judgment with respect to both defendants. View "Davis-Lynch v. Moreno, et al." on Justia Law

Husband and wife filed returns for tax years 1997-1999 reporting zero income, despite having reportable income. Based on advice from their dentist and their own research, they concluded that no provision of the Internal Revenue Code imposed liability on them for taxes, and attached this explanation to their returns. They succeeded in stopping their employer from withholding taxes claiming exemptions and having the employer treat them as independent contractors, not subject to withholding of social security and medicare taxes. Between 2000 and 2008, despite reportable income asserted by the government to exceed $100,000 in each year, they filed no returns and took steps that made it more difficult for the government to track their assets. Between 1999 and 2007, the IRS repeatedly informed them that their position was frivolous and specifically warned of criminal sanctions. Convicted of conspiracy to defraud the U.S., 18 U.S.C. 371 (2006); attempted evasion of payment of tax, 26 U.S.C. 7201; and four counts of willful failure to file income tax returns, each was sentenced to 36 months in prison. The First Circuit affirmed, reasoning that the convictions were based on defendants' conduct, not guilt by association. View "United States v. Allen" on Justia Law

The title company provided real estate closing services. From 1984 through 1995, it served as exclusive agent for defendant and managed an escrow account that defendant contractually agreed to insure. The title company was not profitable and its managers used escrow funds in a "Ponzi" scheme. In 1989, there was a $26 million shortfall. To fill the hole, the managers began looting another business, Intrust, to pay defendant's policyholders ($40.9 million) and to pay defendant directly ($27 million), so that defendant was a direct and indirect beneficiary of the title company's arrangement with Intrust. In 2000 the state agency learned that the funds were missing, took control of Intrust and placed it in receivership. In July 2010, the Receiver filed suit for money had and received, unjust enrichment, vicarious liability), aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, and conspiracy. The district court dismissed based on the statute of limitations. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The Illinois doctrine of adverse domination does not apply. That doctrine tolls the statute of limitations for a claim by a corporation against a nonboard-member co-conspirator of the wrongdoing board members. View "Indep. Trust Corp. v. Stewart Info. Serv. Corp." on Justia Law

Taxpayer took business and individual tax deductions for the cost of "Loss of Income" insurance policies. The policies were back-dated, had a high premium to coverage ratio, were described as tax-savings products, and allowed taxpayer access to and control over the funds. A significant part of the premium was invested for later distribution to the policy holder. He was convicted of: subscribing a false tax return, 26 U.S.C. 7206(1); attempting to evade taxes, 26 U.S.C. 7201; and conspiracy to defraud the government, 18 U.S.C. 371. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, holding that the government presented sufficient evidence of the crimes. The court rejected a challenge to prior bad acts evidence and an argument that the government was required by the nature of the charges to forgo charging him under the general crime of conspiracy to defraud the U.S. The district court properly ordered payment of restitution for the personal income taxes of his co-conspirator.View "United States v. Rozin" on Justia Law

Defendants were convicted of honest services fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1346, mail fraud ("traditional" fraud), 18 U.S.C.1341, and conspiracy, 18 U.S.C. 371, based on a defendant (city councilman) taking official actions in exchange for gifts. Their appeal claimed that the 2010 Supreme Court decision, Skilling v. U.S., affected the law of honest services fraud. The Third Circuit vacated and remanded. While the evidence was sufficient to convict on each count, the Skilling decision made jury instructions on honest services fraud incorrect. The jury should have been instructed on a bribery theory but not on a conflict-of-interest theory. The error was not necessarily harmless; the law of honest services fraud depends on intent and finding intent requires a jury to make reasonable inferences. Evidence of honest services fraud overlapped substantially evidence submitted on traditional fraudView "United States v. Wright" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of producing a false identification document that appeared to be issued by or under the authority of the United States government in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1028(a)(1). Defendant subsequently appealed. The court concluded that: (1) as applied to defendant, section 1028(a)(1) was not unconstitutionally vague; (2) the district court properly instructed the jury to use a "reasonable person standard" to determine whether defendant's ID "appeared to be" government-issued; (3) the Government produced sufficient evidence that defendant produced the ID, and that venue was proper, such that the district court properly denied defendant's motion for judgment of acquittal; and (4) it was not necessary to charge defendant with "aiding and abetting" in violation of 18 U.S.C. 2(b). Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed. View "United States v. Jaensch" on Justia Law

The former mayor and the head of the engineering department were convicted of conspiring to embezzle and embezzling government funds, based on use of government funds and government employees to renovate the mayor's house. The mayor claimed that he was unaware of the scheme. The district court gave the jury a conscious avoidance instruction. The mayor had an initial offense level of 10 under the Guidelines, but the court applied enhancements for obstruction of justice, leadership role, and abuse of a position of trust, for a total offense level of 18. With a criminal history level of one, the guidelines range was 27-33 months' imprisonment. The district court imposed a sentence of 60 months, a $60,000 fine, more than $14,000 in restitution, a $200 special assessment, and three years of supervised release. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The district court was within its discretion in issuing an ostrich instruction, in applying sentencing enhancements, and in its upward departure from the guidelines. View "United States v. Pabey" on Justia Law

Defendant and coconspirators stole clientele books from department stores and used personal information, including credit card numbers, to order merchandise, which was intercepted and sold or returned. She pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit access device fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1029(b)(2), attempted possession of access devices, id. 1029(a)(3), and aggravated identity theft, id. 1028A(a)(1) (Count III). The district court calculated a four-level increase in her offense level because her crime had more than 50 victims, resulting in a guidelines range of 120-150 months. The court imposed a sentence of 120 months on Counts I and II (to run concurrently) and a consecutive 24-month sentence on Count III as required by 18 U.S.C. 1028A(b). The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Because the court sentenced defendant using the November 2009 guidelines, it included in the count of victims 40 stores and credit card companies that sustained actual loss as well as 65 victims whose credit cards were used, regardless of monetary loss. The court acted within its discretion in rejecting her argument that there was no evidence that cardholders were actually harmed or expended significant time or effort cancelling their credit cards and that the guidelines resulted in a sentence that was greater than necessary. View "United States v. Sandoval" on Justia Law

Defendant was sole owner of a corporation that was a contractor for several Illinois governmental entities. After an audit disclosed irregularities and falsified documents, defendant pled guilty to two counts of mail fraud and one count of submitting false documents; the corporation pled guilty to one count of mail fraud (18 U.S.C. 1001, 1341). Sentences included restitution of $10 million. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting a claim that defendants were entitled to a "full, dollar-for-dollar credit for the value of the monies and securities" deposited with the Clerk of Court at the time of their deposit, pre-judgment, and that the diminution in value of those securities after their deposit could not be attributed to defendants. Neither the court, the clerk, nor the government exercised authority to remove the funds or securities before sentencing and entry of judgment. Defendant chose to deposit securities, rather than cash, and the deposit did not constitute actual payment of restitution, but only security for eventual payment. View "United States v. Shah" on Justia Law

Defendants, four executives of Gen Re and one of AIG, appealed from convictions of conspiracy, mail fraud, securities fraud, and making false statements to the SEC. The charges arose from an allegedly fraudulent reinsurance transaction between AIG and Gen Re that was intended to cure AIG's ailing stock price. Defendants appealed on a variety of grounds, some in common and others specific to each defendant, ranging from evidentiary challenges to serious allegations of widespread prosecutorial misconduct. The court held that most of the arguments were without merit, but defendants' convictions were vacated because the district court abused its discretion by admitting the stock-price data. View "United States v. Ferguson, et al." on Justia Law