Justia White Collar Crime Opinion Summaries

Defendants Russell and Lange were found guilty of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and securities fraud (Count Two) and substantive securities fraud (Count Three). The jury also found Russell guilty of conspiracy to commit wire fraud in connection with a separate but related scheme (Count One). On appeal, the Government challenges the district court's order vacating Lange's conviction on Count Three. Both defendants challenged their convictions on several grounds. The court affirmed defendants' convictions and concluded, inter alia, that there was sufficient evidence to support the charges. The court reversed the district court's order acquitting Lange on Count Three because the district court erred by concluding that the Government was required to present evidence that Lange aided and abetted the specific acts carried out by other BSMI employees in the district of venue. The court remanded with instructions for the district court to reinstate Lange's conviction on Count Three and to resentence him accordingly. Defendants raised a number of additional arguments which the court considered and rejected. View "United States v. Lange" on Justia Law

Former FBI agent Robert Lustyik wanted to help his friend and business partner, Michael Taylor, in return for payment. Taylor owned American International Security Corporation (AISC), a company that offered security and defense contracting services. The Department of Defense awarded AISC a contract in 2007 to provide training and related services to Afghan Special Forces. In mid-2010, the United States began investigating AISC regarding fraud and money laundering in connection with the 2007 contract. In September 2011, the United States filed a civil forfeiture action against assets owned by Taylor and AISC, which resulted in the seizure of more than $5 million dollars from AISC’s bank account. Lustyik used his status as an FBI agent to impair the government’s investigation of Taylor, including attempting to establish Taylor as a confidential source. Lustyik was indicted on charges related to the obstruction of justice. Prior to trial, Lustyik pleaded guilty to all charges in the indictment without a plea agreement. After his plea, his lead counsel withdrew and Lustyik obtained new counsel. On the eve of sentencing, counsel sought an order allowing him to obtain security clearance to review classified material he believed might be relevant for sentencing. The district court, having previously reviewed the documents, deemed them irrelevant to the sentencing issues, denied the motion, and subsequently sentenced Lustyik to 120 months’ imprisonment. Lustyik argued on appeal that the district court’s order denying his counsel access to the classified materials violated his Sixth Amendment rights at sentencing. Finding that the district court’s decision was not presumptively prejudicial to Lustyik’s advocacy at sentencing, nor did the district court abuse its discretion in concluding the documents were not relevant for sentencing, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Lustyik" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to four counts of wire fraud. The court concluded that, because the district court did not apply one of the two total offense levels specifically contemplated by the plea agreement, defendant's appeal waiver does not preclude this appeal. The court concluded that the district court did not clearly err in determining that defendant's post-plea conduct was inconsistent with a finding that he had accepted responsibility for his offenses. The court concluded, however, that it must reverse and remand so that the district court may determine in the first instance whether M.U. was a victim under the Guidelines and, if necessary, proceed to resentencing. The court further concluded that the district court did not plainly err when determining the amount of restitution owed to A.B. and R.W. Finally, the court declined to consider defendant's claim that he received ineffective assistance of counsel. Accordingly, the court otherwise affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Binkholder" on Justia Law

Defendants Gladstone and Jacqueline Morrison appeal their convictions for conspiring to submit fraudulent tax returns, aiding and abetting the filing of numerous false returns, and wire fraud in connection with the attempted sales of the business. The court concluded that the evidence supports all of Gladstone's wire fraud convictions; the district court did not commit reversible error in limiting Jacqueline's testimony; the instances of bias alleged by Jacqueline, alone or taken together, do not rise to the level at which recusal is required; and the court rejected Gladstone's challenges regarding the conduct of the trial judge. Finally, the court rejected Jacqueline's additional claims of error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Morrison" on Justia Law

With little formal education (a high school GED) Miller passed several securities industry examinations and “maintained a public persona of a very successful entrepreneur.” Miller sold investors over $41 million in phony “promissory notes,” which were securities under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 77b(a)(1), 78c(a)(10), and not exempt from federal or state registration requirements. Miller did not register the notes; he squandered the money, operating a Ponzi scheme. Miller pled guilty to one count of securities fraud, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b), and one count of tax evasion, 26 U.S.C. 7201. He was sentenced to 120 months’ imprisonment. The Third Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the court improperly applied the Sentencing Guidelines investment adviser enhancement, U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(19)(A)(iii). The court interpreted the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. 80b-2(a)(11) to apply broadly, with exceptions that do not apply to Miller. The court also rejected arguments that the government breached Miller’s plea agreement and that his sentence was substantively unreasonable. View "United States v. Miller" on Justia Law

Seven years after her term of probation ended, petitioner moved to have her conviction for health care fraud expunged because her conviction prevented her from getting or keeping a job as a home health aide. At issue is whether the district court has ancillary jurisdiction to expunge all records of a valid conviction. The district court relied on States v. Schnitzer and Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Company of Americas and held that it had ancillary jurisdiction to consider and grant petitioner's motion. However, the court held that Schnitzer only applies to arrest records after an order of dismissal. Therefore, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider petitioner's motion to expunge records of a valid conviction. The court vacated and remanded with instructions. View "Doe v. United States" on Justia Law

Defendants Farha, Behrens, Kale, and Clay appeal their convictions for charges related to Medicaid fraud on multiple grounds. Defendants were all high-level executives of WellCare or one of its Florida subsidiaries, Staywell and HealthEase. At trial, the government proved that together defendants participated in a fraudulent scheme to file false Medicaid expense reports that misrepresented and overstated the amounts Staywell and HealthEase spent on medical services for Medicaid patients, specifically outpatient behavioral health care services. The court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to convict Farha, Behrens, and Kale for health care fraud; there was sufficient evidence to convict Behrens for making false representations to AHCA; and there was sufficient evidence to convict Clay for making false statements to federal agents. The court rejected Farha, Behrens, and Kale's challenge to the jury instructions with regard to their fraud convictions. Finally, the court rejected defendants' claims of evidentiary error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions. View "United States v. Clay" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for multiple counts of bank fraud and related offenses. The court concluded that defendant has not cited any authority recognizing his proposed exception to Franks v. Delaware, and the court declined defendant's invitation to create a new exception to well-established Supreme Court precedent; the district court did not abuse its discretion in applying a six-level enhancement under USSG 2B1.1(b)(2)(C) for an offense committed with over 250 victims; the district court did not err by applying an eighteen-level enhancement under section 2B1.1(b)(1)(J) because the district court's calculation that defendant's total intended loss was between $2,500,000 and $7,000,000, was not unreasonable; and defendant's request for remand is foreclosed by United States v. Garcia-Carrillo. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Minor" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of laundering and conspiring to launder money, and making a false statement. Defendant had laundered drug proceeds received from his brother-in-law, Brandon Lusk, through his law firm, and then lied to an IRS agent about his financial arrangements with Lusk. When Lusk was investigated by authorities, defendant acted as his lawyer and advised him to hide the nature of their financial relationship. The court concluded that the district court acted well within its discretion to rule that a question implying that defendant had associated with a person later charged with criminal activity, even if improper, did not require a new trial. In this case, the question was half-finished and unanswered. Moreover, the other inculpatory evidence the jury heard was extensive. The court also concluded that the district court properly considered the fact that defendant put his own personal interests ahead of his clients, and that this factor was enough to justify the sentence imposed, even if it resulted in a sentence that was harsh in comparison to others involved in the drug trafficking operation. Finally, there is no indication that the district court punished defendant more harshly because he was a lawyer. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Boedigheimer" on Justia Law

In 2008, Johnston, a horse racetrack executive, promised a $100,000 campaign contribution to then-Governor Blagojevich in exchange for his signature on a bill to tax the largest casinos in Illinois for the direct benefit of the Illinois horse racing​ industry. After Blagojevich’s corruption came to light, the casinos sued the racetracks, alleging a conspiracy to violate the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), 18 U.S.C. 1961, and state‐law claims for civil conspiracy and unjust enrichment. A jury awarded the casinos $25,940,000 in damages, which was trebled under RICO to $77,820,000. The Seventh Circuit affirmed in part, holding that the jury did not have legally sufficient evidence to support a verdict finding a conspiracy to engage in a “pattern” of racketeering activity, as required for liability on a RICO conspiracy theory. The casinos are still entitled to the $25,940,000 in damages on the state‐law claims, but not to have those damages trebled under RICO. View "Empress Casino Joliet Corp. v. Balmoral Racing Club, Inc." on Justia Law