Justia White Collar Crime Opinion Summaries

Wegbreit founded Oak Ridge, a financial-services company, and worked with attorney Agresti to reduce his tax liability. At Agresti’s suggestion, Wegbreit transferred his Oak Ridge interest to a trust that would convey that interest to an offshore insurance company as a premium for a life insurance policy benefitting the trust. Agresti, as trustee, acquired a variable life insurance policy from Threshold (later Acadia), which shares a U.S. office with Agresti’s law firm. The Wegbreits leveraged the policies by means of policy loans and purchases by shell companies. Acadia, at Samuel’s direction, sold his Oak Ridge interest for $11.3 million. The proceeds were wired directly to Agresti, who conveyed them to Acadia; the Wegbreits did not report any taxable income from the sale. After an audit, the IRS determined that the trust income and policy gains, including those from the Oak Ridge sale, were taxable to the Wegbreits, who had underreported their 2005-2009 income by $15 million. The Wegbreits disputed that conclusion in the tax court. After discovery revealed suspicious documents related to the trust and policies, the IRS asserted civil fraud penalties.The judge found that the trust was a sham lacking economic substance that should be disregarded for tax purposes, agreed with the IRS assessment of tax liability, and imposed fraud penalties. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, noting that the Wegbreits had previously “stipulated away” their assertions, and ordering the Wegbreits’ attorney to show cause why he should not be sanctioned under Rule 38 for filing a frivolous appeal. View "Wegbreit v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue" on Justia Law

After an explosion at Massey’s West Virginia coal mine killed 29 miners, Blankenship, then Massey’s Chairman of the Board and CEO, was convicted of conspiring to willfully violate federal mine safety and health standards, 30 U.S.C. 820(d) and 18 U.S.C. 371. The evidence indicated that Blankenship had willfully failed to address numerous notices of mine safety violations that Massey had received, favoring production and profits over safety. Following the trial and in response to Blankenship’s ongoing requests, the government produced documents to Blankenship that it had not produced before trial and that it should have produced under applicable Department of Justice policies. The suppressed documents fell broadly into two categories: memoranda of interviews conducted of seven Massey employees and internal emails and documents of the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) showing, among other things, some MSHA employees’ hostility to Massey and Blankenship.The Fourth Circuit affirmed the denial of Blankenship’s 28 U.S.C. 2255 motion to vacate his conviction. While the documents were improperly suppressed, they were not material in that there was not a reasonable probability that they would have produced a different result had they been disclosed before trial. The verdict that Blankenship conspired to willfully violate mandatory mine standards was supported by ample evidence. View "United States v. Blankenship" on Justia Law

Bittner non-willfully failed to report his interests in foreign bank accounts on annual FBAR forms, as required by the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970 (BSA), 31 U.S.C. 5314. The Act imposes no penalty for a non-willful violation if “such violation was due to reasonable cause.”The government assessed $2.72 million in civil penalties against him—$10,000 for each unreported account each year from 2007 to 2011. The district court found Bittner liable and denied his reasonable-cause defense but reduced the assessment to $50,000, holding that the $10,000 maximum penalty attaches to each failure to file an annual FBAR, not to each failure to report an account.The Fifth Circuit affirmed the denial of Bittner’s reasonable-cause defense. Bittner did not exercise ordinary business care and prudence in failing to fulfill his reporting obligations. In assessing reasonable cause, the most important factor is the extent of the taxpayer’s effort to assess his proper liability. The court reversed with respect to the application of the $10,000 penalty. Each failure to report a qualifying foreign account constitutes a separate reporting violation subject to penalty. The penalty applies on a per-account, not a per-form, basis. View "United States v. Bittner" on Justia Law

In 2004-2005, the government filed forfeiture actions against a Credit Suisse account, owned by a corporation organized by Kim’s sister . The government alleged the $15 million account included proceeds of fraudulent activities involving Kim’s control of Optional. The district court ordered the seizure of the Account. The putative owners (Kim Claimants) contested the forfeiture. Optional, no longer under Kim's control, and DAS, an alleged victim of Kim's fraud, filed competing claims.In 2011, after years of parallel litigation, the Swiss Attorney General’s Office unfroze the Account and ordered the bank to wire $12.6 million to DAS, which filed a “Notice of Withdrawal of Claims” in the forfeiture proceeding. The court ordered that no party disturb money remaining in the Credit Suisse accounts and requested that the government investigate how the transfer to DAS was accomplished. The court declined to hold DAS in contempt, concluded that it “cannot compel DAS to surrender the funds,” then granted DAS’s opposed motion to be dismissed from the forfeiture proceedings.Optional, the sole remaining claimant, submitted a 2013 proposed final judgment, which the district court adopted. Five years later, Optional sought to hold DAS in contempt for allegedly violating that judgment because DAS failed to surrender the money transferred in 2011; the 2013 judgment had awarded Optional all funds in the Account as of August 2005. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the denial of the contempt motion. The 2013 judgment did not require DAS to turn over $12.6 million to Optional. At the 2013 trial, the court did not have before it, and did not undertake to decide, the competing claims to the transferred money. In awarding Optional “all funds” the district court unmistakably was referring only to the remaining funds. View "Optional Capital, Inc. v. DAS Corp." on Justia Law

A group of defrauded investors brought a lawsuit in Washington State seeking to recover assets they alleged had been fraudulently conveyed to perpetrators of the fraud. The investors discovered that the alleged perpetrators owned land in Alaska in the name of a mining company. They filed an action in Alaska superior court for fraudulent conveyance and to quiet title to the property. The Washington case was later dismissed; the Alaska superior court then granted summary judgment against the investors, concluding that as a result of the dismissal of the Washington case they lacked the creditor status necessary to give them standing to pursue their Alaska claims. The court awarded attorney’s fees to the mining company as the prevailing party. The investors had only one apparent asset: a potential legal malpractice claim against their Alaska attorneys for having filed a fatally defective claim. The investors disavowed any intention of pursuing such a claim, but the mining company moved for a writ of execution, seeking the involuntary assignment of the potential claim to itself. The superior court denied the mining company’s motion, concluding that Alaska law, for public policy reasons, did not allow the involuntary assignment of legal malpractice claims. The mining company appeals. Because the Alaska Supreme Court agreed with the superior court’s conclusion that legal malpractice claims could not be involuntarily assigned, it affirmed the order denying the writ of execution. View "PADRM Gold Mine, LLC v. Perkumpulan Investor Crisis Center Dressel - WBG" on Justia Law

Prasad owned and operated Maremarks, through which he filed petitions seeking H-1B status for nonimmigrant, foreign workers in specialty occupations to come to the U.S. as Maremarks’ employees performing work for Maremarks’ clients. Prasad falsely represented in the H-1B petitions that there were specific, bona fide positions available for the H-1B beneficiaries. Prasad was convicted of 21 counts of visa fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1546(a), and two counts of aggravated identity theft, 18 U.S.C. 1028A(a)(1). The district court ordered forfeiture under 18 U.S.C. 982(a)(6)(A)(ii): $1,193,440.87.The Ninth Circuit affirmed, rejecting Prasad’s argument that he did not “obtain” the entire $1,193,440.87 because he eventually paid portions of the money to the H1B beneficiaries. Prasad possessed the full $1,193,440.87 paid by the end-clients and had control over the money before he paid a percentage of it to employees. Considering the term “proceeds” in the context of the forfeiture statute, the statute’s punitive purpose, and its prior construction of virtually identical criminal forfeiture provisions, the court concluded that the term extends to receipts and is not limited to profit. Although the H-1B beneficiary employees performed legitimate work for end-clients, the portions of the money that Maremarks received for that work and subsequently paid to the beneficiary employees was, nonetheless, “obtained directly or indirectly from” Prasad’s unlawful conduct. View "United States v. Prasad" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed Defendant's conviction of intentionally causing damage to a protected computer and conspiring to do the same, holding that there was no error, plain or otherwise, in the proceedings below.Defendant committed a cyberattack against Boston Children's Hospital and Wayside Youth and Family Support Network causing both to lose their internet capabilities for several weeks. Defendant publicly admitted responsibility for the attacks. After an eight-day trial, Defendant was convicted for intentionally causing damage to a protected computer and conspiring to cause damage to a protected computer. The First Circuit affirmed (1) there was no violation of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161-3174; (2) the district court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress; (3) there was no abuse of discretion in the district court's denial of the four motions to withdraw that were filed by Defendant's trial counsel; (4) the district court did not err in precluding Defendant from raising a defense-of-others argument at trial; and (5) the trial judge did not err in denying three recusal motions Defendant made pro se after the verdict but before sentencing. View "United States v. Gottesfeld" on Justia Law

Palladinetti and others purchased 30 Chicago-area apartment buildings and resold individual apartments as condominiums. Using a process that Palladinetti helped create, his co-defendants bought the buildings, falsely representing to lenders that they had made down payments. Palladinetti served as his co-defendants’ attorney for the purchases and sales and as the registered agent for LLCs formed to facilitate the scheme. The group recruited buyers for the condominiums and prepared their mortgage applications, misrepresenting facts to ensure they qualified for the loans.Palladinetti and his co-defendants were charged with seven counts of bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1344(1) and (2), and nine counts of making false statements on loan applications, 18 U.S.C. 1014 and 2. Count one involved a $345,000 mortgage that Palladinetti’s wife obtained for the purchase of a residence. That mortgage application was prepared using the group’s fraudulent scheme in July 2005. The government agreed to dismiss all other counts if Palladinetti were convicted on count one. Because Palladinetti stipulated to almost all elements of section 1344(1), the trial was limited to whether the bank he defrauded was insured by the FDIC when the mortgage application was submitted.The Seventh Circuit affirmed his conviction. The testimony and exhibits demonstrated that one entity was continuously insured, 1997-2008, that on the date the mortgage was executed that entity was “Washington Mutual Bank” and also did business as “Washington Mutual Bank, FA,” and that entity was the lender for the mortgage at issue. View "United States v. Palladinetti" on Justia Law

Five co-defendants were charged with wire fraud, mail fraud, and conspiracy for their involvement in a telemarketing scheme to defraud stock investors. After an eight-week trial, during which the defendants made several motions for mistrial, the jury found each defendant guilty on all counts. At a post-trial hearing, the district court found that the prosecution had acted improperly in closing arguments but denied the defendants’ motions for mistrial. The court then granted judgments of acquittal based on insufficient evidence as to two defendants.The Eleventh Circuit reversed the judgments of acquittal granted to Wheeler and Long because there is a reasonable construction of the evidence that supports the jury’s verdicts. Sufficient evidence also supported the convictions of Sgarro, Smigrod, and Topping. The prosecution’s behavior did not rise to the level of misconduct. The theory-of-defense instruction explained that there is a “difference between deceiving and defrauding.” It is "cause for concern: that the prosecutor told the jury that this instruction was “not the law.” When considered in context, however, the prosecutor’s remarks were not -improper. The district judge repeatedly emphasized to the lawyers that the theory-of-defense instruction was not an instruction about the law and did not affect the legal elements for mail and wire fraud. Nor did any of the evidentiary rulings or the jury instructions warrant reversal. View "United States v. Wheeler" on Justia Law

Tat aided a money-laundering scheme involving cashier’s checks while she managed a bank in San Gabriel, California. She was convicted of conspiring to launder money, 18 U.S.C. 1956(h), and two counts of making false entries in the bank’s records, 18 U.S.C. 1005.The Ninth Circuit reversed her conviction on one count of making a false entry, affirmed her conviction on a second count of the same offense, and remanded for resentencing. The reversed conviction was premised on a bank log record stating that Tat’s customer purchased and then returned three cashier’s checks for a sum of $25,000. The record did not contain a literal falsehood and did not contain an omission such that the bank’s records would not indicate the true nature of the transaction; it could not be said that the bank would not have a picture of the bank’s true condition. Accurate records reflecting a customer’s purchase of a cashier’s check from her bank account are not false entries under section 1005 solely because that check has a nexus to money laundering. As to the second count, a reasonable juror could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Tat knew the log record on which it was based contained a false entry because it listed a fictitious payee. The panel affirmed Tat’s convictions for conspiring to launder money. View "United States v. Tat" on Justia Law