Justia White Collar Crime Opinion Summaries

Defendant appealed his conviction and sentence for crimes related to his involvement in an investment scheme which resulted in nearly $100 million dollars in losses for investors. The court held that defendant's Fifth Amendment rights were not violated where the government limited its case to events occurring while defendant was an owner of A&O to simply prove a more narrow conspiracy than was charged in the superseding indictment. Because the conspiracy proven was within the scope of those alleged in the unredacted indictment, the narrowing at most created a non-fatal variance. Finally, the court rejected defendant's claims that his sentence was procedurally and substantively unreasonable. Accordingly, the court affirmed the convictions and sentence. View "United States v. Allmendinger" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of crimes related to his involvement in an elaborate fraudulent sweepstakes scheme out of Costa Rica that primarily targeted elderly United States citizens. On appeal, defendant challenged the restitution order that the district court entered after the court remanded his case for resentencing. The court held that the district court lacked the authority to reconsider the restitution on remand and vacated the order, remanding with instructions to the district court to reinstate the previous restitution order. View "United States v. Pileggi" on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to Student Aid Fraud, Bank Fraud, and Social Security Fraud. Defendant appealed from the district court's judgment on several grounds. The court held that the district court erred in describing the elements of Student Aid Fraud; however, the error did not affect defendant's substantial rights. The court found no merit in any of the remaining claims raised by defendant on appeal. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Moore" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of one count of attempting to evade or defeat a tax; four counts of willful failure to file a tax return; and one count of attempting to interfere with the administration of internal revenue laws. Defendant appealed. Although the court granted defendant's motion to reconsider the clerk's denial of his motion to extend the time for filing a reply and allowed the brief to be submitted to the court, the court nevertheless concluded that the district court did not err in any respect. Because the court held that there were no merits to any of defendant's substantive points, and because the court held that the statute of limitations accrued from the last evasive act under 26 U.S.C. 6531(2), the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Irby, Jr." on Justia Law

Defendant appealed from two counts of theft of public money and one count of committing acts affecting a personal financial interest. The court held that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss where it properly exercised extraterritorial jurisdiction over him. The court also held that the district court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress his post-arrest statements to FBI and DOS agents. The court further held that there was sufficient evidence to sustain his convictions on the two counts of theft of public money. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Ayesh" on Justia Law

Defendants Michael Powers and John Mahan, who ran an employment agency supplying temporary workers, were convicted after a jury trial of conspiracy to defraud the United States by impeding the functions of the IRS and mail fraud. Powers was also convicted of subscribing false tax returns and Mahan of procuring false tax returns. The tax fraud amounted to $7.5 million. Powers was sentenced to eighty-four months' imprisonment and Mahan to a term of seventy-six months. Defendants' appealed, alleging that the trial court committed errors requiring a new trial. The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed Defendants' convictions and sentences, holding (1) there was no prejudice to Defendants in the trial court's failure to give an defense instruction on advice of counsel; (2) various witnesses were not allowed to testify as to the ultimate issues, and thus the role of the jury was not invaded; (3) defense counsel was afforded a reasonable opportunity to impeach adverse witnesses; and (4) the district court did not plainly err in excluding testimony by Defendants' witnesses. View "United States v. Mahan" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of federal program bribery and extortion under color of official night. The convictions arose from charges that, while a state legislator, defendant secured state funding for a public university in exchange for employment by the university. The court held that the evidence was sufficient for the jury to convict defendant; the district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to instruct the jury as to a gratuity; and the district court did not plainly err in its application of a fourteen-level sentencing enhancement. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Hamilton" on Justia Law

Defendants Jacqueline, Tamatha, and Jimmy Hilton challenged their convictions on charges involving a scheme to defraud the Woodsmiths Company. The charges in this case arose from a two-year scheme in which defendants defrauded the company by stealing and cashing numerous checks written to the company by its customers. At issue was whether the statutes prohibiting identity theft and aggravated identity theft, 18 U.S.C. 1028(a)(7) and 1028A, under which Jimmy and Jacqueline were convicted, encompassed the theft of the identity of a corporation. The court held that these statutes were fairly ambiguous regarding whether corporate victims were within the class of protected victims and vacated the conviction of Jimmy and Jacqueline on these counts. The court concluded that defendants' other arguments were without merit and therefore affirmed Tamatha's convictions, affirmed the remaining convictions of Jacqueline and Jimmy, but vacated the sentences imposed and remand those convictions for resentencing. View "United States v. Hilton, Jr." on Justia Law

Preacely pleaded guilty in 2009 to tax fraud, 26 U.S.C. 7206(2). The district court sentenced him to 18 months’ imprisonment to be followed by three years of supervised release, with a special condition, prohibiting him from participating in his former occupation of tax preparer. When the district court imposed the special condition, counsel asked: “may he own the business if he himself does not prepare any taxes himself?” The court responded, “No … you should not engage in the business of tax preparation directly or indirectly.” After his release from prison, Preacely transferred ownership of his business to his wife, but when an undercover IRS agent asked to speak to the vice-president, he was directed to Preacely. The IRS also executed a search warrant at the business and interviewed a number of employees. The district court revoked Preacely’s supervised release. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the condition was unconstitutionally vague and that Preacely was involved only administratively with the business by doing things such as dropping off food, office supplies, and signing paychecks. View "United States v. Preacely" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of theft of government property arising from the fraud she carried out to obtain subsidized housing benefits in New York City. The district court ordered her to pay $11,274 in restitution to the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) and to forfeit $11,274 to the United States. The court concluded that because the money defendant was ordered to forfeit was "obtained" by her "indirectly" as a result of her offense, was "traceable to" that offense, and constituted the "net gain" from that offense, the forfeiture order was authorized by the plain language of the relevant forfeiture statue, 18 U.S.C. 981. Although defendant did not challenge the order of restitution, the court also concluded that the imposition of both forfeiture and restitution orders was proper in this case because the orders would be paid to different entities, were authorized by different statutes, and served different purposes. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Torres" on Justia Law