Justia White Collar Crime Opinion Summaries

Babaria, a licensed radiologist and medical director and manager of Orange Community MRI, an authorized Medicare and Medicaid provider, pleaded guilty to one count of making illegal payments (kickbacks), 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7b(b)(2)(A). From 2008 through 2011, he paid physicians to refer patients to Orange for diagnostic testing and billed Medicare and Medicaid for testing that was tainted by the corrupt referrals. Orange received $2,014,600.85 in payments that were directly traceable to the kickback scheme. There was no evidence that Babaria falsified patient records, billed Medicare or Medicaid for testing that was not medically necessary, or otherwise compromised patient care. Babaria objected to the PreSentence Investigation Report, which recommended a two-level adjustment for abuse of a position of trust (USSG 3B1.3) and a four-level adjustment for aggravating role (USSG 3B1.1(a)), resulting in a recommended Guidelines range of 70-87 months’ imprisonment. Ultimately, the Guidelines range was 60 months, capped by the statutory maximum for Babaria’s count of conviction. He argued that the correct range was 37 to 46 months. The court applied both adjustments but granted a downward variance and sentenced Babaria to 46 months’ imprisonment, a fine of $25,000, and forfeiture of the $2,014,600.85. The Third Circuit affirmed the sentence. View "United States v. Babaria" on Justia Law

Sykes pleaded guilty to participation in a bank fraud scheme, 18 U.S.C. 1344, and was sentenced to 57 months’ imprisonment. The district court determined that her total offense level was 23 and that her criminal history category was III, resulting in an advisory guidelines range of 57 to 71 months. The court applied two enhancements, holding that Sykes could reasonably have foreseen, and thus was responsible for, the scheme’s entire intended loss amount of $653,417 (14-level enhancement under USSG 2B1.1(b)(1)(H)) and that a two-level enhancement was warranted under USSG 2B1.1(b)(10)(C), because Sykes’s offense involved “sophisticated means.” The court rejected her submission that her family circumstances as sole caregiver to her children justified a below-guidelines sentence. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court was correct in its determination that the evidence supported the 14-level enhancement; did not clearly err in its estimation of the factual record; was correct in its view that the fraudulent scheme involved sophisticated means; and adequately took into account Sykes’s family circumstances in imposing sentence. View "United States v. Sykes" on Justia Law

Stephan Podrygula and Psychological Services, P.C. (collectively "Podrygula") appealed a district court order dismissing their complaint against Angela and William Bray for fraud and negligent infliction of emotional distress. Angela Bray was employed by Podrygula from October 2000 to September 2006. In the complaint, Podrygula alleged Angela Bray fraudulently diverted money from the business, and William Bray was aware of this and assisted in defrauding and concealing those activities. Stephan Podrygula reported his suspicions of Angela Bray's theft to law enforcement. Formal charges were brought against her in August 2007, she was convicted of theft, and was sentenced to prison. In addition, she was ordered to pay $63,197 in restitution which has since been paid in full. The Brays filed a motion to dismiss under N.D.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), arguing Podrygula failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because the suit was untimely, and the complaint's fraud allegations were not pleaded with particularity. Podrygula alleged that since Angela Bray's sentencing in September 2008, it was discovered she had been stealing from as far back as 2003, rather than from 2005. In addition, Podrygula alleged: (1) in early December 2007, information was received from Stephan Podrygula's bank about thefts that had not been included in the forensic accounting report used at the criminal trial; in 2008 Angela Bray had been impersonating Stephan Podrygula to his bank and other businesses; and (3) information was received in January 2008 indicating William Bray had been double and triple reimbursed for handyman work he had performed for them. After a hearing on the motion, the district court determined October 4, 2006 was the discovery date for purposes of the statute of limitations, and the statute of limitations ran six years later. After determining the statute of limitations had run, the district court granted the Brays' motion to dismiss and filed an order of dismissal without prejudice. Upon review, the Supreme Court concluded there was no genuine issue of material fact, and the district court did not err in determining the statute of limitations had run. View "Podrygula v. Bray" on Justia Law

Markert, President of Pinehurst Bank, approved nominee loans to friends and family of bank customer Wintz. The loan proceeds were used to cover Wintz’s $1.9 million overdraft at the Bank. A jury convicted Markert of willful misapplication of bank funds by a bank officer, 18 U.S.C. 656. At sentencing, applying U.S.S.G. 2B1.1(b)(1), the district court found that Markert’s offense caused an actual loss equal to the amount of the loans, resulting in a 16-level enhancement and a guidelines range of 87 to 108 months in prison. The court sentenced Markert to 42 months. The Eighth Circuit remanded for resentencing. After considering arguments, but without an evidentiary hearing, the court reduced its prior finding by $60,000, to reflect repayments prior to detection and re-imposed the same 42-month term. The Eighth Circuit again remanded, holding that the government failed to sustain its burden to prove actual loss. While “the loss here cannot be zero,” the court declined to give the government a third chance to present evidence and ordered that, on remand, actual loss for sentencing purposes is zero, reducing the guidelines range to 12-18 months. Markert has already served more than 18 months; the court directed that he be immediately released. View "United States v. Markert" on Justia Law

During a traffic stop, police saw evidence of possible identity theft in plain view. A vehicle search revealed mail addressed to people unrelated to Earnest or his passenger, 39 debit cards, $4,000 in cash, and documents containing names, birth dates, Social Security numbers, and addresses for 1,000 individuals, plus their online tax return personal information and debit card account numbers. Hundreds of fraudulent tax returns had been filed, seeking $1.8 million in refunds; the IRS paid out $840,000. Many refunds were loaded onto debit cards. Earnest was linked to residences where the returns were filed and was photographed using the unauthorized debit cards. Tax returns were filed from Earl's IP addresses; he also was recorded using thecards. Both were convicted of conspiracy to commit fraud against the government, conspiracy to use unauthorized access devices, use of unauthorized access devices, and aggravated identity theft. Earnest also was convicted of possessing 15 or more unauthorized access devices. Earl was sentenced to 84 months’ imprisonment. Earnest was sentenced to 172 months. Belizaire recruited people to provide addresses , exchanged identification information of victims, filed fraudulent returns, and used the debit cards; he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the government and aggravated identity theft and was sentenced to 129 months’ imprisonment. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed both convictions and all sentences. View "United States v. Baldwin" on Justia Law

ABB designs, produces, and sells exhaust-gas turbochargers and turbocharger parts, primarily for use in large, ocean-going vessels and in power plants. In 2012, ABB filed suit, accusing TurboUSA, Inc., and TurboNed Service B.V. of infringing two of ABB’s turbocharger-related patents. Claiming that the infringement was willful, ABB alleged that its former employee had improperly obtained and transferred to TurboUSA confidential information relating to ABB parts embodying its patented inventions. After filing its original complaint, ABB received information that, it alleges, suggested that Hans Franken, who worked for ABB until 1986 and is TurboNed’s former owner and TurboUSA’s current indirect owner, and his son Willem, who is TurboUSA’s current president, collaborated in the covert misappropriation of ABB’s trade secrets concerning the design, manufacture, servicing, and pricing of ABB’s turbochargers and parts, and added claims of misappropriation of trade secrets under Fla. Stat. 688.001–688.009 and of civil conspiracy to misappropriate trade secrets. Before discovery, the district court dismissed for failure to state a claim. The Federal Circuit reversed, concluding that the court relied on judgments about the merits that go beyond what is authorized at the complaint stage. View "ABB Turbo Sys. AG v. TurboUSA, Inc." on Justia Law

Miner marketed two schemes that promised to avoid taxes. Miner’s first scheme, IRx Solutions, offered to assist clients in requesting alterations to their Individual Master Files (IMFs), which are internal IRS records pertaining to each taxpayer. Miner claimed that the IRS was engaged in widespread fraud by improperly coding individuals as businesses on their IMFs so that tax could be assessed against them. The second scheme, Blue Ridge Group, helped clients create common-law business trusts, into which he claimed that they could place any or all of their assets in order to avoid paying income tax. Affirming his conviction under 26 U.S.C. 7212(a) for corruptly endeavoring to obstruct the “due administration” of federal income tax laws, the Sixth Circuit rejected arguments that the district court reversibly erred in failing to instruct the jury that section 7212(a) required proof that he was aware of a pending IRS proceeding; that his conduct was constitutionally and statutorily protected; and that certain witness testimony was improperly introduced at trial because the witness opined about his state of mind. View "United States v. Miner" on Justia Law

Defendants appealed their convictions for securities fraud in violation of sections 10(b) and 32 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. 78j(b), 78ff; Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Rules 10b-5 and 10b5-2, 17 C.F.R. 240.10b-5, 240.10b5-2, and 18 U.S.C. 2; and conspiracy to commit securities fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 371. The court concluded that, in order to sustain a conviction for insider trading, the Government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the tippee knew that an insider disclosed confidential information and that he did so in exchange for a personal benefit; the court held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain a guilty verdict against defendants because the Government's evidence of any personal benefit received by the alleged insiders was insufficient to establish the tipper liability from which defendants' purported tippee liability would derive, and even assuming that the scant evidence offered was sufficient, the Government presented no evidence that defendant knew that they were trading on information obtained from insiders in violation of those insiders' fiduciary duties; and, therefore, the court reversed and remanded with instructions to dismiss the indictment. View "United States v. Newman" on Justia Law

Rahbari was convicted of passing 26 checks with insufficient funds. He was sentenced, pursuant to Penal Code section 1170(h) to a term in county jail followed by mandatory supervision and was ordered to pay restitution to certain victims. The court of appeal reversed. Rahbari was sentenced to neither state prison nor probation. Victim restitution ordered as part of a sentence to county jail followed by mandatory supervision pursuant to section 1170(h) is an order pursuant to section 1202.4 and its scope is limited to those losses caused by the crime or crimes of which the defendant was convicted. Part of the restitution order covered losses that were not part of the conviction. View "People v. Rahbari" on Justia Law

In 2006, Boyd sent his income and expense information for 2004 to a tax specialist, who prepared a return showing a tax liability of over $27,000. Boyd did not file the return he received from the tax specialist. Instead, Boyd filed his tax returns for 2004, 2005, and 2006 in October 2007, having recently read a book called Cracking the Code, which espoused a theory that federal income tax obligations applied only to individuals who earned income working for the federal government. The three returns declared that in those years he had zero income and zero tax liability. During those three years, Boyd actually had continued the work he had done in prior years and had earned income totaling $795,000. Convicted under 26 U.S.C. 7206(1), Boyd argued that the government had not proven willfulness because it failed to show the absence of a good-faith belief that the he did not have to file returns or pay taxes. The Fifth Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to denial of funding for neuropsychologist testimony, admission of uncharged conduct, the prosecutor’s statements, the judge’s statements, the jury instructions, the response to a jury note, and the sufficiency of the evidence. View "United States v. Boyd" on Justia Law