Justia White Collar Crime Opinion Summaries

The Fifth Circuit affirmed Defendants Atul and Jiten "Jay" Nandas' convictions for various charges stemming from a conspiracy to fraudulently procure H-1B visas. The court held that the district court did not err by admitting into evidence a letter that Jay wrote, because the letter did not directly allude to Atul; even if it was error to admit the letter, such error was harmless; there was no plain error in the wire fraud charges; the district court did not plainly err by not giving the jury a unanimity instruction; even granting arguendo that it was error to admit evidence of additional visa petitions and medical insurance, such error did not affect defendants' substantial rights; there was no error in applying a two point sentencing enhancement under USSG 2B1.1(b)(10)(B) and (C) for committing a substantial portion of the alleged scheme from outside the United States and for committing an offense involving sophisticated means of concealment; any possible error in the loss calculation was harmless; and defendants' claim that the district court did not consider sentencing disparity bordered on the frivolous. View "United States v. Nanda" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed Defendants Springer and Makohoniuk's convictions for bank fraud. The court held that there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate that defendants intended to cause a financial loss and that their scheme subjected the financial institutions to a risk of loss; the jury instructions did not put defendants at risk of being convicted of bank fraud based on trivial irrelevancies where the "materiality" qualification obviates any fear that the instructions could allow the jury to convict defendants for harmless misrepresentations; the jury had ample evidence to find materiality; the indictment fully and fairly apprised defendants of the charges they must meet at trial; submission of an aiding and abetting instruction was not error; the government did not violate Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) by admitting evidence of the underlying scheme; the jury had sufficient evidence to conclude that the HUD-1s were false; the district court did not err by sua sponte severing Makohoniuk's trial from Springer's; and Makohoniuk knowingly waived his right to testify at trial. View "United States v. Springer" on Justia Law

Most commodities trading takes place with the participants using computers to execute hyper‐fast trading strategies at speeds, and in volumes, that far surpass those common in the past. Coscia commissioned and used a computer program to place small and large orders simultaneously on opposite sides of the commodities market in order to create illusory supply and demand, to induce artificial market movement. He was convicted under the anti‐spoofing provision of the Commodity Exchange Act, 7 U.S.C. 6c(a)(5)(C) and 13(a)(2), and of commodities fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1348(1) and was sentenced to 36 months’ imprisonment. The Act defines “spoofing” as “bidding or offering with the intent to cancel the bid or offer before execution.” The Seventh Circuit affirmed, finding the convictions supported by sufficient evidence. The anti‐spoofing provision provides clear notice and does not allow for arbitrary enforcement; it is not unconstitutionally vague. With respect to the commodities fraud violation, the court upheld a jury instruction on materiality: that the alleged wrongdoing had to be “capable of influencing the decision of the person to whom it is addressed.” The district court properly applied a 14‐point loss enhancement in calculating the sentence, given the nature and complexity of Coscia’s criminal enterprise. View "United States v. Coscia" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Matthew Williams of bank fraud and aggravated identity theft. He appealed, arguing the evidence against him was insufficient. Williams began a mortgage loan application at Pulaski Bank (the “bank”) using his father’s personal and financial information and his status as a Purple Heart veteran. After his father received the application packet in the mail, he called the bank to explain he had not applied for a loan. The bank referred the matter to law enforcement, but continued to work with Williams to process the loan and obtain additional documents to clarify the applicant’s identity. The bank sent Williams a notice of incompleteness because it lacked several required documents, signatures, and a photo identification. In response, Williams provided some of the required documents to the bank, including a fake earnings statement and a letter expressing his intent to proceed with the loan. The bank sent a final notice of incompleteness to Williams. Williams did not respond, and the bank closed his application file. Mr. Williams argues his misrepresentations on the incomplete application could not support a bank fraud conviction because they (1) were not material to the bank’s decision to issue him a loan; and (2) did not impose a risk of loss on the bank. Finding no reversible error in the district court's judgment, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

A jury convicted Matthew Williams of bank fraud and aggravated identity theft. He appealed, arguing the evidence against him was insufficient. Williams began a mortgage loan application at Pulaski Bank (the “bank”) using his father’s personal and financial information and his status as a Purple Heart veteran. After his father received the application packet in the mail, he called the bank to explain he had not applied for a loan. The bank referred the matter to law enforcement, but continued to work with Williams to process the loan and obtain additional documents to clarify the applicant’s identity. The bank sent Williams a notice of incompleteness because it lacked several required documents, signatures, and a photo identification. In response, Williams provided some of the required documents to the bank, including a fake earnings statement and a letter expressing his intent to proceed with the loan. The bank sent a final notice of incompleteness to Williams. Williams did not respond, and the bank closed his application file. Mr. Williams argues his misrepresentations on the incomplete application could not support a bank fraud conviction because they (1) were not material to the bank’s decision to issue him a loan; and (2) did not impose a risk of loss on the bank. Finding no reversible error in the district court's judgment, the Tenth Circuit affirmed. View "United States v. Williams" on Justia Law

Ferriero was chairman of the Bergen County Democratic Organization (BCDO) from 1998 until he resigned in 2009. Ferriero took payments from a vendor (C3) that provided emergency notification systems for local governments in exchange for recommending to officials that their towns hire the firm. Ferriero’s corporation executed a contract, described as an “agreement . . . to provide governmental relations consulting services required in connection with marketing of a product known as C3 and any other related products or services.” The municipalities that bought the product were unaware that Ferriero stood to benefit financially. The Third Circuit affirmed Ferriero’s convictions, a forfeiture order, and sentence based on violations of the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. 1952, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. 1962(c), and the federal wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. 1343. The evidence was sufficient to prove New Jersey bribery as a predicate act for his Travel Act and RICO convictions. There was sufficient evidence for a rational juror to conclude Ferriero participated in the conduct of the BCDO’s affairs by means of a pattern of bribery and to conclude that failure to disclose Ferriero’s C3 interest amounted to a materially false or fraudulent misrepresentation. View "United States v. Ferriero" on Justia Law

Ferriero was chairman of the Bergen County Democratic Organization (BCDO) from 1998 until he resigned in 2009. Ferriero took payments from a vendor (C3) that provided emergency notification systems for local governments in exchange for recommending to officials that their towns hire the firm. Ferriero’s corporation executed a contract, described as an “agreement . . . to provide governmental relations consulting services required in connection with marketing of a product known as C3 and any other related products or services.” The municipalities that bought the product were unaware that Ferriero stood to benefit financially. The Third Circuit affirmed Ferriero’s convictions, a forfeiture order, and sentence based on violations of the Travel Act, 18 U.S.C. 1952, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. 1962(c), and the federal wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. 1343. The evidence was sufficient to prove New Jersey bribery as a predicate act for his Travel Act and RICO convictions. There was sufficient evidence for a rational juror to conclude Ferriero participated in the conduct of the BCDO’s affairs by means of a pattern of bribery and to conclude that failure to disclose Ferriero’s C3 interest amounted to a materially false or fraudulent misrepresentation. View "United States v. Ferriero" on Justia Law

The Fourth Circuit affirmed the district court's restitution calculation, determination of loss for purposes of sentencing, and denial of defendant's motion for recusal. In this case, defendant was convicted of orchestrating a scheme to defraud mortgage companies. The court held that the evidence supported the district court's restitution calculation; the district court did not abuse its discretion in determining the loss amount where it used the correct loss figure in sentencing defendant under the advisory Guidelines; and the district court did not abuse its discretion in its determination not to recuse where the district court's ownership of stock in some of the victim lenders did not require recusal. View "United States v. Stone" on Justia Law

Coexist was formed by Hubman, an admitted con man, after a court found that his previous enterprise, Hubman Foundation was not a charity but a sham designed to insulate Hubman from his debts and obligations. Hubman was introduced to Fehrenbacher, the president of a wholesale banking institution that packaged and sold mortgage notes to investment banks, and of a retail loan broker. In 2009, Fehrenbacher offered Hubman a deal via email that promised returns of 25-30% per week and that any invested funds would not be at risk and would be held in escrow. Coexist ultimately wired $2 million from Coexist, plus $2.8 million of Hubman's money to Assured Capital, following Fehrenbacher’s instructions. It was a Ponzi scheme. Hubman complained to the FBI and filed a civil suit. Assured ultimately paid him $4.3 million. Fehrenbacher then returned $1,494,250 to Coexist. The $2 million that Coexist “invested” was actually the money of Stewart, a retired professional baseball player. The Stewarts obtained a judgment for $2 million against Hubman and Coexist. Hubman did not pay. Coexist filed suit against Fehrenbacher and his companies. The Seventh Circuit affirmed a finding that the defendants violated a Florida law prohibiting the sale of unregistered securities and an order of rescission. View "Coexist Foundation, Inc. v. Fehrenbacher" on Justia Law

Defendant and her son appealed from their convictions for conspiracy to commit tax fraud and related offenses. The DC Circuit held that the prosecutor's blatant misstatements of key evidence during closing arguments, in the absence of any steps to mitigate the resulting prejudice, required reversal of the son's convictions; because the evidence against the son was insufficient, he was not subject to retrial; defendant was not prejudice from the closing arguments; and defendant's evidentiary challenges were unpersuasive. The court affirmed defendant's convictions but remanded her case for resentencing and for reconsideration of her claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. View "United States v. Davis" on Justia Law