Justia White Collar Crime Opinion Summaries

Defendant-Appellant Keith Courtney was convicted by jury of three counts of wire fraud, for which he received a 24-month prison sentence followed by three years’ supervised release and ordered to forfeit $1,601,825.84, the full value of the fraudulent wire transfers at issue in the underlying case. In addition, the court imposed $493,230.88 in restitution. On appeal, defendant argued that: (1) the forfeiture order must be reduced by the amount the lenders received from the properties through mortgage payments and the sale of the properties; and (2) he should have been allowed to inform the jury of the possible sentence and its power to acquit him if they believed the conviction would be unjust. After review, the Tenth Circuit agreed with defendant on his first contention and reversed, and affirmed on the second. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Courtney" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to mail fraud and aggravated identity theft pursuant to a written plea agreement. Defendant's conviction stemmed from his multi‐year scheme to fraudulently obtain and use credit cards. On appeal, defendant alleged that the government materially breached the plea agreement by presenting evidence of twenty‐eight victims when only four were referred to by name in the agreement. The court enforced defendant's appellate waiver and dismissed the appeal, concluding that the plea agreement made clear that the named victims were either an example or just one of the companies he defrauded and therefore the government did not commit a material breach by introducing evidence that there were more victims than those specifically named. View "United States v. Malone" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of conspiracy to commit securities fraud and several counts of mail and wire fraud. The district court sentenced Defendant to a thirty-month term of immurement for the fraud offenses. The First Circuit affirmed Defendant’s convictions but vacated his sentence for securities fraud after finding procedural error in the district court’s calculation of the loss amount. On remand, the court below again sentenced Defendant to a term of thirty months’ imprisonment. The First Circuit affirmed the judgment of the district court, holding that the district court (1) did not abuse its discretion in admitting certain expert testimony at sentencing; and (2) did not commit clear error in determining the amount of the loss attributable to the offense of conviction. View "United States v. Jordan" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of fifty-eight criminal counts arising from her participation in a Medicare fraud scheme. Defendant appealed, alleging several procedural defects in the proceedings below and arguing that the Government did not present sufficient evidence to convict her of identity theft and money laundering. The district court sentenced Defendant to two years and one day of imprisonment and three years of supervised release. The First Circuit affirmed, holding (1) the Government presented sufficient evidence to convict Defendant of identity theft and money laundering; and (2) any procedural defects were harmless. View "United States v. Vega" on Justia Law

NBI honored White’s check, resulting in an overdraft of his payroll account of $382,000. Unable to recover the money, NBI closed White’s accounts and obtained a judgment in Indiana state court. White was also convicted on criminal charges. In his subsequent bankruptcy, NBI won its adversary proceeding. White sued current and former NBI officers under the Federal Reserve Act, 12 U.S.C. 503, which establishes civil liability for bank officers and directors who violate the Federal Reserve Act and the False Entry Statute. White alleged violation of the False Entry Statute, 18 U.S.C. 1005, by falsifying official bank reports in order to cover up unauthorized transfers made from White’s NBI business accounts. The district court dismissed for failure to allege that he relied on the false statements. The Seventh CIrcuit affirmed: White did not plead that he was harmed as a consequence of the alleged violations. Finding White’s appeal frivolous, the court granted a motion for sanctions.t View "White v. Keely" on Justia Law

Pu, a 28-year-old quantitative finance professional, worked for two financial institutions that traded stock and other assets for clients: “A” and Citadel. While working at each company, Pu copied proprietary software from his employer’s computer system to personal storage devices . The software allowed them to execute strategic trades at high speeds and were company trade secrets. Pu’s copying of the files was a significant data breach. Normally, crimes involving the theft of computer trade secrets lead to the sale of the data to, or the thief being hired by, a company that will use the data. Pu, however, used the data to conduct computerized stock market trades for himself and lost $40,000. Pu pleaded guilty to unlawful possession of a trade secret belonging to A and unlawful transmission of a trade secret belonging to Citadel and was sentenced to 36 months in prison and ordered him to pay over $750,000 in restitution. The Seventh Circuit vacated the sentence, stating that the district court’s factual findings did not support its conclusion that Pu intended to cause a loss of approximately $12 million and that the court erred by awarding restitution without evidence that reflected a complete accounting of the victims’ investigation costs. View "United States v. Pu" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to making false statements to government authorities, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001(a)(2). Plaintiff was told by her managers at Blackhawk to certify that Blackhawk guards had received training that they had not in fact received, thereby enabling Blackhawk to charge more for each guard’s services. As part of her sentence, she was jointly and severally liable for $442,330 in restitution. But, the district court also expressed a clear intention that the actual restitution amount should be much smaller, perhaps as little as $0. A federal court had already entered judgment against Blackhawk for more than $1 million. And the district court said, in sentencing defendant, that she would not be on the hook at all if Blackhawk paid its fine. Even in the absence of such a payment, defendant would only have to pay “at a rate of not less than $50 each month.” In 2013, defendant found out that the Treasury Department had seized tax refunds due her and that it had acted under the Treasury Offset Program (TOP), 31 U.S.C. 3716, 3720A. Defendant then filed a Motion for Clarification or Modification of Supervised Release in the sentencing court, asking that the tax refunds be returned and future seizures stopped. At the first hearing, the district court vacated defendant’s sentence, stating that it had not anticipated or intended that she be subject to such a harsh sentence. At the second and third hearings, the district court entertained further arguments about the resentencing. At the fourth hearing, the district court reimposed its original sentence. The court held that the sentence manifested a clerical error which the district court should have corrected. The court also held that, in light of the necessary corrections in the sentence, the district court’s refusal to remedy the TOP collection was error. Accordingly, the court remanded for the district court to require the government to return defendant's tax refunds and to cease withholding payments. View "United States v. Hughes" on Justia Law

Defendant, a lawyer and real estate broker, appealed the district court's imposition of criminal forfeiture in the amount of $1,273,285.50, arguing that the district court erred when it declined to consider defendant’s age, health, and financial condition when it issued the forfeiture order. Defendant was convicted of charges related to his participation in a kickback scheme involving the construction of new Dick Sporting Goods stores. The court held that the court reviewing a criminal forfeiture under the Excessive Fines Clause may consider - as part of the proportionality determination required by United States v. Bajakajian - whether the forfeiture would deprive the defendant of his future ability to earn a living. However, the court held that courts should not consider a defendant’s personal circumstances as a distinct factor. In this case, the court concluded that the challenged forfeiture is constitutional because it is not “grossly disproportional” to the gravity of defendant’s offenses. View "United States v. Viloski" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to an offense related to a scheme to defraud the DOE and the district court ordered each defendant involved in the scheme to pay restitution. On appeal, defendant challenged the district court's denial of the Government's proposed application of restitution payments to a codefendant (Otto). The court concluded that a more appropriate mechanism for the court to apply is a hybrid approach to restitution payments where multiple defendants are held liable for injuries caused by a common scheme. In this case, the district court’s concern - that requiring payment from Otto would render both Otto and another codefendant (Reed) responsible for restitution in excess of the loss attributable to their conduct - is misplaced. Payments requested by the defendants encompass overlapping injuries due to each defendant's conduct. The court concluded that any funds received by the defendants should be applied to the total sum owed by all defendants. In doing so, payments from Otto would also reduce the overall sum owed by defendant. Further, the district court's analysis similarly does not align with the Mandatory Victim's Restitution Act's (MVRA), 18 U.S.C. 3663A, rules regarding liability apportionment. Accordingly, the court reversed and remanded. View "United States v. Sheets" on Justia Law

Martin, Kentucky Mayor Thomasine Robinson, sought reelection. Her challenger, Howell, won by three votes. Husband James confronted and threatened to kill Howell; he was convicted in state court of terroristic threatening and menacing. Thomasine was charged with bribery, coercion, and intimidation. Testimony indicated that: Thomasine gave a woman $20 to vote for her and coerced voters to vote for her by absentee ballot; that her son Steven attempted to intimidate a voter; that James paid $10 for a vote; and that James gave an individual money with which to purchase votes. The jury returned a guilty verdict on conspiracy and vote-buying (52 U.S.C. 10307(c)) charges, but the court granted James acquittal on the conspiracy charge. Thomasine was convicted of vote-buying and conspiracy to violate civil rights (18 U.S.C. 241); Steven was found guilty of conspiracy and two counts of vote-buying, but acquitted of a third count. The court assessed a leadership enhancement to James for directing another to purchase votes and an obstruction of justice enhancement for behaving menacingly during a trial recess and sentenced him to an above-guidelines 40 months in prison. Steven was sentenced to 21 months and three years of supervised release, with a condition requiring him to abstain from the consumption of alcohol. Thomasine was sentenced to 33 months. The Sixth Circuit affirmed the convictions and sentences, rejecting challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence. View "United States v. Robinson" on Justia Law