Justia White Collar Crime Opinion Summaries

Then-New York Governor Cuomo’s “Buffalo Billion” initiative administered through Fort Schuyler Management Corporation, a nonprofit affiliated with SUNY, aimed to invest $1 billion in upstate development projects. Investigations later uncovered a scheme that involved Cuomo’s associates--a member of Fort Schuyler’s board of directors and a construction company made payments to a lobbyist with ties to the Cuomo administration. Fort Schuyler’s bid process subsequently allowed the construction company to receive major Buffalo Billion contracts.The participants were charged with wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud 18 U.S.C. 1343, 1349. Under the Second Circuit’s “right to control” theory, wire fraud can be established by showing that the defendant schemed to deprive a victim of potentially valuable economic information necessary to make discretionary economic decisions. The jury instructions defined “property” as including “intangible interests such as the right to control the use of one’s assets,” and “economically valuable information” as “information that affects the victim’s assessment of the benefits or burdens of a transaction, or relates to the quality of goods or services received or the economic risks.” The Second Circuit affirmed the convictions.The Supreme Court reversed. Under Supreme Court precedents the federal fraud statutes criminalize only schemes to deprive people of traditional property interests. The prosecution must prove that wire fraud defendants “engaged in deception,” and also that money or property was “an object of their fraud.” The "fraud statutes do not vest a general power in the federal government to enforce its view of integrity in broad swaths of state and local policymaking.” The right-to-control theory applies to an almost limitless variety of deceptive actions traditionally left to state contract and tort law. The Court declined to affirm Ciminelli’s convictions on the ground that the evidence was sufficient to establish wire fraud under a traditional property-fraud theory. View "Ciminelli v. United States" on Justia Law

Percoco served as the Executive Deputy Secretary to New York Governor Cuomo from 2011-2016. During an eight-month hiatus in 2014, Percoco resigned from government service to manage the Governor’s reelection campaign; he accepted payments totaling $35,000 to assist a real-estate development company in dealings with Empire State Development, a state agency. Percoco urged a senior ESD official to drop a requirement of an agreement with local unions as a precondition to receiving state funding. ESD informed the company the following day that the agreement was not necessary.Percoco was convicted of conspiracy to commit honest-services wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343, 1346. The court instructed the jury that Percoco could be found to have had a duty to provide honest services to the public during the time when he was not serving as a public official if the jury concluded that “he dominated and controlled any governmental business” and that “people working in the government actually relied on him because of a special relationship he had with the government.” The Second Circuit affirmed.The Supreme Court reversed, finding the jury instruction erroneous. The instructions did not define “the intangible right of honest services” with sufficient definiteness. The Court cited its 2010 “Skilling” rejection of the prosecution’s argument that section 1346 should apply to cases involving undisclosed self-dealing by a public official or private employee, While a person nominally outside public employment could have the necessary fiduciary duty to the public “the intangible duty of honest services” does not extend a duty to the public to all private persons. View "Percoco v. United States" on Justia Law

Upshur and Thompson operated a trust; people wired fees to Upshur and allowed the defendants to file tax forms representing that the Trust had withheld income tax on their behalf, hopefully yielding sizable refunds. The defendants themselves also participated. Though this scheme was largely unsuccessful, the IRS issued one $1.5 million refund but, realizing, its mistake, froze the payment. In another scheme, they made large fraudulent tax overpayments, hoping to generate refunds. This scheme apparently did not generate any payments from the IRS, but the two schemes, together, resulted in over $325 million in fraudulent tax claims.Upshur was convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States and eight counts of aiding and assisting in the preparation of false tax returns, 18 U.S.C. 371, 26 U.S.C. 7206(2). The court recognized there was no actual loss to the U.S. Treasury, and calculated Upshur’s base offense level under U.S.S.G. 2T1.4 using the intended-loss figure of $325 million, for a Guidelines range of 324-348 months. The Third Circuit affirmed his 84-month sentence. The court acknowledged its 2022 “Banks” holding that for theft offenses, absent Guideline text extending “loss” to intended loss, U.S.S.G. 2B1.1’s loss table reached only actual loss. However. the texts of sections 2T1.1 and 2T1.4, applicable to tax fraud, indicated that 2T4.1’s loss table covers the loss the perpetrator intended. View "United States v. Upshur" on Justia Law

The Department of Transportation (DOT) provides funds for state transportation projects. States that receive federal transportation funds must set participation goals for disadvantaged business enterprises (DBEs)--for-profit small businesses “at least 51 percent owned by one or more individuals who are both socially and economically disadvantaged” and “[w]hose management and daily business operations are controlled by one or more of the socially and economically disadvantaged individuals who own it.” States certify businesses as DBEs.The defendants were convicted of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1349, and wire fraud, section 1343, arising out of DOT-financed contracts for work in Philadelphia that included DBE requirements. The Defendants' bids committed to working on the projects with Markias, a company that had prequalified as a DBE. During the performance of their contracts, the Defendants submitted false documentation regarding Markias’ role; PennDOT awarded the Defendants DBE credits and paid them based on their asserted compliance with the DBE requirements. Markias did not do any work on the projects or supply any of the materials. The Defendants arranged for the actual suppliers to send their invoices to Markias, which then issued its own invoices, adding a 2.25% fee.The Third Circuit affirmed the convictions but vacated the forfeiture order and loss calculation. The court acknowledged the complex nature of this fraud in this and commended the attempt to determine the amount of loss for sentencing purposes, and the amount to be forfeited. View "United States v. Kousisis" on Justia Law

Hise was charged with two counts of wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343. Hise was employed by the victim's construction company as an office manager and bookkeeper for more than 12 years. An FBI investigation revealed that Hise had embezzled over $1.5 million from that company. Hise entered an open guilty plea to those charges. The district court sentenced her to 63 months’ imprisonment and ordered $200 in special assessments and $1,550,379.14 in restitution, subject to a set-off ($21,953.55), which reflected the proceeds of a Sheriff’s Sale.The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the district court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(i)(1)(A) and(C) in that it failed to ensure that Hise and her attorney had read and discussed the amended PSR and any addendum to it before imposing the sentence. Hise fails to identify any objection that could have been made to the revised PSR. She has not pointed to any aspect of the PSR that was incorrect or which could be subject to an objection. The court also rejected Hise’s argument that she was denied her right to be represented by counsel because her attorney failed to make any objection to the PSR and failed to appear at the final determination hearing regarding the imposition of the final restitution amount. View "United States v. Hise" on Justia Law

The DEA received a tip from a local pharmacist that Dr. Anderson, an Ohio physician, was seeing patients who had been discharged by other physicians for non-compliance. The pharmacist was one of several who had grown concerned about Anderson’s prescribing practices relating to pain medications. The State Medical Board of Ohio expressed concern that Anderson was not prescribing in the usual course of practice or for a legitimate medical purpose. Separately, one of Anderson’s patients contacted the local sheriff’s office, voicing his concern that he sometimes would not get to see Anderson at his appointments and would occasionally retrieve his prescriptions from the receptionist rather than from Anderson himself. The DEA launched an investigation into Anderson, used a confidential informant, and then executed a search warrant to obtain evidence.Anderson was convicted of one count of conspiracy to distribute controlled substances, eight counts of unlawful distribution of controlled substances, and one count of healthcare fraud. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions, the district court’s refusal to give a good faith jury instruction, and the admission of the government’s expert testimony. View "United States v. Anderson" on Justia Law

In 2005-2013, Nocito, president and CEO of AHS, characterized his personal expenses as deductible AHS business expenses and “shuffled” AHS’s untaxed profits between shell companies he owned that “performed no significant business purpose.” In 2013, Sundo, AHS’s secretary and CFO, provided documents to government investigators under a cooperation agreement, including Exhibit J, later determined by the court to be a privileged document in which Sundo conveyed legal advice to Nocito.After his indictment for tax fraud (18 U.S.C. 371), Nocito moved for pre-trial discovery of all the documents provided by Sundo to support a possible motion to suppress based on government misconduct. The court denied the motion, concluding that Exhibit J did not offer a “colorable basis” for his governmental misconduct claim. A subsequent motion to intervene, brought by the shell companies, attached a Federal Rule 41(g) motion for the return of property, in an attempt to prevent the government from using Exhibit J in future proceedings.The court permitted the companies to intervene but denied their Rule 41(g) motion. It found the Intervenors—even assuming they could establish Exhibit J’s privilege was “a property interest” of which they were deprived—were attempting to use Rule 41(g) improperly to suppress Exhibit J from the evidence against Nocito. The Third Circuit dismissed an appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Rule 41(g) motion was part of an ongoing criminal process; its denial did not constitute a final order. View "United States v. Nocito" 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

Theopalis Gregory, a former City of Wilmington Council President and Delaware lawyer, was convicted by jury for official misconduct. The charges stemmed from a $40,000 discretionary grant Gregory earmarked for his non-profit organization before leaving office. He personally received at least $15,000 of the grant after he left office. On appeal, Gregory argued the jury instructions were flawed because the trial judge did not define for the jury “official functions,” a necessary element of an official-misconduct conviction. He also argued that the evidence at trial was insufficient to support his conviction because he was not performing official functions when he earmarked funds for his nonprofit. The Delaware Supreme Court affirmed Gregory’s conviction: Gregory did not object to the jury instructions, and the trial judge did not plainly err when he instructed the jury using the words of the statute. Further, the Court was satisfied that the jury had more than sufficient evidence to find that Gregory was performing official functions when he earmarked the $40,000. View "Gregory v. Delaware" 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