Justia White Collar Crime Opinion Summaries

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

The Fifth Amendment's prohibition on the use of compelled testimony in American criminal proceedings applies even when a foreign sovereign has compelled the testimony.  When the government makes use of a witness who had substantial exposure to a defendant's compelled testimony, it is required under Kastigar v. United States, 406 U.S. 441 (1972), to prove, at a minimum, that the witness's review of the compelled testimony did not shape, alter, or affect the evidence used by the government.  A bare, generalized denial of taint from a witness who has materially altered his or her testimony after being substantially exposed to a defendant’s compelled testimony is insufficient as a matter of law to sustain the prosecution’s burden of proof. In this case involving the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR), defendants were convicted of wire fraud and conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud. The Second Circuit held that defendants' compelled testimony was "used" against them, and this impermissible use before the petit and grand juries was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.  Accordingly, the court reversed the judgments of conviction and dismissed the indictment. View "United States v. Allen" on Justia Law

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed in part defendant's 84-month sentence for identity theft and conspiracy to commit wire fraud. The court held that the loss amount of $165,500 from 331 debit and credit cards ($500 times 331) was properly attributed to defendant; a social security number qualifies as an "access device" under the definition in 18 U.S.C. 1029(e)(1) and for purposes of the Special Rules in the Sentencing Guidelines; and there was no error in including the loss amount of $500 for each of the "numerous" social security numbers shown on defendant's computer. The court remanded to the district court to address, and make fact findings about, the loss amount. On remand, both sides may submit additional evidence as to what types of personal information were found in the apartment. The evidence supported the district court's finding that defendant did not meet her burden of proving her minor role and the district court did not err when it denied defendant the benefit of an acceptance of responsibility reduction. However, the court remanded for additional factfinding as to the criminal history category points. View "United States v. Wright" on Justia Law

The Second Circuit vacated and remanded defendant's conviction for all counts related to the abuse of his public position by engaging in two quid pro quo schemes in which he performed official acts in exchange for bribes and kickbacks. Defendant, the former Speaker of the New York State Assembly, then laundered the proceeds of his schemes into private investment vehicles. Although the court rejected defendant's sufficiency challenges, the court held that the district court's instructions on honest services fraud and extortion did not comport with McDonnell v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 2355 (2016), and were therefore in error. McDonnell clarified the definition of an "official act" in honest services fraud and extortion charges. The court further held that this error was not harmless because it was not clear beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have reached the same conclusion if properly instructed, as was required by law for the verdict to stand. View "United States v. Silver" on Justia Law

The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's convictions for tax evasion, mail fraud, and wire fraud for conduct relating to the operation of three companies that he owned. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion by limiting defendant's cross-examination of a prosecution witness; the district court did not clearly err in determining that defendant's base offense level was 22 based on a tax loss of greater than $1,000,000; and the district court did not clearly err by applying and two-level adjustment under USSG 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice. Because the government concedes that it did not establish sufficient evidence to support the application of the USSG 2T1.1(b)(1) enhancement for failing to report income exceeding $10,000 from criminal activity, the court vacated the sentence and remanded for resentencing. View "United States v. Montanari" on Justia Law

From 2003-2006, while employed as Director of Application for the American Hospital Association (AHA), Sayyed directed overpriced contracts to companies in exchange for kickbacks. Sayyed eventually pled guilty to mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1341, was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment, and was ordered to pay the AHA $940,450.00 restitution under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act. 18 U.S.C. 3663A. As of November 2015, Sayyed still owed $650,234.25. In post‐conviction proceedings, the government sought to enforce the restitution judgment under 18 U.S.C. 3613, which permits such enforcement “in accordance with the practices and procedures for the enforcement of a civil judgment.” The government served citations to Vanguard and Aetna to discover assets in Sayyed’s retirement accounts, then sought turnover orders alleging that the companies possessed retirement accounts with approximately $327,000 in non‐exempt funds. Sayyed argued that his retirement accounts were exempt “earnings” subject to the 25% garnishment cap of the Consumer Credit Protection Act. The district court granted the government’s motion. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, agreeing that because Sayyed, who was 48‐years‐old at the time, had the right to withdraw the entirety of his accounts at will, the funds were not “earnings.” The CCPA garnishment cap only protects periodic distributions pursuant to a retirement program. View "United States v. Sayyed" on Justia Law

The Illinois Department of Public Health furnishes funds to organizations that provide health services, including the Broadcast Ministers Alliance, Access Wellness and Racial Equity, and Medical Health Association, which, collectively, received more than $11 million from the Department between 2004 and 2010. About $4.5 million of those dollars flowed through the grantees to Advance Health, Social & Educational Associates which was owned and controlled by the Dingles, who spent the diverted funds on personal luxuries, such as yachts and vacation homes. In 2012, Leon was charged with conspiracy to commit mail fraud (18 U.S.C. 371), 13 counts of mail fraud (18 U.S.C. 1341), and two counts of money laundering (18 U.S.C. 1957(a)). The charges against Karin were similar. A jury convicted them on all counts. The district court apparently considered their ages (Leon was 78 and Karin 76 at the time): Leon received a 72‐month sentence based on a range of 78-97 months; Karin received a 36‐month sentence based on a range of 41-51 months. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the jury instructions violated the Fifth Amendment because they allegedly made acquittal only optional upon a finding of reasonable doubt; the court abused its discretion under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 when it permitted the admission of evidence of Leon’s marital infidelity; and the sentences were unreasonable. View "United States v. Dingle" on Justia Law

King obtained personal identifying information for more than 100 people, including the Director of the National Security Agency, then created and attempt to use 185 credit and debit cards. He also prepared and submitted 62 false tax refund claims. Reported actual losses from his crimes totaled only $10,980. King was arrested in June 2014. He was not detained before trial. In November King was arrested again, having resumed his fraudulent activities. King pled guilty to five counts, including aggravated identity theft, 18 U.S.C. 1028A(a)(1), which requires a minimum sentence of 24 months consecutive to any other sentence. The court sentenced King to concurrent terms of 24 and 30 months on three access device fraud counts, 18 U.S.C. 1029(a) and 1029(b)(1) and the fraudulent tax refund count, 18 U.S.C. 287, which was below the applicable guideline range, then added the mandatory consecutive 24 months. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. The district judge did what he was supposed to do: calculate the offense level and criminal history category under the Guidelines, then use his independent judgment under 18 U.S.C. 3553(a) to impose a sentence tailored to the individual offender and his crimes. The court rejected King’s argument that section 3553(a)'s “parsimony principle,” which instructs the court to impose a sentence “sufficient, but not greater than necessary,” to serve the statutory purposes of sentencing, required an adjustment of the guideline calculations themselves. View "United States v. King" on Justia Law

The First Circuit affirmed the sentence imposed on Defendant after Defendant pleaded guilty to criminal charges based on her conduct during the court of a large-scale fraudulent financial scheme, which she led for five years. The district court sentenced Defendant to 135 months’ imprisonment for one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud and to twenty-four months’ imprisonment for one count of aggravated identity theft and ordered that Defendant serve these terms consecutively, for a total term of 159 months’ imprisonment. On appeal, the First Circuit held that Defendant failed to carry her heavy burden that her within-the-range sentence was unreasonable. View "United States v. Castrillon-Sanchez" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of 11 counts related to a corruption scandal involving the City of Bell. The Court of Appeals held that the jury could reasonably have concluded that defendant was criminally negligent by failing to take steps to determine whether the loans at issue were authorized. However, the court reversed the five convictions for misappropriation of public funds because the jury instructions were erroneous in light of People v. Hubbard, (2016) 63 Cal.4th 378. Hubbard was issued after defendant's trial and clarified the scope of Penal Code section 424. Furthermore, the error was not harmless. The court affirmed the conflict of interest conviction based on her involvement in changing Bell's pension plan because amendments to the pension plan effectively modified the terms of defendant's employment with Bell, and constituted the making of a contract within the meaning of Government Code section 1090. The court remanded for further proceedings, including correction of the abstract of judgment to delete references to defendant's current or prior serious or violent felony convictions. View "People v. Spaccia" on Justia Law