Justia White Collar Crime Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his sentence of 25 months' imprisonment plus five years of supervised release following his guilty plea to ten counts of embezzlement under 18 U.S.C. 656, and eight counts of bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. 1344. The eighteen counts defendant pleaded guilty to related to two schemes to defraud Wells Fargo: an embezzlement scheme and a check-kiting scheme. On appeal, defendant's primary contention was that because he did not know he was the subject of a pending criminal investigation at the time he committed perjury in a civil suit concerning the very same conduct later charged in the criminal indictment, the district court erred in applying U.S.S.G. 3C1.1 to enhance his sentence for willfully obstructing justice. The court held that because the district court applied the correct legal standard and relied upon probative evidence submitted by the government, the district court did not err in calculating the intended loss at being over $200,000. The court also held that "willful" meant only that defendant had engaged in intentional or deliberate acts designed to obstruct any potential investigation, at the time an investigation was in fact pending; it did not mean that defendant had to know for certain that the investigation was pending. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Gilchrist" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty, in 1997, to multiple counts of fraud, money laundering, and perjury and was sentenced to 78 months' imprisonment, five years of supervised release, and ordered to pay $1,587,321.50 in restitution and to forfeit $337,000. The government obtained a turnover order targeting payments defendant had received from three retirement savings plans provided through his employer under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. 3613(a). The Seventh Circuit vacated. The targeted funds are a defined benefit plan, a 401(k) plan, and a "non-qualified" plan. The Consumer Credit Protection Act limits garnishment to 25% of the party's "aggregate disposable earnings of any individual workweek," 15 U.S.C. 1673(a), and applies to the periodic payments from a pension or retirement program.View "United States v. Lee" on Justia Law

Defendant, an apartment building owner convicted of bribery of building officials, (18 U.S.C. 666(a)(2)), was sentenced to 34 months of imprisonment. The Third Circuit affirmed and remanded for resentencing. The district court provided thorough instructions as to the elements of bribery, defining "knowingly," "corruptly," and "willfully," and was within its discretion in denying a separate instruction on intent. The court correctly excluded testimony of a defense witness and limited defense cross-examination of certain witnesses. The court was within its discretion in holding that defendant was not prejudiced by the lack of prior knowledge of a change of testimony. In sentencing, the court did not follow the correct order of steps set forth in "Gunter," did not compute a definitive loss calculation or offense level to reach its Guidelines range nor did it meaningfully consider the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct (18 U.S.C. 3553 (a)(6).View "United States v. Friedman" on Justia Law

Defendant, a patent attorney and licensed engineer, the divorced father of children born in 1985, 1986, and 1991, was ordered in 2002 to pay weekly child support of $1,406 per week plus $300 per week toward past medical expenses. He has paid no child support since issuance of the final order. He attempted to appeal the order to the U.S. Supreme Court and filed unsuccessful suits and appeals in four states (New Hampshire, Vermont, Virginia, and Maryland) and in two federal courts, arguing that the order was invalid because the New Hampshire court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Convicted of willful failure to pay child support, 18 U.S.C. 228(a)(3), defendant was sentenced to 24 months in prison. The First Circuit affirmed, finding the evidence sufficient to support findings that he was able to pay and willfully refused to pay. The district court properly charged the jury on willful blindness. View "United States v. Mitrano" on Justia Law

Defendant was the fiancee of the leader of a Philadelphia drug distribution ring responsible for selling a large amount of cocaine and cocaine base (crack) from 1998 to 2005. In 2005, the couple used drug money to purchase a new home, which was titled in defendant's name. When her fiancee was charged with drug trafficking and firearms offenses, defendant was charged with money laundering in purchasing the house, 18 U.S.C. 1956(a)(1)(B)(i). She appealed her conviction. The Third Circuit vacated. The evidence was not sufficient to establish knowledge of a design to conceal on defendant's part. Defendant lied about her income and had the property titled in her name, not to hide her fiancee's involvement (which was obvious), but to get around his bad credit and purchase the house. View "United States v. Richardson" on Justia Law

In this civil enforcement action, a jury found that appellant aided and abetted a securities fraud by his former employer, in violation of 15 U.S.C. 78t(e). The district court fined appellant and barred him from serving as an officer or director of a publicly held company for five years. On appeal, appellant argued that the district court erred in allowing his trial to proceed in the District of Columbia pursuant to the "co-conspirator theory of venue." The court held that the SEC failed to lay venue in the District of Columbia under the straightforward language of 15 U.S.C. 78aa. Accordingly, the judgment was reversed and the district court was instructed to dismiss the case without prejudice. View "Securities and Exchange Comm'n v. Johnson, Jr., et al." on Justia Law

Plaintiff wished to open a franchise in Puerto Rico and sought assistance from defendants, who asserted that it was a "done deal" and accepted a $400,000 retainer, a $100,000 business brokers' fee, and another $125,000 before informing plaintiff that the company at issue does not offer franchises. The district court awarded plaintiff $625,000. The First Circuit affirmed and remanded, rejecting a challenge to jury instructions on "dolo" (fraud) as involving harmless error. The evidence supported the verdict; the district court properly excluded evidence of a settlement agreement, but should have used that settlement to offset the verdict. View "Portugues-Santana v. Rekomdiv Int'l, Inc., " on Justia Law

Defendant did not inform the government when his mother died, but, for 12 years cashed checks for benefits she had earned under the Civil Service Retirement System, netting $158,000. He pleaded guilty to mail fraud. His Guidelines sentencing range was 21 to 27 months, but the judge sentenced him to 30 months, because she believed that he needed treatment for mental illness and alcoholism and that it would take more than 18 months. The Seventh Circuit vacated. While the appeal was pending, the Supreme Court held that a sentencing judge is to recognize that imprisonment is not an appropriate means of promoting correction and rehabilitation, 18 U.S.C. 3582(a), and may not increase the length of a prison term in order to facilitate rehabilitation or correction.View "United States v. Kubeczko" on Justia Law

After a pyramid scheme that he had maintained for nearly a decade came to light, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1341. The district court sentenced him well above the applicable guidelines range to 120 months. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting a claim that the court erroneously applied a 4-level adjustment under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(2)(B) for defrauding more than 50 victims and a claim that the sentence was substantively unreasonable.View "United States v. Scott" on Justia Law

Appellants, investors in a commodity pool, brought suit alleging that futures commission merchants violated the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. 1-27f, by aiding and abetting an investment pool operator in his scheme to defraud investors. The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim against the futures commission merchants. The court held that the district court acted properly in dismissing the investors' aiding and abetting claims where the merchants had no reason to know that the operator was operating as a commodity pool or trading on behalf of other investors, let alone that the operator was running a fraudulent Ponzi scheme. The court also held that, even if the merchants' actions could be construed as negligent, they were not severely reckless. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court was affirmed. View "Amacker, et al. v. Renaissance Asset, et al." on Justia Law