Justia White Collar Crime Opinion Summaries

Trudeau “spent his career hawking miracle cures and self-improvement systems of dubious efficacy.” The FTC sued him under consumer-protection laws. Trudeau entered a consent decree, promising not to misrepresent his books in TV infomercials. Later, Trudeau published The Weight Loss Cure “They” Don’t Want You to Know About and promoted it in infomercials, as “simple” and “inexpensive,” able to be completed at home, and not requiring food restrictions or exercise. The book described a regimen mandating prescription hormone injections and severe dietary and lifestyle constraints. The court imposed a civil contempt sanction and issued an order to show cause why Trudeau should not face imprisonment of up to six months. At Trudeau’s request, the case was reassigned. The new judge issued a new show-cause order, removing the six-month cap. Trudeau was sentenced to 10 years in prison. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument based on the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. 3161. More than 70 nonexcludable days elapsed between the date the government agreed to prosecute the first show-cause order and the commencement of trial. The Act applies only to crimes punishable by more than six months’ imprisonment. Because the first show-cause order capped the potential penalty at six months, the Act did not apply. The second show-cause order removed the cap, starting the clock, but Trudeau’s trial began within 70 days from that date. The court also rejected challenges to jury instruction on “willfulness,” the sufficiency of the evidence, evidentiary rulings, and the reasonableness of his sentence. View "United States v. Trudeau" on Justia Law

Defendant was the mastermind of a Ponzi scheme that defrauded more than 230 investors out of over $22 million. Defendant pled guilty to bank fraud and to conspiracy to commit wire fraud. The district court sentenced Defendant to concurrent terms of sixty months’ imprisonment on the wire fraud conspiracy count and 242 months on the bank fraud count. Restitution was also ordered in the amount of $10,629,021. Defendant appealed, arguing that his 242-month sentence was too high. The First Circuit affirmed, holding that the 242-month sentence was both procedurally and substantively reasonable. View "United States v. Reyes-Rivera" on Justia Law

Musacchio resigned as president of ETS in 2004, but with help from the former head of ETS’s information-technology department, he accessed ETS’s computer system without authorization through early 2006. In 2010, Musacchio was indicted under 18 U.S.C. 1030(a)(2)(C), which makes it a crime if a person “intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access” and thereby “obtains . . . information from any protected computer.” A 2012 superseding indictment changed the access date to “[o]n or about” November 23–25, 2005. Musacchio never raised the 5-year statute of limitations. The government did not object to jury instructions referring to: “intentionally access a computer without authorization and exceed authorized access” although the conjunction “and” added an additional element. The jury found Musacchio guilty. In affirming his conviction, the Fifth Circuit assessed Musacchio’s sufficiency challenge against the charged elements of the conspiracy count rather than against the heightened jury instruction, and concluded that he had waived his statute-of-limitations defense. The Supreme Court affirmed. A sufficiency challenge should be assessed against the elements of the charged crime, not against the elements set forth in an erroneous jury instruction. Sufficiency review essentially addresses whether the case was strong enough to reach the jury. Musacchio did not dispute that he was properly charged with conspiracy to obtain unauthorized access or that the evidence was sufficient to convict him of the charged crime. A defendant cannot successfully raise section 3282(a)’s statute-of-limitations bar for the first time on appeal. The history of section 3282(a)’s limitations bar confirms that the provision does not impose a jurisdictional limit. View "Musacchio v. United States" on Justia Law

Segal, a lawyer, CPA, and insurance broker, and his company, were indicted for racketeering, mail and wire fraud, making false statements, embezzlement, and conspiring to interfere with operations of the IRS. Convicted in 2004, Segal was sentenced to 121 months in prison. After further proceedings, in 2011, he was resentenced to time served and ordered to pay $842,000 in restitution and to forfeit to the government his interest in the company and $15 million. In 2013, the parties entered a binding settlement that specified the final disposition of Segal’s assets. After the district judge approved the settlement the parties disagreed and returned to court. The agreement gave Segal two of eight insurance policies on his life outright and an option to purchase the others, but required that he exercise the option within six months of approval of the settlement. He opted to purchase one policy before the deadline and asked for an extension, claiming that the government had not promptly released money owed to him and had delayed his efforts to obtain information from the insurance companies. The Seventh Circuit affirmed refusal to extend the deadline, but reversed with respect to claims relating to Segal’s right to repurchase his shares of the Chicago Bulls basketball team. View "United States v. Segal" on Justia Law

Defendant appealed his convictions on twenty-four counts of wire fraud, seven counts of money laundering, and one count of investment-adviser fraud. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in barring defendant's expert witness from testifying and, even if the district court did not abuse its discretion, the error was harmless; the district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony regarding defendant's status as a fiduciary where nothing in the record indicates that testimony and argument regarding defendant's fiduciary status impermissibly infected his prosecution, and any concerns about the jurors’ equating violations of fiduciary duty with criminal liability were put to rest by the district court’s careful instructions on the elements of the offenses and the absence of reference to breach of fiduciary duty as a consideration in determining guilt; the district court did not violate defendant's Fifth Amendment rights when it declined to strike Count 33 from the indictment; and there is no cumulative error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Spangler" on Justia Law

Moreno was involved in a mortgage-fraud scheme as an appraiser who supplied inflated appraisals to other members of the scheme in exchange for money. He was also involved as broker, buyer, or seller, in other fraudulent transactions. Moreno was found guilty of five counts of wire fraud and two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and sentenced to 96 months’ imprisonment. The Third Circuit affirmed the conviction, but vacated the sentence. The court rejected claims of violation of the Confrontation Clause and the hearsay rule, based on the testimony of a cooperating witness, who read statements of a non-testifying U.S. Secret Service Special Agent into the record. The court also upheld a finding that there were more than 50 victims and a resulting application of a four-level enhancement under the Sentencing Guidelines. The court erred in permitting the prosecutor, during Moreno’s sentencing allocution and without leave of court, to engage in a vigorous cross-examination of Moreno. View "United States v. Moreno" on Justia Law

In 2008, Javidan shadowed Shahab, who was involved with fraudulent home-health agencies. Javidan, Shahab, and two others purchased Acure Home Care. Javidan managed Acure, signing Medicare applications and maintaining payroll. She had sole signature authority on Acure’s bank account and, was solely responsible for Medicare billing. Javidan illegally recruited patients by paying “kickbacks” to corrupt physicians and by using “marketers” to recruit patients by offering cash or prescription medications in exchange for Medicare numbers and signatures on blank Medicare forms. Javidan hired Meda as a physical therapist. Meda signed revisit notes for patients that he did not visit. He told Javidan which patients were not homebound and which demanded money for their Medicare information. The government charged both with health care fraud conspiracy (18 U.S.C. 1347) and conspiracy to receive kickbacks (18 U.S.C. 371). At trial, Javidan testified that she did not participate in and was generally unaware of Acure’s fraudulent business practices. Meda called no witnesses. Javidan and Meda were sentenced to terms of 65 and 46 months of imprisonment, respectively. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting Meda’s claims that his conviction violated the Double Jeopardy Clause and that he was subjected to prosecutorial vindictiveness for refusing to plead guilty and requesting a jury trial in prior case and Javidan’s claims of improper evidentiary rulings and sentence calculation errors. View "United States v. Javidan" on Justia Law

Petitioner Michael Reeder appealed a Court of Appeals decision affirming his conviction on 14 counts of securities fraud and 14 counts of theft in the first degree. He argued: (1) subpoenas duces tecum issued by a special inquiry judge (SIJ) to financial institutions for Reeder's private bank records violated his constitutional rights under article I, section 7 of the Washington Constitution; and (2) his sentence violated principles of double jeopardy because the trial court imposed multiple punishments for the same offense. Finding no reversible error, the Supreme Court affirmed Reeder's conviction and sentence. View "Washington v. Reeder" on Justia Law

Defendant-appellant Toby Martinez was convicted of mail fraud and conspiracy, which required the district court to order Martinez to pay restitution. At sentencing, the district court ordered Martinez to pay restitution through monthly installments. Nonetheless, the court later allowed the government to garnish Martinez’s retirement accounts, which exceeded what he owed in installments at the time. Martinez and his wife Sandra contested the garnishments, arguing in part that the government could not enforce payments that were not yet due under Martinez’s court-ordered payment schedule. After review, the Tenth Circuit agreed with Mr. and Ms. Martinez and concluded that the district court erred by allowing the garnishments to proceed. View "United States v. Martinez" on Justia Law

Ajayi, an electrical engineer, wanted to start a business selling MRI products in Africa. He incorporated GRI in Illinois and another company in Africa and sought investors. While traveling, he solicited a $45,000 investment from Brown. After returning home, Ajayi received a $344,657.84 check, payable to another company . He called Brown, who explained that the accounting department had made an error, told Ajayi to deposit the check, and stated that they would work out a way for Ajayi to refund the difference. Ajayi deposited the check through an ATM into his GRI account, which previously had a balance of $90.08, After the check cleared, Brown flew to Chicago and demanded repayment. Pursuant to Brown’s instructions, between December 9 and December 12, 2009, Ajayi wrote at least five checks to himself from the GRI account and cashed them. Ajayi was convicted of five counts of bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1344(1) and (2) and money laundering, 18 U.S.C. 1957(a) and was sentenced to 44 months’ imprisonment. The Seventh Circuit found that there was sufficient evidence that Ajayi knew that the check was altered and upheld the exclusion of the emails, but concluded that four bank fraud counts were multiplicitous. View "United States v. Ajayi" on Justia Law