Federal Criminal Defense Blog : Georgia Federal Criminal Defense Lawyer & Attorney : Gillen Withers & Lake Law Firm : White Collar Crime, RICO, Trial : Atlanta, Savannah, GA

The Boston Globe reports this morning that Newton, Mass., attorney Lawrence M. Perlmutter has been charged with conspiring to launder drug proceeds and failing to file IRS forms related to monetary transactions. According to the Globe, Perlmutter made cash deposits into his law firm's trust account, which he then converted into cashier’s checks to bail out defendant’s with pending drug cases.

According to the agent’s affidavit filed in the case, a co-defendant, Secundino Cespedes acquired funds from drug dealers, and it was those funds that were, allegedly, laundered through Perlmutter’s trust account.

Perlmutter was arrested by federal agents outside of a Bank of America branch in Roxbury, Mass., after allegedly converting $100,000 into a cashier’s check. Apparently, according to the Globe, Cespedes’ business partner, Rafael Benzan, provided the $100,000 to Perlmutter in a sting operation.

Perlmutter is scheduled to make his first appearance in federal court today.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The culture of corruption of some foreign nations may heavily influence to U.S. companies doing business abroad to play along in order to be competitive. Regardless of the competitive disadvantages, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) stands as a serious deterrent to engaging in bribery or kickbacks in business transactions abroad. The force of the FCPA was demonstrated once again on Thursday, when two former executives of Willbros International, a subsidiary of Willbros Group, an engineering-construction firm headquartered in Houston, were sentenced in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas for participating in a $6 million bribe of Nigerian officials to secure a contract for a major natural gas pipeline. As reported by the Houston Chronicle, Jason Edward Steph and Jim Bob Brown had pled guilty to violating the FCPA. U.S. District Judge Sim Lake sentenced Steph to 15 months imprisonment and Brown to a year and a day. Willbros Group has also agreed to pay $32.3 million under a deferred adjudication settlement.

The bribe was made in relation to a $387 million natural gas pipeline project in the Niger Delta known as the Eastern Gas Gathering System. Steph and Brown gave bribes to Nigerian officials to ensure that Willbros was awarded the contract, at one point keeping $1 million in a suitcase.

The prosecution requested consideration for Steph and Brown based on their cooperation with and assistance to the government. Steph told the court that he was doing what his superiors had told him to do.

Brown's attorney pointed out at the sentencing hearing that Brown had been threatened, kidnapped, beaten and shot at while in Nigeria. The court noted the corrupt conditions in Nigeria, observing that one of the Nigerian officials bribed is currently running for office. However, the court stated that it wanted to send a message to the business community in sentencing Steph and Brown.

Another former executive, Kenneth Tillery, remains a fugitive in the case.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

The Fulton County Daily Report's "The Snark" has illustrated, in a tounge-in-cheek manner, what has indisputably been the biggest change in the practice of law--including criminal law--over the decade just passed--technology. We have noted on this blog before that the technology boom of the last ten and more years has also presented inventive new avenues for crime and has created unusual challenges to the impartiality and sanctity of jury trials.

To be sure, e-mail had become widespread in the legal community by the late 1990s. However, as the comment notes, during the 2000s attorneys truly came into the full realization of the potential for e-mail as a more reliable and permanent way to document interactions between parties. The other edge of the sword is, of course, e-mail's evidentiary potential which can come back to haunt clients in various unpleasant ways. Few indeed are the defense attorneys who have not had at least one case where a client's computer was seized and imaged by the government, only to have e-mails alleged to be incriminating returned as highlights in government reciprocal discovery. While the positive side of e-mail is that it has made communication easy and easily preserved, the negative side of e-mail is... that it has made communication easy and easily preserved. E-mail is forever, and savvy 21st century lawyers would do well to counsel clients to be mindful not only of what they say, but of what they type and (increasingly in the decade ahead) of what they "text."

The comment also notes the changes in practice wrought by two other trends which began in the 90s: the continued spread of computer-assisted legal research and the growth of electronic filing. The need to page through compendious reporter volumes and indexes, or to spend hours at the local law library, has become an increasing rarity. Likewise, attorneys are increasingly relieved of the pressure to race to the courthouse before the clerk's office closes in order to file with the adoption of electronic case filing by more and more courts. The Blog notes that Case Management/Electronic Case Filing "CM/ECF," "PACER", a veritable blessing to both Federal courts and attorneys practicing in them, was first implemented by the Northern District of Ohio in 1996, and today is used by all Federal courts, a development which has heroically saved numerous acres of trees, millions in postage and reliance on the vagaries of the mails for reciept of notice of filings.

We close, fittingly, with a reminder of the challenges that the growth of technology will continue to pose for law and criminal enforcement. Ashby Jones at the Wall Street Journal Law Blog reports that the Los Angeles firm of Gibson Hoffman & Pancione has alleged that a cyber-attack originating in the People's Republic of China. The firm has alleged that its software code has been stolen by malicious e-mails which appeared to be sent by other members of the firm, and which contained a "Trojan" code enabling the takeover of the firm's computers. The firm coincidentally represents the California-based company CYBERsitter in a $2.2 billion lawsuit against China, alleging that filtering programs used by China contain over 3,000 lines of code illegally taken from content filtering software produced by CYBERsitter. The FBI is investigating the attack.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As reported by Law.com, Bruce Karatz, Chief Executive Officers of KB Home, a home construction corporation based in Los Angeles, California, was indicted in the action of U.S. v. Nicholas, 2:09-cr-00203-ODW (C.D.Ca. 2009), on 20 counts of fraud for defrauding the company and its shareholders of millions of dollars in undisclosed backdated stock option over a period of seven years, and concealing the fraud from KB Home's  directors, compensation committee and shareholders. Karatz's trial in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California is scheduled to begin on February 23.

Karatz's attorneys have requested a hearing regarding whether prosecutorial misconduct has tainted the government's case against Karatz. Karatz contends that two witnesses for the government--James Johnson, former Chairman of the Board of Directors' Compensation Committee for KB Home, and Gary Ray, former Vice President of Human Resources--initially believed that the stock options grant practice was lawful, but changed their position following contacts with the prosecution. Karatz's lawyers want to examine Johnson regarding why he denied allegedly defending KB Home's option granting process during an internal investigation by the company's outside counsel in his statements to prosecutors. 

The defense also wants to question Ray, who has pled guilty to obstruction of justice and is cooperating with the government, regarding why he had allegedly previously maintained that the process was "lawful and proper." Following is a link to

Karatz's Motion for Evidentiary Hearing Regarding Testimony of Crucial Witnesses

.

Karatz's motion is based on an order in December by U.S. District Judge Cormac Carney in the action of U.S. v. Nicholas, SACR 08-00139 CJC (C.D.Ca. 2008), another backdating case, in which the Court dismissed the government's indictment against co-founder of Broadcom Corp., Henry Nicholas, and former Broadcom Chief Financial Officer William Ruehle, blasting the prosecution for "distorting the truth-finding process" by intimidating and improperly influencing key witnesses. Karatz also relies on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' overturning last August of the conviction of former Chief Executive Officer for Brocade Communication Systems, Inc., Gregory Reyes, for backdating based on false statements by the prosecution in closing arguments that Brocade's finance department didn't know about backdating. A hearing on Karatz's motion has been scheduled for February 8.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks

As reported by Law.com, New York-based Comverse Technology, Inc., the worlds largest manufacturer of voice mail software, has entered into a $225 million settlement in a class action brought against it stemming from a backdating scandal. William Sorin, Comverse's former general counsel, and Comverse's former CEO, Jacob "Kobi" Alexander, were charged by the SEC and Federal prosecutors in 2006 with fraudulenty changing the grant dates of stock option awards from 1998 to 2000. In all, Sorin realized $14 million in profits from stock options, approximately $1 million of which was due to backdating. Sorin pled guilty in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York to conspiracy to commit securities fraud, mail fraud and wire fraud in 2006, and has already served his sentence of a year and a day in prison. Alexander an Israeli citizen, fled to Namibia to avoid prosecution.

Plaintiffs brought a derivative actions against Comverse in New York Federal and State courts based on the backdating. Alexander has agreed to pay $60 million and Sorin has agreed to pay $1 million to fund the settlement. In exchange, Comverse will drop its lawsuit against the former executives, who will also drop their counterclaims against the company.  The company earlier settled claims relating to the improper backdating and other accounting problems with federal regulators.

Sorin had previously entered into a settlement with the SEC, agreeing to pay $3 million in fines. However, his attorneys have asked the Court to vacate the SEC settlement and judgment, claiming that Federal prosecutors violated promises they made as part of his plea deal. Sorin claims that prosectors agreed not to object to his request to avoid jail time when he agreed to plead guilty to criminal charges and pay the SEC $3 million to settle civil charges, however he alleges that the government reneged on its promise and opposed his request at sentencing.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 

 

As set forth in the official DOJ Blog yesterday, Deputy Attorney General David W. Ogden issued three Memorandum to DOJ prosecutors no doubt intended to remedy some of the setbacks the Department suffered last year as a result of discovery violations. The subject of one of the Memos is “Guidance for Prosecutors Regarding Criminal Discovery.” The second Memo reference is “Issuance of Guidance and Summary of Actions Taken in Response to the Report of the Department of Justice Criminal Discovery and Case Management Working Group.” Finally, a separate Memo is address to all DOJ litigating components and all U.S. Attorneys.

Taking the "Memo to the U.S. Attorneys and DOJ Components" first, Odgen summarizes that he had convened a working group to address DOJ policies and practices regarding criminal discovery issues. Odgen references that he is sending to all DOJ trial attorneys and AUSAs a memo containing Guidance For Prosecutors Regarding Criminal Discovery that prosecutors should follow to ensure that discovery obligations are met in all future cases. Interestingly, Odgen directs that each U.S. Attorney’s Office develop a discovery policy consistent with the law and local rules and practices. That policy must be in place by March 31, 2010.

The “Guidance For Prosecutors Regarding Criminal Discovery” Memo sets out detailed steps prosecutors are to follow regarding discovery. The six page Memo first advises that the prosecutors must determine who is a member of the “Prosecution Team” for the purpose of determining what documents must be reviewed for disclosure.

The Guidance Memo then directs that the discovery review should cover the following: 1) the investigative agency’s files, 2) Confidential Informant/Witness/Source files, 3) Evidence and Information Gathered During the Investigation, 4) Documents or Evidence Gathered by Civil Attorneys and/or Regulatory Agencies in Parallel Civil Investigations, 5) Substantive Case Related Communications, 6) Potential Giglio Information Relating to Law Enforcement Witnesses, 7) Potential Giglio Information Relating to Non-Law Enforcement Witnesses and Fed.R.Evid. 806 Declarants, 8) Information Obtained in Witness Interviews, a) Witness Statement Variations and the Duty to Disclose, b) Trial Preparation Meetings With Witnesses and c) Agent Notes.

The Guidance Memo then directs that although prosecutors may delegate the process of review to others, they “should not delegate the disclosure determination itself.”

The Guidance Memo reminds prosecutors that discovery within DOJ is covered by the U.S. Attorney’s Manual Section 9-5.001, which is broader than what the law requires and that if a prosecutor chooses to follow that broader course, “defense counsel should be reminded that the prosecutor is electing to produce discovery beyond what is required . . .” The Memo then addresses the scope, timing and form of discovery disclosures, but cautions that, “[p]rosecutors should never describe the discovery being provided as ‘open file.’”

Finally, the Guidance Memo counsels that the prosecutor should make a good record regarding the disclosures.

The “Issuance of Guidance and Summary of Actions Taken in Response to the Report of the Department of Justice Criminal Discovery and Case Management Working Group” Memo reminds prosecutors of the words of Justice Sutherland that it is the prosecutor’s duty is “that justice shall be done.” Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935). This Memo informs prosecutors of the establishment of the Guidance Memo set out above and that each U.S. Attorney’s Office shall have a “discovery coordinator.” In addition, DOJ has:
 

• Created an online directory of resources pertaining to discovery issues that will be available to all prosecutors at their desktop;
• Produced a Handbook on Discovery and Case Management similar to the Grand Jury Manual so that prosecutors will have a one-stop resource that addresses various topics relating to discovery obligations;
• Implemented a training curriculum and a mandatory training program for paralegals and law enforcement agents;
• Revitalized the Computer Forensics Working Group to address the problem of properly cataloguing electronically stored information recovered as part of federal investigations;
• Created a pilot case management project to fully explore the available case management software and possible new practices to better catalogue law enforcement investigative files and to ensure that all the information is transmitted in the most useful way to federal prosecutors.
 

No doubt much will be written in coming days and weeks regarding these Memoranda and what I’ve set out here is strictly an overview. Every criminal practitioner in federal court should read, study and be familiar with these Memoranda.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Leading the Georgia news today is the nomination of Assistant United States Attorney Sally Quillian Yates by President Barack Obama to be the United States Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia. The President announced Mrs. Yates' nomination in a Christmas Eve press release.

Mrs. Yates has served as the interim head of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia since August, when the former U.S. Attorney, David E. Nahmias, stepped down to become Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court. She has had a distinguished career as a federal prosecutor since joining the U.S. Attorney's Office in 1989. Mrs. Yates became the Chief of the U.S. Attorney's Office's fraud and public corruption unit in 1994, and became a top aide to the U.S. Attorney in 2002. Prior to joining the U.S. Attorney's Office, Mrs. Yates, a double graduate of the University of Georgia, was in private practice with King & Spalding. Notably, Mrs. Yates successfully prosecuted former Atlanta Mayor Bill Campbell and former Georgia State Schools Superintendant Linda Schrenko for corruption, and was an integral part of the investigation into the 1996 Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta. Mrs. Yates is married to J. Comer Yates, an attorney and Executive Director for the Atlanta Speech School, which has served children with speech, hearing, language or learning disabilities since 1938.

Mrs. Yates' nomination has been widely praised, including by the criminal defense bar. The nomination must be approved by the United States Senate. If confirmed, Mrs. Yates will be the first female U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia. Georgia was one of the 13 original federal districts created by the Judiciary Act of 1789, and was subdivided into the Northern and Southern Districts in 1848, and further subdivided again to include the Middle District in 1926. The Act provided that "there shall be appointed in each district a meet person learned in the law to act as attorney for the United States in such district, who shall be sworn or affirmed to the faithful execution of his office, whose duty it shall be to prosecute in such district all delinquents for crimes and offences, cognizable under the authority of the United States, and all civil actions in which the United States shall be concerned, except before the supreme court in the district in which that court shall be holden." Judiciary Act of 1789, Sec. 35. There are currently 93 U.S. Attorneys in a corresponding number of districts across the nation. The Federal Criminal Defense Blog congratulates Mrs. Yates on her nomination and expected confirmation.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Georgia leads the nation in bank failures this decade, with 32 failed banks since 2002, 25 of those in 2009 alone, according to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Fraud has undoubtedly played a substantial role in the failure of many of these banks, and the FDIC and other agencies are especially vigilant in detecting and prosecuting fraud in the wake of bank failures.

Brent Merriel of Atlanta, Georgia, was indicted last week in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on four counts of aggravated identity theft and two counts of making false statements to the FDIC as announced by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia. Merriel is alleged to have obtained several million worth of loans on properties in his name and the names of family and friends from Omni National Bank (Omni). Omni failed on March 27, 2009, and was taken over by the FDIC. Merriel then asked the FDIC to forgive $2.2 million in loans and to allow him to make a "short sale" of two properties to purchasers. A short sale is a sale of a property for less than the full amount due or owed, which serves to reduce a lender's losses or assist the property owner. However, in Merriel's case, the alleged purchasers were allegedly persons whose identities had been stolen. Merriel is also alleged to have forged sales contracts and loan commitment letters which he submitted to the FDIC.

The release notes that other individuals have been prosecuted relating to Omni, including Mark Anthony McBride, who fraudulently obtained millions in mortgage loans from Omni and other lenders and who pled guilty last April, and Delroy Oliver Davy, who similarly obtained millions in fraudulent loans from Omni and others. It quotes FDIC Office of Inspector General, Southeast Region Special Agent In Charge C. Ed Slagle as stating that FDIC will aggressively investigate and prosecute fraudulent acts uncovered in the FDIC's process of liquidating assets of failed banks in order maximize recoveries. The release also quotes Special Inspector General for the Troubled Asset Relief Program (SIGTARP) Neil Barofski, Department of Housing and Urban Development Inspector General Kenneth M. Donohue and U.S. Postal Inspector in Charge, Atlanta Division Martin D. Phanco on fraud and enforcement.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The fallout from Fort Lauderdale attorney Scott Rothstein's alleged fraudulent scheme to bilk investors out of hundreds of millions continues to fall.

Florida Governor Charlie Crist has told the media that he will return campaign contributions received from Rothstein and employees of his law firm, a total of $76,250. The announcement by Crist follows a pledge by Florida Republican Senate President Jeff Atwater to return donations by Rothstein. On the same day, Florida Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink, a Democrat, announced that she would return at least $7,025 in contributions from Rothstein and members of his firm. Crist is running for U.S. Senate, Sink is running for Governor and Atwater is running for Chief Financial Officer. Rothstein is alleged to have made contributions to numerous politicians using ill-gotten gains, and to have illegally reimbursed members of his firm for making contributions. Rothstein and his wife, Kimberly, also held fundraisers for Senator McCain and Governor Crist in one of their waterfront homes.

The campaign contributions have also created potential criminal exposure for lawyers at Rothstein's firm Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler. Approximately 30 lawyers in the firm, along with 15 employees, spouses and relatives, made approximately $2.2 million in Federal and State campaign contributions, with the largest recipient being the 2008 Presidential campaign of Arizona Senator John McCain. One attorney, Steven Lippman, and his wife contributed approximately $247,000 to Governor Crist,  Senator McCain and other politicians over a span of four years. Federal investigators are looking into the contributions. Several partners in the firm have retained counsel in response to the investigation. Experts have stated that the attorneys should have been aware that they were violating campaign finance laws when Rothstein required the attorneys to make campaign donations as a condition to receiving bonuses.

The fallout has extended further to Fort Lauderdale Police Chief Frank Adderly. Two Fort Lauderdale City Commissioners have asked the Florida Department of Law Enforcement to investigate Adderly regarding his relationship with Rothstein. Rothstein is alleged to have flown Adderly to New York in December 2008 for a football game, and Adderly personally intervened in an automobile collision involving a friend of Rothstein.

Fisher Auction will auction property of Rothstein's law firm on January 23, at the direction of the firm's trustee, including fountain pens used by Rothstein and the massage chair in the firm's lounge. Rothstein's attorney has opposed the auctioning of photographs of Rothstein withvarious politicians.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Brad Heath points out a disturbing trend in today's USA Today--federal prosecutions of serious corporate, financial and other white-collar crimes have fallen to new lows. In this age of Enron, Madoff and massive failures of financial institutions, this is a serious breach of the public trust. The article contains a chart which shows that, in fiscal year 2009, the Department of Justice opened only 63 new corporate fraud prosecutions. That is barely one case per year per district and represents a 55% decrease since 2003. Securities fraud charges have decreased 17% and bankruptcy fraud cases have decreased 44% over the same period. The article cites Professor Ellen Podgor of Stetson University College of Law and creator of White Collar Crime Prof Blog who attributes the decline was the result of the Bush administration's push of federal prosecutors and the FBI to focus on terrorism and national security.

However, relief appears to be on the way. The article states that lawmakers have put new pressure on DOJ officials, who have launched thousands of new criminal probes into financial crimes. Congress has approved extra money to target financial crime, and Attorney General Eric Holder announced a new task force to target financial fraud last month. As if to herald a change of direction, prosecutors in New York also announced indictments yesterday against Raj Rajaratnam, founder of Galleon, claiming that the case is the largest hedge fund insider trading case ever. The article also states that the FBI currently has more than 2,800 open mortgage fraud cases..

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As reported by Law.com, yesterday, U.S. District Judge James I. Cohn of the Southern District of Florida issued an order requested by the government to preserve all assets of accused Ponzi schemer Scott Rothstein for forfeiture. Rothstein is alleged to have defrauded investors of an $1.6 billion--according to the most recent estimates--by soliciting investments in alleged settlement agreements in civil and employment cases. He voluntarily surrendered assets to authorities last month, without conceding any wrongdoing.

Rothstein's former law firm, Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler, is currently going through dissolution in Chapter 11 bankruptcy in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of Florida. The District Court's order shifts jurisdiction for marshalling the assets from the Bankruptcy Court to the District Court. The Court will consider any claims by third-parties in ancillary proceedings to the criminal case against Rothstein.

The bankruptcy trustee had sought to bring Rothstein and his companies into the law firm's bankruptcy proceeding, claiming that they were "alter-egos" of the firm. The District Court's intervention will impede the trustee's pursuit of any claims against the assets, according to Rothstein's bankruptcy counsel.

The District Court has set trial on the money laundering, fraud and racketeering charges against Rothstein for January 11. Rothstein is currently being held in federal custody.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Although it may be considered small change when compared with the fraud of fellow Floridian Scott Rothstein, according to an FBI press release, Gary Ernest Williams, former Chief Financial Officer for Marian Gardens Tree Farm (MGTF) in Groveland, Florida, was sentenced to eight years imprisonment on Monday in the U.S. District Corut for the Middle District of Florida. Williams was charged with embezzling approximately 10.5 million from MGTF since 2000 through falsified checks, use of a credit card in the company's name and making large cash withdrawals which he told bank officials were to be used to pay “employee bonuses.” Willams spent the money on lavish homes, luxury cars, jewelry, drugs, and vacations by private jet. He also failed to failed to pay federal income taxes in the amount of $3,675,000 on the illegally obtained funds.

Williams entered a guilty plea in July. The District Court ordered Williams to pay more than 14 million in restitution to MGFT and to forfeit homes in North Carolina, Pennsylvania and the Bahamas.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 

In response to allegations uncomfortably similar to those against former New York celebrity lawyer and arch Ponzi-schemer Marc Dreier, Fort Lauderdale attorney Scott Rothstein, head of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler, P.A., appeared in response to a criminal information in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida on Tuesday. The information charges Rothstein with one count of Racketeering Conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d); one count of Money Laundering Conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h); one count of Mail and Wire Fraud Conspiracy, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349; and two counts of Wire Fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343, as well as criminal forfeiture, U.S. v. Rothstein, 0:09-cr-60331-JIC.

According to the criminal information, available here, from about 2005 through November 2009, Rothstein, and other “known and unknown” unnamed co-conspirators, allegedly unlawfully obtained approximately $1.2 billion from investors through a Ponzi scheme (outdoing even Dreier’s scheme). The Government alleges that Rothstein used false statements, documents and computer records to induce investors to loan money to alleged borrowers based upon fraudulent and fictitious promissory notes and bridge loans. Rothstein allegedly falsely informed investors that his law firm, Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler, P.A.’s, clients requested short-term financing for undisclosed business deals and that the clients were willing to pay high rates of return for loans negotiated by Rothstein.

Rothstein also allegedly told investors that they could purchase at a discount confidential settlement agreements in sexual harassment and whistleblower cases in amounts ranging from hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions of dollars. Rothstein allegedly falsely represented that the settlement agreements would be repaid to the investors at face value over time. Rothstein allegedly represented to investors that the settlements were highly confidential in order to protect the reputations of the companies and executives involved; that the plaintiffs preferred to settle the claims rather than purse them in a public forum; that Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler, P.A., would disburse the investors’ funds to the plaintiffs; that the firm would make payments to the investors pursuant to the payment schedules in the alleged settlement agreements; that the funds were maintained in designated trust accounts for the investors in accordance with the rules and regulations of the Florida Bar and were verified by independent sources, as well as numerous other alleged false statements regarding the settlement agreements, investment funds and the firm.

To effect the fraud, Rothstein allegedly established numerous trust accounts in Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler, P.A.’s name; falsified statements from financial institutions and manufactured online banking information allegedly showing investors’ monies; created false and fictitious settlement agreements and other documents. Among the alleged false and fictitious documents was a court order in a case, purportedly signed by a Federal District Judge, which falsely alleged that Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler, P.A.’s clients had prevailed in a lawsuit and were owed $23 million, when in fact the firm had settled the case without the clients’ knowledge and had obligated them to pay $500,000 to the defendant.

The information also alleges that Rothstein allegedly falsely told clients that, in order to recover funds, they had to post bonds to be held in Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler, P.A.’s trust account. Over several years, clients wired approximately $57 million to a trust account controlled by Rothstein. Rothstein allegedly created another false Federal court order to conceal the scheme, providing that the funds were to be returned to the clients by a later date.

Rothstein used the funds acquired through the alleged scheme to fund the operations of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler, P.A., and to expand the firm. The firm grew to employ approximately 70 attorneys. Rothstein is alleged to have laundered the funds from the scheme through corporations, contributions and large bonuses and gifts to employees. The information alleges that Rothstein used the funds to make contributions to Federal, State and local political candidates in a manner designed to conceal the source of the funds and to circumvent Federal and State limits on campaign contributions; for charitable donations; to purchase controlling interests in restaurants in South Florida; and to hire members of local law enforcement to provide security for Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler, P.A., and for Rothstein personally.

The enormous wealth amassed by Rothstein through the alleged scheme is apparent in the Governement’s forfeiture allegations, which seek forfeiture not only of a sum of $1.2 billion, but also of 24 properties in Fort Lauderdale, Lauderdale by the Sea, Boca Raton, Hollywood and Plantation, Florida; New York City and Narragansett, Rhode Island, including Rothstein’s 10% ownership in the Miami Beach mansion of late fashion mogul Gianni Versace, “Casa Casuarina.” Forfeiture is also sought of numerous business interests, bank accounts and jewelry, as well as 24 vessels and vehicles purchased by Rothstein, including a 55 foot yacht.

The Government also lists millions in political and charitable contributions by Rothstein which it seeks forfeiture of, including contributions to the Republican Party of Florida; Florida Governor Charlie Crist; Democratic Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink, who is running for governor; and two hospitals.

As reported in the Miami Herald here, and here, Rothstein started Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler, P.A., in 2002 as an obscure attorney practicing employment law. Over the next six years, his net worth grew from about $160,000 to tens of millions. Rothstein used flashy wealth and connections in the Broward County social and business communities to lure wealthy persons to invest in his schemes. He befriended the rich and famous, including NFL Hall of Famer Dan Marino

George G. Levin, a wealthy Fort Lauderdale resident and hedge fund manager, gave $656 million to Rothstein to invest in settlements purportedly worth $1.1 billion. Levin helped Rothstein market investments in employment and sexual harassment lawsuits to investors, although he is not alleged to have been complicit in Rothstein’s crimes. Another of Rothstein’s clients, car-dealership mogul Ed Morse, claims that Rothstein defrauded him of $57 million, arising from the settlement of a contract dispute with an interior decorator.

Rothstein would allegedly give large bonuses to employees of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler, P.A. on the condition that they make campaign contributions to political candidates who Rothstein would specify. The Government has stated that the recipients of the political contributions have returned the contributions. The Florida Democratic Party has returned $200,000 and the Florida Republican Party has given back $150,000. After Crist won the Governor’s race in 2006, he appointed Rothstein to a panel which nominates Broward County judicial candidates. The Florida Democratic Party has called for an investigation of Crist. Rothstein also allegedly paid gratuities to local law enforcement officers to avoid scrutiny.

Rothstein’s scheme began to unravel over Halloween weekend, when investors began calling the firm for overdue payments and discovered the fraud. Rothstein fled to Morocco in October, taking $400,000 to $500,000 in cash with him and wiring $16 million to Casablanca. Rothstein reportedly sent e-mails to members of his firm that he was contemplating suicide, but he returned to the U.S. on a private jet in early November. He met with Federal authorities and provided details regarding his Ponzi scheme. FBI and IRS agents raided Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler, P.A.’s law offices, and seized Rothstein’s real and personal property. Rothstein agreed to waive indictment, an indication that he is cooperating with the Government, although Rothstein’s counsel has denied that he has any deal with the Government.

The Government’s information does not name Rothstein’s alleged co-conspirators, however news reports suggest members of Rothstein's inner circle at the law firm, and officers at Toronto Dominion Bank, where the investor trust accounts were held.

Rothstein’s alleged Ponzi scheme has been called the largest in the history of South Florida by Federal officials. The Florida Bar has disbarred Rothstein for stealing from the firm’s trust account. Rothstein, Levin and TD Bank are also being sued by a group of investors for more than $100 million.

Rothstein appeared in court on Tuesday in casual attire with a confident demeanor and pled not guilty to the information. U.S. Magistrate Judge Robin Rosenbaum ordered Rothstein jailed pending trial based on Rothstein’s flight to Morocco. Rothstein is represented by attorney Marc Nurik, oddly of Rothstein, Rosenfeldt and Adler, P.A. He faces up to 100 imprisonment if convicted.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

 

Last Wednesday, the Government, through Deputy Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Blanco, filed a brief Motion to Dismiss Third Superseding Indictment with Prejudice seeking to dismiss its indictment against Miami, Florida, attorney Benedict P. Kuehne, and also Colombian attorney Oscar Saldarriaga Ochoa, in the criminal action of U.S. v. Velez, 1:05-cr-20770-MGC, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The Government’s motion stated that it was based upon the “totality of the circumstances,” including the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ affirmance of the District Court’s dismissal of the Government’s charge of conspiracy to launder money against Mr. Kuehne. The Government stated that it believe that dismissal was in the interest of justice. On the same day, U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke entered an order dismissing the Third Superseding Indictment.

The dismissal marked the end of a long ordeal for Kuehne, who was indicted over two years ago for alleged money laundering conspiracy, money laundering concealment conspiracy, concealment money laundering and wire fraud conspiracy. According to the Government’s indictment, Fabio Ochoa Vasquez was one of the leaders of the Medellin Cartel, one of the largest cocaine trafficking and money laundering organizations in the world. In 2001, Ochoa was extradited from Colombia to the U.S. to face charges of conspiring to smuggle approximately 30 tons of powder cocaine into the U.S. per month between 1997 and 1999. Ochoa hired distinguished attorney Roy Black, of the Miami law firm of Black, Srebnick, Kornspan & Stumpf, P.A., and other attorneys to represent him, and the defense in turn retained Mr. Kuehne, of the Law Offices of Benedict P. Kuehne, P.A., to investigate the funds which Ochoa would use to pay his legal team. Kuehne drafted various opinion letters for the offense. The Government alleged that Kuehne was paid for his investigation and opinions by various wire transfers with monies which were the proceeds of specified unlawful activity—the distribution and sale of illegal drugs, including monies from the Colombian “Black Market Peso Exchange” and drug proceeds supplied by undercover U.S. agents.

Kuehne, through his attorney, Jane Moscowitz of Moscowitz & Moscowitz, P.A., filed a motion to dismiss the indictment in July, which may be viewed here, relying on the fact that one of the federal money laundering statutes, 18 U.S.C. § 1957, contains an express exemption for “any transaction necessary to preserve a person’s right to representation as guaranteed by the sixth amendment to the Constitution.” 18 U.S.C. § 1957(f)(1).The motion began with a quote from Banking Crimes: Fraud Money Laundering and Embezzlement, by John K. Villa: "There is an inestimable difference... between expecting a defendant to be able to find an attorney willing to risk his fee, and expecting him to find an attorney willing to risk his personal liberty." Kuehne argued that Congress enacted the exemption in § 1957(f)(1) out of a concern that the threat of prosecution of criminal defense attorneys for accepting fees would have a “chilling effect” on attorneys’ willingness to accept clients, and therefore impose an unacceptable burden on the exercise of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The defense argued that the monies paid fell squarely within § 1957(f)(1)’s exemption and that Count One of the indictment should be dismissed. The District Court agreed and dismissed Count One, and the Eleventh Circuit affirmed in United States v. Velez, No. 09-10199, 2009 WL 3416116 (11th Cir., October 26, 2009).

As reported by the Miami Herald, Kuehne addressed reporters on the steps of the courthouse, stating that he always believed “things would turn out well in the end.” Prior to the allegations against him, he had been a prominent member of the legal community, serving on the Florida Bar board of governors, as a past president of the Dade County Bar Association and as a member of Vice President Al Gore’s legal team in the 2000 Florida presidential election dispute. Kuehne expressed his appreciation to the Department of Justice for the dismissal of the matter. Cynthia Hujar Orr, President of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, which filed amicus briefs in Kuehne’s case, called the Government’s prosecution of Kuehne “disgraceful.”

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

The trial of Bear Stearns hedge fund managers Ralph Cioffi and Matthew Tannin got underway last week. As reported by attorney Jacob Zamansky in Forbes and the New York Daily News, the parties gave opening statements on Thursday. Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick Sinclair argued that Bear Stearns financial officer Matthew Tannin allegedly told investors on 11 occasions that he was putting more of his own money into Bear Stearns’ troubled High-Grade Structured Credit Strategies Fund and High-Grade Structured Credit Enhanced Leveraged Fund. Tannin allegedly told investors that it would be “silly” to redeem their investments. Sinclair also told the jury that Cioffi failed to disclose to investors that he had transferred $2 million of his own money to another Bear Stearns fund. The prosecution cited alleged incriminating e-mails between Cioffi and Tannin in which the defendants allegedly acknowledged that the subprime mortgage market was “toast” and that they should “close the fund.” Sinclair argued that Cioffi’s and Tannin’s actions were allegedly to save their bonuses and reputations. He spoke to the jury for about 45 minutes.
 

In contrast, Cioffi’s attorney, Dane Butswinkas, delivered a two hour opening statement using charts and exhibits to show the complexity of Bear Stearns’ management structure, hedge funds and the operation of the collateralized debt obligation (CDO) market. Butswinkas argued that the defendants were the victims of market forces beyond their control and that the defendants did their best to predict the future performance of the market and the funds. Tannin’s counsel, Susan Brune, also spent approximately two hours explaining to the jury about hedge funds, CDOs and market risk. Brune attributed the failure of the funds on a “run on the bank” and argued that the funds’ investors were well aware of the risks. Brune characterized the prosecution’s theory as “I lost my money, therefore there has to be a fraud.” The defense argued that the e-mails were taken out of context, and that worrying about markets is not a crime.
 

Nearly 300 investors kept their investments in the hedge funds, which lost $1.4 billion in July of 2007. The two hedge funds had experienced positive growth until the preceding quarter, however an internal Bear Stearns report showed that securitized subprime mortgages were losing value fast.
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

The trial of former Bear Stearns hedge fund managers Ralph Cioffi and Matthew Tannin begins today in Brooklyn, as reported by Bloomberg. A jury will be selected today. 

Cioffi and Tannin are charged with allegedly causing losses of $1.4 billion to investors by misleading investors regarding the health of two Bear Stearns hedge funds, the Bear Stearns High-Grade Structured Credit Strategies Enhanced Leverage Master Fund Ltd. ("Enhanced Fund"). and the Bear Stearns High- Grade Structured Credit Strategies Master Fund Ltd. ("Master Fund"). Cioffi was a hedge fund manager and Tannin was an attorney who served as chief operating officer. They are charged with alleged conspiracy, securities fraud and wire fraud. Cioffi is also charged with alleged insider trading.

Cioffi's and Tannin's attorneys have argued that the collapse of Bear Stearns was actually the result of the failure of two other Bear Stearns hedge funds a year prior to the failure of the Enhanced Fund and the Master Fund.

U.S. Attorney Benton Campbell, a former member of the Justice Department’s Enron Corp. Task Force, and Assistant U.S. Attorney James McGovern, are leading the prosecution of Cioffi and Tannin. The prosecution alleges that Cioffi and Tannin were promoting the funds to investors while knowing that the health of the funds was in serious risk. The government has listed 38 witnesses and 532 exhibits which it intends to present at trial, however, the centerpiece of the government's evidence is expected to be Cioffi's and Tannin's own words in e-mails.Cioffi allegedly sent one e-mail on March 15, 2007, with the subject-line "Fear," stating that he was fearful of what the markets were going to do. In another e-mail, Tannin allegedly stated that if AAA bonds were downgraded, there would be no way for the funds to make money. Google released additional private e-mails to the government last week. Prosecutors allege that e-mails show Cioffi and Tannin allegedly boasting of how they were luring investors to invest more money in the funds at the same time they knew that the funds were in trouble. Witnesses for the government are expected to include Bear Stearns employees and investors in the hedge funds.

Cioffi is defended by attorney Brendan Sullivan, who won reversal of the charges against Alaska Senator Ted Stevens, as well as Margaret Keeley and Dane Butswinkas, all of Williams & Connolly LLP. Tannin is being represented by Susan Brune and Nina Beattie of Brune & Richard LLP. Commentators have observed that the e-mails by Cioffi and Tannin can be read in "many" ways.

A year following the failure of the funds, Bear Stearns itself failed and was purchased by JP Morgan Chase & Co. The failure of Bear Stearns was accompanied by failures of Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc., and AIG. Losses from U.S. banks and mortgage companies in the financial collapse total at least $396 billion.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (4)
• Trackbacks

As reported by Chris Herring over at the Wall Street Journal Law Blog, the trial of former Bear Stearns hedge fund managers Matthew Tannin and Ralph Cioffi is scheduled to commence next Monday. And now the government has obtained Tannin's e-mails from his private Google account. Tannin had closed the Google account on the advice of his counsel. Prosecutors suspected that Tannin was hiding something. Google released the e-mails a few days ago. U.S. District Judge Frederic Block for the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York has ruled that since the e-mails have been released, the government cannot explore whether Tannin was trying to hide anything from investors in his personal e-mails, stating that it would confuse the jury and citing the fact that the government already intends to present 38 witnesses and over 500 exhibits in its case against the defendants.

E-mails between Tannin and Cioffi allegedly expressing concern over the health of the hedge funds have already been released to the public. The newly-produced e-mails are expected to reflect similar alleged concerns by the defendants.

As reported by CNN, Cioffi and Tannin are the only two persons to face criminal charges resulting from the worst financial crisis in U.S. history since the Great Depression. The defendants are alleged to have misled investors in two of Bear Stearns' hedge funds to believe that the condition of the funds was better than it in fact was. The hedge funds collapsed in the Spring of 2008, resulting in over $1 billion in losses to investors.

Legal observers have characterized Cioffi's and Tannin's prosecution as a "test case" and have cited the government's need to make an example to discourage similar conduct in the financial sector. Although Cioffi and Tannin may have offered the government what it believed to be its most clear cut case, commentators have noted it may be difficult to prove that Cioffi and Tannin possessed an alleged intent to defraud investors rather than merely being misguided or stupid, given the fact that very few foresaw the subprime mortgage crisis and the collapse of the market.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 

As we check back with Sir Robert Allen Standford, the most noteworthy development is perhaps that the Bellagio, a Las Vegas casino and luxury resort, filed suit against Stanford last week in a Clark County Nevada district court for an alleged $258,480 in unpaid gambling debts.The lawsuit alleges that Stanford signed for 14 markers between January 15 and 22 of this year.

Oddly enough, Stanford is allegedly a self-professed Southern Baptist who reportedly infused the boardroom culture in his companies with religion, surrounded himself with individuals he met through church and used church contacts to find customers. Furthermore, Stanford's adoptive home, Antigua and Barbuda, is one of the leading host nations for the multi-billion dollar international online gambling  industry. Stanford, however, reportedly refused to deal with persons involved in gambling in his business dealings. While Stanford's companies based in Antigua have ceased operations, its online gambling sector has continued to thrive.

The Securities and Exchange Commission, which has frozen Stanford's assets, is investigating the Bellagio markers.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As is well known, Bear Stearns, one of the largest investment banks in the world, was sold to JP Morgan Chase and effectively ceased to exist in March of 2008, after two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in collateralized debt obligations—mainly subprime home loans—and once worth approximately $1.6 billion, lost nearly all of their value. The collapse of Bear Stearns was the harbinger for a succession of massive failures of financial institutions, including Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch and AIG, triggering the current global recession.

As reported by New York Magazine, Reuters and the Daily Telegraph, two managers of the hedge funds, Ralph Cioffi and Matthew Tannin were charged in June in the Eastern District of New York with several counts of wire and securities fraud for allegedly misleading investors regarding the status of the funds in the Spring of 2007. Cioffi, a hedge fund manager, and Tannin, the Chief Operating Officer of Bear Stearns Asset Management (BSAM), have pled not guilty. The collapse in value of the funds cost investors approximately $1.4 billion. When traders wanted to sell some of the funds’ subprime mortgages, no one wanted to buy them.

The trial of Cioffi and Tannin is set to begin in October. The evidence against Cioffi and Tannin consists largely of e-mails between them and investors describing the funds as “an awesome opportunity,” despite allegedly knowing that the funds had problems. Bear Stearns investors are expected to testify at the trial. Both men have consistently maintained their innocence. They face a potential 20 years in prison if convicted.

Cioffi is also charged with alleged insider trading for withdrawing $2 million of his own money from the funds. The government alleges that he engaged in hundreds of transactions involving the funds without the necessary approval by the fund’s directors and despite being warned about conflicts of interest. All trades between Bear Stearns, a securities firm, and BSAM, an asset management firm, were supposed to be vetted by an independent committee. In the Fall of 2006, Bear Stearns ordered a moratorium on such internal trades by Cioffi. Prosecutors sought to introduce evidence of Cioffi’s alleged insider trading in order to demonstrate how Cioffi allegedly operated.

British bank Barclays, a shareholder of one of the funds, also filed suit against Cioffi and Tannin for alleged fraud, however, the suit has been withdrawn.

The prosecution of Cioffi and Tannin makes conspicuously noticeable the fact that no senior executives from Bear, Lehman Brothers, AIG, etc., have been charged with any wrongdoing in the fallout from the financial crisis.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, inc., will pay $2.3 billion to the Federal government and 49 States to settle allegations that it violated federal regulations in promoting several drugs, as reported by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. The settlement is the largest in U.S. history to date in a healthcare fraud case. 

Georgia will receive $21.7 million as part of the settlement. A spokesperson for the Georgia Attorney General's office told the media that Georgia's portion of the settlement funds would be earmarked for Georgia's Medicaid program.

The U.S. Department of Justice had accused the New York-based pharmaceutical company and its subsidiaries of conducting marketing campaigns to promote drugs including Geodon, Lyrica, Zyvox, and no longer marketed Bextra, for uses not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The government also alleged that Pfizer gave kickbacks such as cash, travel and entertainment to members of the healthcare industry in order to persuade them to prescribe these drugs and others, including Lipitor, Zyrtec and Viagra. The only State which did not join in the suit was South Carolina.

Pharmacia & Upjohn Co., a subsidiary of Pfizer, has pled guilty to a felony charge of violating the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and will pay a fine of $1.3 billion.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As reported in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and the Associated Press, closing arguments have started in the terrorism trial of Atlanta area native and former Georgia Tech student Ehsanul Islam Sadequee. Sadequee is representing himself and will present his own closing argument.

Sadequee called only two witnesses in his defense before resting his case, including his older sister, Sharanika Sonali Sadequee. Sadequee told the Court that he did not want to testify in his defense. His sister testified that he was quiet, inquisitive and nonviolent and had traveled to Bangladesh to marry his long-time love. The government contends that the trip was actually a cover for Sadequee's alleged plan to attend a terrorist training camp. Sharanika Sadequee testified that her brother has been prohibited from discussing certain subjects in the trial, including his arrest in Bangladesh, which she called a kidnapping, and an attack on Sadequee by another inmate while he has been in custody. Sadequee's mother prayed in the courtroom throughout the proceedings.

U.S. District Court Judge William S. Duffey, Jr., scolded Sadequee for attempting to introduce his wedding photographs into evidence at the last minute. The Judge denied Sadequee's motion for acquittal and ruled that there was sufficient evidence to take the case to the jury on all four counts. The jury will begin deliberations later today.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

We did not weigh in yesterday, but the biggest federal criminal defense news was clearly the conviction of U.S. Representative William Jefferson of Louisiana in his criminal trial in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, as reported by the New Orleans Times-Picayune. The jury of eight women and four men returned a verdict of guilty against Jefferson on 11 of 16 counts, including 2 counts of conspiracy to solicit bribes to a public official in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA), 2 counts of soliciting bribes, 3 counts of honest services fraud, 3 counts of money laundering, and one count of racketeer influenced and corrupt organization (RICO) violations. As a testament to Jefferson's defense, the jury did not find Jefferson guilty on three of the honest services charges as well as a charge for obstruction of justice and a count for violation of the FCPA.

Jefferson, who is 62, faced a maximum of 235 years in prison if convicted on all counts. He has been allowed to remain released pending his sentencing on October 30. A forfeiture hearing will be held regarding his assets.

Jefferson was the first African-American congressman from Louisiana since Reconstruction.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Ehsanul Islam Sadequee, 23, nicknamed "Shifa," which means "Cure," is representing himself in his trial in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia on four counts of allegedly conspiring to provide material support to terrorism. As reported by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and the Associated Press, Sadequee began his 14 minute opening statement with a prayer. He told the jury that he had talked about jihadist "fantasies" but that it was empty talk and that there was no plan to carry out acts of terrorism. Sadequee denied conspiring with known terrorists. He told the jurors that he only discussed jihad in online chat rooms."If everything is a question mark, can there be a plan?" he asked the jurors.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert McBurney argued to the jury that Sadequee only needed to orchestrate the crime, not carry out any terrorism. The government claimed that Sadequee began visiting online sites frequented by Islamic militants and leaving messages regarding his intent to join the Taliban shortly after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, when he was only 15.

The government presented testimony by Omer Kamal, an Atlanta accountant, former Georgia tech student and friend of Sadequee's. Kamal testified that he, Sadequee and Syed Haris Ahmed, who was convicted in June, watched training videos by Osama bin Laden and the Taliban, and practiced jihad attack techniques with paintball guns in North Georgia. He stated that he backed out of the group when they started planning to visit the Middle East to link up with terrorist groups. Kamal cooperated with the FBI and agreed to testify against Sadequee after becoming concerned that he was under surveillance. He said that the group discussed attacking targets including the White House, the U.S. Capitol, Guantanamo Bay Prison and Abu Ghraib. Kamal said he had slipped a note under his friends' doors when he decided to leave the group. Sadequee then went with Ahmed to Toronto, Canada, to meet with terrorists there. Sadequee spent over an hour cross-examining Kamal yesterday.

Mr. McBurney argued that Sadequee sent videos of the alleged targets to a terrorist suspect in Britain disguising the videos with titles such as "jimmy's 13th birthday party" and "volleyball contest." He claimed that Sadequee subsequently traveled to Bangladesh in order to get married, but also to link up with terrorist groups. Sadequee was arrested in Bangladesh in 2006. Mr. McBurney said that Sadequee communicated with other terror suspects including Ahmed and Mirsad Bektasevic, a Balkan-born Swede who was convicted in 2007 of planning to blow up a target in Europe to force the pullout of foreign troops from Iraq and Afghanistan.

Ahmed, who is awaiting sentencing, has agreed to testify against Sadequee, and will take the stand today.

Sadequee has worn a gray tunic with a beard and long hair during the proceedings. Sadequee's mother, Shirin, sat in the audience during the proceedings and wept and prayed for her son. If convicted Sadequee faces up to 60 years in prison.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

We closely followed the trial of Syed Haris Ahmed, who was convicted for providing material support to terrorism in early June--all of our posts may be found here. The trial of Ahmed's alleged co-conspirator, Ehsanul Islam Sadequee on terrorism charges began yesterday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Sadequee has apparently taken a page from Ahmed, who delivered a highly unusual closing argument in his own case, and has opted to represent himself and will present his own opening statements, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Sadequee has opted for a jury trial unlike his alleged co-conspirator, who was tried by the same judge, the Honorable William S. Duffey. The parties completed jury selection yesterday.

Attorney Don Samuel is serving as stand-by counsel for Sadequee. Mr. Samuel told the Court that Sadequee did not understand what it meant to represent himself. Judge Duffey replied that he had informed Sadequee regarding what it meant to represent himself numerous times.

Sadequee, who is nicknamed “Shifa,” was born in Virginia in 1986, and is of Bangladeshi descent. He and Ahmed are most infamously accused of videotaping landmarks in Washington, D.C., in April of 2005, for purposes of terrorism, including the United States Capitol and the headquarters building of the World Bank. It is also alleged that Sadequee and Ahmed engaged in paramilitary training in North Georgia; met with a circle of terrorists in Toronto, Canada, in February of 2005; and sent the video of the alleged targets to Younis Tsouli, a terrorist in the United Kingdom.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As noted at White Collar Criminal Prof Blog and The Justice Fellowship, the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism and Homeland Security held a hearing last week on "Over-criminalization of Conduct and Over-federalization of Criminal Law." Organizations which addressed the Subcommittee on issues of over-criminalization and over-federalization included the American Bar Association, the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys, the Heritage Foundation and the Federalist Society.

The hearing considered the lack of distinction between federal criminal and civil offenses, as well as over-federalization of criminal law where federal criminal laws have been enacted to cover offenses already subject to state criminal laws, usually providing for harsher penalties. The Subcommittee noted the existence of approximately 4,500 federal criminal laws, with approximately 50 new criminal laws enacted by Congress each year.

The hearing should be welcome news to most federal criminal defense practitioners. Reform in these areas is badly needed. In some cases, certain prosecutions of alleged federal crimes would be more equitably, and less expensively, handled through the imposition of civil fines and penalties. Furthermore, in many cases, State prosecutorial entities are as capable as Federal entities to prosecute offenders in areas where State and Federal criminal law overlaps. The Blog looks forward to the proposals for reform which result from the hearing.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As reported by the New Orleans Times-Picayune, Judge T.S. Ellis, III, of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia read instructions to the jury yesterday which lasted over 2 & 1/2 hours, and the jury retired for its deliberations in the case against former U.S. Representative William Jefferson. The jury deliberated for about four hours and will re-convene to continue deliberations this morning.

The jury weighing the evidence in the six week long trial of Jefferson on 16 criminal counts, including racketeering, honest services fraud and violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, consists of two white males, six white females, two black males and two black females. Jefferson's case is the first time the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act has been applied to a public official. The Court sent three alternate jurors home yesterday, instructing them to remain "pristine" with regard to their exposure to information regarding the case.Jefferson's lead attorney, Robert Trout, told reporters that Jefferson intends to be present at Court each morning when the jury arrives.

Closing arguments were heard earlier in the week, with numerous media outlets and journalists from Louisiana in attendance.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The trial of former Representative William Jefferson, which has gone on for six weeks in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, will come to an end today. As reported by Ashby Jones at the Wall Street Journal Law Blog and UPI, both sides gave their closing arguments yesterday. Judge T.S. Ellis will give jury instructions and likely send the case to the jury this morning.

The case is best known for the infamous discovery of $90,000 in cash stuffed in boxes for burgers and pie crusts in the freezer at Jefferson's home by federal agents. Jefferson was indicted in 2007 on 16 counts of bribery, racketeering, and violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The government charged Jefferson with using his position to promote business ventures in West Africa in exchange for cash payments for his family.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Rebecca Bellows argued during the govenrment's closing that Jefferson allegedly schemed to give at least $100,000 in cash (the "freezer money") to the Vice President of Nigeria, Atiku Abubakar, as a bribe in exchange for granting rights to a telecommunications company with ties to Jefferson's family. The government also played video and audio tapes of meetings between Jefferson and Virginia businesswoman Lori Mody, who was working for the government as an informant. In one video, Jefferson supposedly informed Mody that the cash would be "doled out" to "make sure the hook is in there," and on another tape Jefferson allegedly referred to the bribe as "a goodwill present."

The defense maintained during trial that Jefferson's conduct was stupid or unethical, but not criminal. Defense attorney Robert Trout told the jury during his closing arguments that the government wanted to make Jefferson's actions a crime when it was really a "gray area." He told the jury that Jefferson only agreed to give the money to Abubaker in order to please Ms. Mody.

Prior to closing arguments, Judge Ellis refused to dismiss an obstruction of justice count against Jefferson. Jefferson faces a lengthy prison sentence if convicted.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 

As reported by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and WSB Radio, Anthony Ray, a DeKalb County resident, solicited money from investors by promising them large returns from real estate investments by his company, Key Funding Group. He would frequent local churches to locate victims, making presentations to the congregations. Ray lulled his victims by giving them back portions of their investment and falsely referring to them as returns. Ray hosted his victims at several locations around the Atlanta area, including his condominium in Buckhead as well as a $680,000 home in Decatur, Georgia, which belonged to one of his victims and in which he ran his office. In all, Ray stole at least $5 million from over 30 investors.

Ray stole $160,000 from his own parents. He started Key Funding Group with his father, Calvin Ray, 70, and took out large loans using his father’s identity and his parents’ home as collateral. His parents subsequently turned him in. Ray’s twin brother, Antonio, told reporters that Ray took everything his parents had, and that their father, decided that they had to prosecute.

Ray previously served five years in prison for stealing his brother's identity.

 

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Sir Robert Stanford has filed a Motion for Relief from Oppressive Jail Conditions. Stanford is currently being held at the Joe Corley Detention Facility in Conroe, Texas. The Motion alleges that temperatures have reached 100 degrees and that the cell in which Stanford is being housed in a cell with 8 to 10 other men and with no windows or air conditioning. Stanford requests transfer to the Federal Detention Center in downtown Houston. The Motion also asserts, as a ground for transfer, the fact that the government has provided discovery in electronic form and the Joe Corley Facility does not permit the use of electronic devices. Stanford's counsel, Dick DeGuerin, claims that he has tried to work these issues out with the U.S. Marshals Service and the staff of the Joe Corley Detention Facility, but to no avail.

A status conference has been set in Stanford's case for September 10, which the defendants moved to continue from August 17. Meanwhile, Stanford's appeal of the District Court's denial of pretrial release is listed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, U.S. v. Stanford, Case No. 09-20444.

While in no way meaning to detract from the charges against Stanford and his codenfendants, which are extremely serious in magnitude, this Blog notes that arch-Ponzi schemer Bernard Madoff and celebrity attorney-turned-crook Marc Dreier were both granted pretrial release and were confined to their residences with electronic monitoring devices. Given that the government has frozen all of Stanford's assets effectively starving his defense of funding, and that the defense has alleged deliberate misrepresentations by the prosecution in arguing for pretrial detention, pretrial release appears to be appropriate in Stanford's case. We will await the hopefully speedy resolution of the bail issue by the Fifth Circuit.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

 

The 44 public officials and other persons arrested in the massive sweep on Thursday by the FBI, the result of efforts by the convicted son of a rabbi, include:

Daniel Van Pelt, State Assemblyman;

Peter Cammarano III, Mayor of Hoboken, New Jersey;

Dennis Elwell, Mayor of Secaucus, New Jersey;

Anthony Suarez, Mayor of Ridgefield, New Jersey;

Leona Beldini, Deputy Mayor of Jersey City;

Mariano Vega, President of the Jersey City Council, Commissioner with the Jersey City Housing Authority and Director of Parks, Engineering and Planning for Hudson County, New Jersey;

L. Harvey Smith, President of the Jersey City Council and former State Assemblyman;

Lou Manzo former State Assemblyman;

Edward Cheatam, Jersey City Housing Authority Commissioner and Hudson County Affirmative Action officer;

Michael Schaffer an employee of the North Hudson Sewerage Authority and former Hoboken Councilman;

John Guarini, city taxi inspector and former 13th District Congressional candidate

Denis Jaslow, former 32nd District State Senate candidate;

Guy Catrillo, Michael J. Manzo and LaVern Webb Washington, former Jersey City City Council candidates;

Richard Greene, former aide to L. Harvey Smith;

Joseph Cardwell, Jack Shaw, political operatives;

Also Moshe Altman, Charles Amon, Joseph Castagna, Schmulik Cohen, Levi Deutsch, Yeshayahu Ehrental, Mordchai Fish, Yolie Gertner, David S. Goldhirsh, Shimon Haber, Eliahu Ben Haim, Itzak Friedlander, Saul Kassin, Maher A. Khalil, Ron Manzo, Edmond Nahum, Abraham Pollack, Levi Izhak Rosenbaum, Lori Serrano, Jack Shaw, Vincent Tabbachino, Jeffrey Williamson, Lavel Schwartz, Binyomin Spira, Naftoly Weber and Arye Weiss.

As reported by various sources here, here and here, the arrests were part of a 10-year, two-track investigation by the FBI, code named “Bid Rig” which uncovered three criminal schemes: bribery of public officials; an international money laundering ring operating between Deal, New Jersey, and Israel; and trafficking in illegal kidneys and Gucci bags. The schemes were uncovered by a confidential informant had been charged with bank fraud in 2006 and agreed to work with the FBI. Five rabbis from New Jersey and New York were among those arrested. Hundreds of federal agents raided the suspects’ homes in New Jersey and New York. There were so many arrestees that they had to be brought to FBI headquarters in Newark, New Jersey, by bus. One religious leader arrived in a Mercedes-Benz. Bail was set as high as $3 million for some of the suspects.

FBI Special Agent Ed Kahrer stated to reporters that New Jersey has one of the worst, if not the worst, public corruption problems in the nation, and that corruption has become “engrained” in New Jersey’s “political cult.” Acting U.S. Attorney Ralph J. Marra, Jr., announced that the conspiracy, which was headed by rabbis cloaked their criminal activity in a “facade of rectitute.”

Investigators stated that they have hundreds of hundreds of hours of video and audio recordings containing evidence of money laundering and bribery.

The Public Corruption and Bribery Cases

A criminal complaint filed against Hoboken Mayor Peter Cammarano, 32, alleges that Cammarano accepted a bribe in exchange for giving priority to an FBI informant posing as a real estate developer wanting to develop property in Hoboken. Hoboken’s waterfront contains prime real estate across from Manhattan. The informant is believed to have been Solomon Dwek, who was arrested in 2007 and charged with bank fraud for bouncing a $25 million check. Dwek is the son of Rabbi Isaac Dwek of the Deal Synagogue in Deal, New Jersey, which was raided by the FBI on Thursday. Dwek told the conspirators that he was in bankruptcy and was interested in hiding his assets.

The informant met Cammarano while he was running for Mayor and told Cammarano that he would give him $10,000. The complaint alleges that Cammarano promised the informant that he would sponsor the plans and treat the informant like a “friend.” Michael Schaffer, a North Hudson Utilities Authority commissioner and former Hoboken Councilman, allegedly acted as a middle man for the bribe.

Cammarano has only been in office for three weeks. He allegedly told the informant that those who oppose him get “ground into powder.” When the discussion turned to a possible runoff election with Cammarano’s challenger Dawn Zimmer, who lost the election by only 161 votes, Cammarano allegedly told the informant “I could be indicted and still get 85 to 95 percent of the vote.” Cammarano’s attorney, Joseph Hayden, has made a statement that Cammarano intends to fight the charges.

Cammarano is charged with allegedly accepting a total of $25,000 in cash bribes. Dennis Elwell, 64, Mayor of Secaucus is charged with allegedly accepting a $10,000 cash bribe and Anthony Suarez, 42, Mayor of Ridgefield, is also charged with allegedly accepting a $10,000 cash payment—for his legal defense fund.

L. Harvey Smith, Jersey City Council President, and several other current and former Jersey City public officials also are accused of allegedly accepting money to help the fake developer gain permits and approvals. Deputy Mayor of Jersey City Leona Beldini is charged with conspiracy to commit extortion for allegedly accepting $20,000 in illegal campaign contributions.

FBI agents raided the home and office of New Jersey Department of Community Affairs Commissioner and former State Senator Joe Doria as part of the investigation. Doria resigned on Thursday afternoon. Officials have not stated whether he will face charges.

The Money Laundering and Black Market Organ and Designer Goods Cases

Five rabbis from Deal and Brooklyn were charged with alleged money laundering and sale of fake designer bags. The rabbis were approached by Dwek and dealt with him, despite the fact that it was well known that he had been charged by the government. Dwek’s dealings with the rabbis eventually uncovered the public corruption case when a Jersey City building inspector accepted a $20,000 bribe. Rabbi Saul Kassin of Deal is charged with allegedly laundering more than $200,000. Mordchai Fish, a rabbi at Congregation Sheves Achim, and his brother, Lavel Schwartz, laundered nearly $600,000 for Dwek, giving him cash and taking a 15% cut.

Agents raided “cash houses” run by associates of the rabbis, including a charity called Bnoth Jerusalem and a beeper store.

Levy Rosenbaum, a Brooklyn resident, was charged in a criminal complaint with allegedly conspiring to broker a sale of a human kidney for transplant for $160,000. The complaint further alleged that Rosenbaum had been selling kidneys from vulnerable persons in Israel for 10 years, which he would purchase for $10,000 and sell in the U.S. for $160,000.

The public corruption scandals will undoubtedly figure into the current U.S. Senate contest between Senator Jon Corzine and former U.S. Attorney Chris Christie, who claims to have obtained 130 convictions of elected and appointed officials on corruption charges.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

On Wednesday, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder addressed the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces and Asset Forfeiture Program's National Leadership Conference. Mr. Holder spoke regarding the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF) Program, an inter-agency program established in 1982 to conduct comprehensive, multi-level attacks on major drug trafficking and money laundering organizations. OCDETF combines the resources and expertise of the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the U.S. Marshals Service, the Internal Revenue Service, and the U.S. Coast Guard in cooperation with the Department of Justice Criminal Division, Tax Division and its U.S. Attorney’s Offices, as well as state and local law enforcement. Its mission is to identify, disrupt, and dismantle drug trafficking and money laundering organizations.

Mr. Holder praised the track record of OCDETF and the Asset Forfeiture Program. He mentioned that, since the inception of the Attorney General's Consolidated Priority Organization Target (CPOT) List in 2002, OCDETF has dismantled or disrupted over 1,2000 CPOT and CPOT-linked organizations.

The Attorney General discussed the innovation of OCDETF in establishing the OCDETF Fusion Center to gather intelligence on drug trafficking and money laundering organizations from human and electronic sources in its "Compass" database. Mr. Holder also stated that the International Organized Crime Intelligence and Operations Center -- or "IOC-2"--has recently entered into a partnership with the OCDETF Fusion Center to add data to the Compass database in order to "broaden our capability to attack organized crime in all its forms."

Mr. Holder also remarked on the success of permanent OCDETF Strike Forces in Boston, New York, Atlanta, Tampa, San Juan, Houston, Phoenix, San Diego, with an additional Strike Force planned for El Paso. He mentioned that OCDETF has begun placing Document and Media Exploitation (DOMEX) Teams in the Atlanta and Houston Strike Forces, which permit agents to rapidly capture and exploit evidence and permit prosecutors to quickly develop trial exhibits.

The Attorney General cited the national security threat of the Mexican drug cartels. Mr. Holder furthermore discussed the success of the Asset Forfeiture Program and noted that, since 1984, more than $13 billion in net federal forfeiture proceeds have been deposited into the Justice Assets Forfeiture Fund and more than $4.5 billion has been equitably shared with more than 8,000 state and local law enforcement agencies nationwide, thereby supplementing their constrained resources without further taxing the public. The Attorney General stated that, in fiscal year 2008 alone, approximately $500 million was paid to more 39,000 victims.

Mr. Holder also praised Operation Honor Student, which involved a task force led by the Rhode Island U.S. Attorney’s Office, the Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section of the Criminal Division, and the Food and Drug Administration’s Office of Criminal Investigations, and resulted in the forfeiture of $2.7 million from the accounts of GeneScience, one of the largest biopharmaceutical companies in China which had been involved in the illegal distribution of Human Growth Hormone into the United States. He noted that the task force employed a new statutory vehicle-- 18 U.S.C. § 981(k) --enacted as part of the Patriot Act and used for the first time, which permitted the Government to seize the funds, physically located in China, from the corresponding accounts of Chinese banks in New York. Task force agents estimate that at the time of the investigation, GeneScience manufactured approximately 90% of the hGH being illegally sold and distributed in the United States.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

New legislation typically means new criminal laws, and the White House's and Congress' recent ‘‘American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009,’’ H.R. 2454, better known as the "Waxman-Markey Bill" or "Cap and Trade Bill," is certainly no exception. The bill is over 1,000 pages long and, for those with copious amounts of time, may be viewed in its entirety here. H.R. 2454 was introduced on May 15, 2009, and narrowly passed in the House of Representatives on June 26, 2009, by a vote of 219 to 212. The Senate is expected to vote on the bill sometime this Fall.

FCDB seeks to keep readers and practitioners alike abreast of changes in criminal law posed by such new legislation. Somewhat surprisingly, a search of H.R. 2454 reveals just one criminal provision, Section 1041, page 1045, in Part IV of the bill entitled "Carbon Market Assurance," which provides:

§ 1041. Fraud and false statements in connection with regulated allowances
        Whoever in connection with a transaction involving a regulated allowance (as defined in section 401(a) of the Federal Power Act, as added by section 341 of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009), knowingly—
        (1) makes or uses a materially false or misleading statement, writing, representation, scheme,
or device; or
        (2) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device any material fact, shall be fined not more than $5,000,000 (or $25,000,000 in the case of an organization) or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
        (2) The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 47 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new item:
‘‘1041. Fraud and false statements in connection with regulated allowances.’’

A "regulated allowance" is defined in Section 401 of H.R. 2454 as "any emission allowance, compensatory allowance, offset credit, or Federal renewable electricity credit established or issued under the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009." The proposed changes would be to 18 U.S.C. § 1041, which currently prohibits fraud in connection with a major disaster or emergency benefits.

The Waxman-Markey/Cap and Trade legislation amends the Federal Power Act to require corporations which emit pollutants such as carbon to hold the allowances, which represent the right to emit a certain amount of pollutant. It also would create “regulated allowance derivatives,” which are financial instruments derived from the allowances. The derivative instruments would be purchased and traded by corporations, financial institutions and funds. The proposed change to 18 U.S.C. § 1041 represents a typical fraud/false statement criminal provision for new legislation, albeit with stiff penalties.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

As we have noted, the prosecution of wealthy, international financier Sir Robert Allen Stanford has been characterized from the outset by vigorous disputes over bond for Stanford. The prosecution has argued that Stanford poses a risk of flight given his international connections and the potential that he possesses resources hidden overseas. The defense, led by attorney Dick DeGuerin, has hit back, arguing that Stanford possesses considerable ties to the U.S. and voluntarily surrendered himself, and further charging that the prosecution has made numerous knowing misrepresentations in arguing against bond for Stanford.

The U.S. magistrate judge had ordered Stanford to be released on $500,000 bond, however the District Court Judge reversed the order and ordered Stanford to remain in custody. Last Friday, Stanford's attorneys appealed the Court's bond determination to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The government is certainly pulling out all the stops in putting pressure on Stanford, who is charged in an alleged Ponzi scheme which allegedly lost investors $7 billion. Not only has it managed to deny him bond, but it has frozen his assets and those of his companies. Yesterday, the defense was granted permission by the Court to file a motion regarding attorney's fees ex parte and under seal.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

As reported in the Macon Telegraph, Dwight "Malachi" York, former leader of the United Nuwaubian Nation of Moors who was indicted and convicted on over 100 counts of child molestation in April 2004 and setenced to 135 years, has filed a motion in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Georgia to vacate his sentence. York, who has been a minister and a musician, is best know as the founder of "Nuwaubianism," an unorthodox religious sect established in the 1970s. In 1993, York moved the Nuwaubians from upstate New York to a compound in Putnam County, Georgia, near Eatonton. York was arrested for sexually molesting dozens of children in 2002. The charges against York were truly astounding and hideous in their magnitude--author Bill Osinsky, in the fact sheet for his book Ungodly, reveals that state prosecutors literally had to cut back the number of counts listed in the indictment from well over 1,000 to slightly more than 200 because "they feared that a jury simply would not believe the magnitude of York's evil."

York has now filed a motion alleging that Federal Bureau of Investigation agents threatened witnesses to give perjured testimony against him, as well as alleging that the prosecution used unauthenticated tapes of York having sex with minors to taint the jury. The motion attached affidavits from witnesses in York's trial, including one by a witness who alleges that FBI agents took him from his family and transported him to a home in Milledgeville and pointed guns at him until he agreed to give information against York. York is currently incarcerated at the supermax prison in Florence, Colorado.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (3)
• Trackbacks

As reported by Law.com, the sentencing of celebrity attorney and Ponzi schemer Marc Dreier is scheduled for next Monday, July 13. Dreier was arrested last December for defrauding investors and clients of more than $740 million through a series of schemes. A full history of the Dreier saga is set forth here. He pled guilty on May 11 to one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud and wire fraud, one count of money laundering, one count of securities fraud and five counts of wire fraud and has remained under house arrest in his luxury apartment in Manhattan.

Dreier's attorney, Gerald L. Shargel, filed a sentencing memorandum on Tuesday requesting a sentence for Dreier of between 10 years and 12 years and 7 months. Shargal asserted that Dreier has already started to be punished through his public disgrace, the loss of his law firm and possession, and "the shame and suffering that his actions have brought upon his family."

However, the prosecution, headed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Jonathan R. Streeter, has filed a sentencing memorandum aiming for a higher sentence for Dreier--145 years in prison, or, in the alternative, "a term of years that would both assure that Dreier will remain in prison for life and emphatically promote general deterrence."

The government's recommended sentence for Dreier is a mere 5 years less than the 150 year sentence imposed two weeks ago on the largest Ponzi scheme fraudster in history, Bernard Madoff (as massive as Dreier's crimes were, Madoff defrauded investors of exponentially more money). Dreier is currently 59. The proposed 145 years aside (and 145 years before his sentencing date--June 13, 1864--Ulysses S. Grant and Robert E. Lee had just concluded one of the bloodiest battles in American history at Cold Harbor, Virginia) any sentence imposed by the Court is all but guaranteed to ensure that Dreier spends the rest of his life behind bars. Although Drier's fraud, as massive as it is, is only a small fraction of the damage caused by Madoff, the record for a white collar criminal sentence is actually 845 years, imposed on Shalom Weiss in 2000 for a $450 million mortgage and insurance scheme against Florida pensioners (to be eligible for release today, even counting "good time," Weiss would have had to have started his sentence in 1290--the year Edward I of England passed the statute of Quia Emptores, which reformed the feudal land system). You can enjoy Money Central's list of the ten longest white-collar criminal sentences here.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks

The prosecution in the case of wealthy international financier Sir Robert Allen Stanford wants Stanford behind bars even before he has his day in court, arguing that his contacts abroad create a great risk that he will flee the country. Stanford, through his attorney, Dick DeGuerin, has countered that he possesses ties to the U.S. and voluntarily surrendered to authorities following the issuance of the warrant for his arrest. The dispute over potential pretrial release/bail for Stanford in this case has been particularly heated, as shown by a chronology:

June 19: At Stanford's initial appearance, U.S. Magistrate Judge Hannah Lauck of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia determines that Stanford is a flight risk and orders him detained. Stanford is transported to Houston.

June 25: At Stanford's arraignment in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, U.S. Magistrate Judge Frances H. Stacy sets Stanford's bond at $500,000 but stays bond pending the prosecution's appeal of the bond.

June 29: U.S. District Judge David Hittner holds hearing on the revocation of Magistrate Judge Stacy's release order. Judge Hittner reverses release order and orders Stanford detained.

July 7: Stanford files a 48-page Motion to Reconsider and/or Reopen Detention Order, with numerous exhibits. Mr. DeGuerian alleges in the Motion that the prosecution made numerous misrepresentations of material facts in arguing for the revocation of Stanford's bond. Stanford claims that the government made the following alleged intentional misrepresentations to the Court in order to cause Stanford's release to be revoked:

1. That Stanford's expired Antiguan diplomatic passport was allegedly "missing;"

2. That Stanford allegedly siphoned approximately $100 million from a bank account with Societe Generale Swiss in late 2008;

3. That Stanford's primary residence is allegedly not the U.S. and that he does not have strong ties to Texas;

4. That $1 billion is allegedly "missing" from Stanford's companies;

5. That Stanford has engaged in allegedly suspicious travel while he has been under investigation and that he allegedly has contacts outside the U.S. who would gladly help him flee; and

6. That Stanford allegedly bribed Antiguan officials.

The Stanford case is a good example of how allegations of prosecutorial misconduct and misrepresentations can play into the very inception of a case or into stricly procedural matters, without having to await formal challenges to charges on the merits. In any event, Stanford's attorneys have certainly presented a forceful argument for his release on bond, and we look forward to monitoring the Court's resolution of his Motion.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Panamanian strongman and dictator General Manuel Noriega was trained in the 1960s at the School of the Americas, while the School was at Fort Gulick in the Panama Canal Zone, as well as at Fort Bragg, North Carolina. Noriega is believed to have worked with the CIA from the late 1950s, being paid by the agency at times, and to have entered into a contractual relationship with the agency in 1967. Noriega joined the Panamanian National Guard and supported dictator General Omar Torrijos (father of the current, democratically-elected President of Panama, Martin Torrijos), under whom Noriega was alleged to have been involved in “disappearances” of political opponents. When Colonel Florencio Flores Aguilar, who became dictator of Panama at Torrijos’ death in a plane accident (which was later alleged to have been orchestrated by Noriega), was ousted in a coup by Colonel Ruben Dario Paredes in 1982, Noriega became Commander of the National Guard, renamed the Panamanian Defense Forces.

Noriega proceeded to consolidate almost absolute power in Panama, promoting himself to general in 1983, and became involved with the Medellin Drug Cartel based in Colombia. Noriega has claimed that in 1988, U.S. State Department officials met with him and offered him $2 million to go into exile in Spain. The U.S. government has maintained that Noriega was a double-agent, giving information not only to the U.S. but also to communist Cuba, as well as selling weapons to Sandinista-controlled Nicaragua in the 1970s, thus leading to his State Department nickname of “the Rent-a-Colonel.” Noriega permitted U.S. aid to Contra rebels in Nicaragua to pass through Panama. However, he refused demands by U.S. Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North for Noriega to provide military assistance to the Contras.

In 1989, Noriega was indicted on drug charges in the Southern District of Florida, and Panamanian President Arturo Delvalle issued a decree relieving Noriega of his duties. Noriega ignored the decree, and instead forced Delvalle to flee the country. The National Assembly declared Noriega “Chief Executive Officer” of Panama, although he had been de facto leader of the country for several years. Noriega is suspected to have been complicit in the murder of political opponent Hugo Spadfora by death squads. Noriega brutally suppressed protests against his rule through the use of army and paramilitary forces called “Dignity Battalions,” and rounded up, imprisoned and killed political opponents.

Noriega attempted to rig the May 1989 election for president in favor of his candidate Carlos Duque of the Partido Revolucionario Democrático by having fake tally sheets distributed to election precincts, however his opponents managed to release results showing Guillermo Endara of the Authentic Panameñista Party beating Duque by 3 to 1. Noriega proceeded to void the election claiming “foreign interference,” and was denounced by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, who monitored the election as an observer. Noriega’s Dignity Battalions stopped Endara the day following the election and severely beat him.

The U.S. recognized Endara as President and imposed economic sanctions on Panama, while U.S. armed forces had freedom of movement throughout the country under the Panama Canal Treaty of 1980. On December 15, 1989, the National Assembly stated that a “state of war” existed between the U.S. and Panama, and on December 20, 1989, the U.S. military at the direction of President George H.W. Bush invaded Panama in Operation Just Cause. Navy SEALs destroyed Noriega’s plane in Operation Nifty Package, and Noriega hid himself in the Vatican’s embassy in Panama where, after being bombarded by hard rock music by U.S. forces for several days, Noriega surrendered on January 3, 1990.

Noriega was convicted on RICO, drug trafficking, racketeering and money laundering counts in the Southern District of Florida in April of 1992, and was sentenced to 40 years imprisonment. Commentators criticized the prosecution’s frequent reworking of its case, and its use of deals and payments to drug dealers in order to testify against Noriega. Noriega has been an inmate at in the Federal Correctional Institute in Miami, Florida. His sentence was reduced to 30 years in 1999, and was further reduced to 17 years for good behavior. Noriega’s sentence technically ended on September 9, 2007, although he remains incarcerate. Noriega has reportedly become a born-again Christian.

Yesterday, the Eleventh Circuit handed down the latest, and perhaps final, chapter in the Noriega saga, Noriega v. Pastrana, NO.08-11021 D.C. DOC, 2009 WL 929960, (11th Cir., Apr. 08, 2009). After his capture, Noriega had been designated as a prisoner of war under the Third Geneva Convention.  At the request of the French government, the United States filed a complaint on July 17, 2007, to extradite Noriega to France, and Noriega filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, alleging that extradition would violate his rights under the Third Geneva Convention. The district court held that Section 2255 only applied to challenges to a sentence, and also that the government had satisfied its obligations under the Third Geneva Convention, and denied the petition. Noriega filed two more habeas petitions, which were also denied by the court. An extradition hearing was held on August 28, 2007, and a Certificate of Extraditability was issued on August 29, 2007.

 

On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit noted that it was not deprived of jurisdiction by the Military Commissions Act of 2006 (MCA), which removed the right for “enemy combatants” to petition for habeas corpus. Then, in regard to the Certificate of Extradition, the Court observed that:

There is no right to appeal extradition certification determinations, [cit.], and collateral review of an extradition determination by means of a petition for writ of habeas corpus is generally limited “to determining ‘whether the magistrate had jurisdiction, whether the offense charged is within the treaty and, ... whether there was any evidence warranting the finding that there was reasonable ground to believe the accused guilty.’”

(Internal citation omitted; citing Kastnerova v. U.S., 365 F.3d 980, 984 (11th Cir.2004); quoting Martin v. Warden, Atlanta Pen, 993 F.2d 824, 828 (11th Cir.1993); quoting Fernandez v. Phillips, 268 U.S. 311, 312 (1925)). The Court found that Noriega has failed to assert any applicable law which would prevent his extradition to France.

                The Court next considered the issue of whether an individual could invoke the rights of the Geneva Conventions in a civil action against the United States in light of Section 5 of the MCA, which provides that:

No person may invoke the Geneva Conventions or any protocols thereto in any habeas corpus or other civil action or proceeding to which the United States, or ... agent of the United States is a party as a source of rights in any court of the United States or its States or territories.

MCA, § 5(a). Noriega argued that while the Conventions could not be applied against the U.S. under Section 5, they could be applied against the Secretary of State, the Bureau of Prisons, or the Department of Justice, and that Article 118 of the Third Geneva Convention, which provides that “[p]risoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities,” required his repatriation to Panama. However, the Eleventh Circuit concluded that “§ 5 prohibits exactly this type of action,” and that Noriega’s Geneva Convention claims were precluded.

                The Court continued to hold that, even if the Geneva Convention applied and was “self-executing,” it did not prevent Noriega’s extradition to France, citing Article 119 of the Third Geneva Convention which provides that “[p]risoners of war against whom criminal proceedings for an indictable offence are pending may be detained until the end of such proceedings, and, if necessary, until the completion of the punishment. The same shall apply to prisoners of war already convicted for an indictable offence.” It also noted that repatriation under the convention is not automatic, citing Article 12: “[p]risoners of war may only be transferred by the Detaining Power to a Power which is a party to the Convention and after the Detaining Power has satisfied itself of the willingness and ability of such transferee Power to apply the Convention.” The Court affirmed the judgment of the district court, holding that the U.S. had complied with its obligations under the Third Geneva Convention and that extradition would not violate Noriega's rights under the Third Geneva Convention. After 20 years in custody, Panama's “Rent-a-Colonel” will apparently be headed to France for further proceedings.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Our apologies for playing catch-up, but our summary of the primary, meaningful criminal opinions by the Eleventh Circuit will continue this week. Following is a summary of the decisions for the week of March 17, 2009.

In Salazar v. U.S., No. 07-13715, 2009 WL 684772 (11th Cir., Mar. 17, 2009), the Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s denial of the defendant’s motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence for possessing with the intent to distribute crack cocaine based upon ineffective assistance of counsel, where defendant’s counsel failed to call as witnesses at trial two persons who could have corroborated that the defendant denied possessing any cocaine at the time of his arrest, id. at *2.

The Court affirmed the district court’s denial of a reduction under the safety-valve provision pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5C1.2 for a defendant convicted of conspiracy to manufacture and possess with intent to distribute marijuana plants in U.S. v. Cruz, No. 08-11625, 2009 WL 684789 (11th Cir., Mar. 17, 2009), observing that the defendant’s refusal to testify at sentencing left the district court with little ability to access his credibility and the defendant had failed to carry his burden, id. at *2.

In U.S. v. Valdex, No. 07-14721, 2009 WL 684751 (11th Cir., Mar. 17, 2009), the Court held that the defendant in a prosecution for health care fraud “invited” any error in calculating the amount of loss under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 by urging the trial court to adopt the amount of loss contained in the presentence report, id. at 1. It also held that the trial court did not clearly err in applying a sophisticated means enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(9)(C) where the defendant “recruited beneficiaries and sought out doctors so as to aid in hiding the illegality of his Medicare claims, and converted [a corporation] into a pharmacy through which he continued to defraud Medicare…” Id. The Court also held that the defendant’s sentence was within the Sentencing Guidelines range and therefore substantively reasonable, pursuant to U.S. v. Talley, 431 F.3d 784, 788 (11th Cir. 2005), and that “relevant uncharged or acquitted conduct may be taken into account in sentencing, as long as such conduct is proven by a preponderance of the evidence and the court clearly applied the Guidelines as advisory.” Id. (citing U.S. v. Faust, 456 F.3d 1342, 1347-48 (11th Cir. 2006)).

The Court affirmed the defendant’s above-Guidelines sentence for travel with intent to engage in a sexual act with a juvenile in U.S. v. Smith, No. 08-11665, 2009 WL 693342 (11th Cir., March 18, 2009), noting that the district court could upwardly depart in sentencing the defendant based upon violations of the defendant’s supervised release, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 7B1.4, comment. (n.3), id. at *2.

            In U.S. v. Whitehead, No. 08-13201, 2009 WL 691184 (11th Cir., Mar. 18, 2009), the Court affirmed the denial of the motion for a sentencing reduction, brought pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) of the defendant, who was convicted of various drug and crack cocaine offenses, holding that the Sentencing Commission’s Amendment 706 to U.S.S.G. § 2D1.1(c) in November 2007, which provided a two-level reduction in base offense levels for certain crack-cocaine offenses, did not affect the guideline ranges of defendants who were sentenced as career offenders under U.S.S.G. § 4B1.1, id. at *3 (citing U.S. v. Moore, 541 F.3d 1323, 1330 (11th Cir. 2008)). The Court also held that the defendant was ineligible for the reduction despite the fact that he had been granted a downward departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3, observing that “[t]he critical fact… is that the district court used the offense level from the career offender guideline to calculate [the defendant’s] applicable guideline range,” rather than § 2D1.1. Id. at *4.

The Court affirmed the district court’s denial of a motion for reduction pursuant to § 3582(c)(2) by a defendant convicted of  conspiracy to possess with the intent to distribute cocaine and cocaine base in U.S. v. Val Saint, No. 08-12726, 2009 WL 693341 (11th Cir., Mar. 18, 2009), noting that Amendment 711 reversed Amendment 706 on the issue of converting base offense level into a base offense level for marijuana, holding that the defendant’s base offense level would have remained the same, id. at *2.

In U.S. v. Traywick, NO. 08-14092, 2009 WL 693339 (11th Cir. Mar. 18, 2009), the Court affirmed the defendant’s sentence for crack cocaine offenses pursuant to its holding in U.S. v. Melvin, No. 08-13497, 2009 WL 236053 (11th Cir. Feb. 3, 2009) that, regardless of U.S. v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(2)(A) and policy statements prevent a court from reducing a defendant’s term of imprisonment under § 3582(c)(2) to a term that is less than the minimum of the amended guidelines range determined under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.10(b)(1), id. at *2 (citing Melvin, at *5, *7, *9-*10). The Court also held that § 3582 does not include a notice or hearing provision. Id. The Court further held that the Supreme Court’s holding in Kimbrough v. U.S., 128 S.Ct. 558 (2007) that courts can deviate from the 100-to-1 equivalency ratio of cocaine base to powder cocaine in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.13 and Amendment 503 did not amount to an amendment of the Guidelines and was therefore inapplicable to a § 3582(c)(2) motion. Id.

The Court also followed its holding in Melvin in U.S. v. St. George, No. 08-12226, 2009 WL 707858 (11th Cir., Mar. 19, 2009), and further reemphasized that, in re-sentencing a defendant under § 3582(c)(2), a district court must leave intact all guideline application decisions made during the initial sentencing, does not have authority to revisit factual matters such as drug quantity, and cannot apply Booker, id. at *2 (citing U.S. v. Bravo, 203 F.3d 778, 780 (11th Cir. 2000); U.S. v. Cothran, 106 F.3d 1560, 1562 (11th Cir. 1997)). And in U.S. v. Roberts,
NO. 08-13753, 2009 WL 714329 (11th Cir., Mar. 19, 2009) it again affirmed that Booker does not apply to resentencings under § 3582(c)(2) pursuant to § 1B1.10(b)(1), id. at *1.

The denial of the defendant’s proposed minor role reduction under U.S.S.G. § 3B1.2 was affirmed in U.S. v. Bataz Martinez, No. 04-15405, 2009 WL 707772 (11th Cir., Mar. 19, 2009), a drug prosecution, “because [the defendant] failed to demonstrate that he was less culpable than most of the other participants in the offense,” id. at *2. The defendant’s sentence was also affirmed under Booker based upon the defendant’s failure to point to any evidence of a reasonable probability that he would have received a lesser sentence had he been sentenced under advisory guidelines. Id. at *3.

In U.S. v. Massengill, No. 08-15207, 2009 WL 714259 (11th Cir., March 19, 2009), the Court denied the defendant’s attorney’s motion to withdraw pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967) and remanded to the district court to amend its written judgment were the judgment failed to include any reasons for the court’s upward departure from the guidelines range, agreeing with the Second Circuit in U.S. v. Hall, 499 F.3d 152 (2d Cir. 2007) that the “better course” where a court omits the reasons for a departure in a written order is to affirm the substance of the judgment and remand to the district court for the sole purpose of amending the written judgment to comply with 18 U.S.C. § 3553(c)(2), which requires a written statement of reasons for the sentence in the written order of judgment, id. at *4 (citing Hall, at 153).

 In U.S. v. Villegas-Tello, No. 08-13325, 2009 WL 714214 (11th Cir., Mar. 19, 2009), the Court held that Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents possessed probable cause to arrest the defendant for marijuana offenses based upon the totality of the circumstances, and that follow-up questions by arresting officials for the sake of clarification do not violate Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), id. at *4 (citing U.S. v. Rhodes, 779 F.2d 1019, 1032 (4th Cir. 1985); U.S. v. Gonzales, 121 F.3d 928, 939 (5th Cir. 1997); Andersen v. Thieret, 903 F.2d 526, 532 (7th Cir.1990); Butzin v. Wood, 886 F.2d 1016, 1017-18 (8th Cir. 1989)). The Court also affirmed the denial of one of the defendants’ motion in limine pursuant to Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968), holding that an alleged statement by a co-defendant was not incriminating on its face to the defendant; that sufficient evidence supported the defendants’ convictions; and that because one of the defendants performed the same or similar role within the conspiracy as his codefendants, he was not less culpable than most other participants in his relative conduct, he was not entitled to a minor role reduction under § 3B1.2. Id. at *5, *6, *7 (citing U.S. v. DeVaron, 175 F.3d 930, 937 (11th Cir. 1999)).

The Court affirmed the denial of the defendant’s motion to vacate his convictions for conspiracy to commit bank fraud and money laundering pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in Baughman v. U.S., No. 08-14279, 2009 WL 714212 (11th Cir., Mar. 19, 2009), concluding that record supported the finding of the district court that the defendant never instructed his attorney to file a notice of appeal, and consulted with him on his right to appeal, id. at *3, *4.

In U.S. v. Bohning, NO. 07-15549, 2009 WL 724036, (11th Cir., Mar. 20, 2009), a prosecution of the defendant for various sex offenses involving minors, the Court held that the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel and Fifth Amendment due process rights were not violated by the government placing a lis pendens on his home, which the defendant would have sold to pay legal fees, discussing its prior decision in United States v. Register, 182 F.3d 820 (11th Cir. 1999), id. at *1, *2 (citing Register, at 834). The Court also held that the district court’s denial of the defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea was not unreasonable. Id. at *3 (citing United States v. Brehm, 442 F.3d 1291, 1298 (11th Cir. 2006))

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

 

            In this age of universal access to information through computers, cellphones and other devices, there is one group the courts are increasingly opposed to having access—the jury. A March 18 article in the New York Times relates how jurors in a large criminal case in South Florida were discovered to have done research on the case on the internet, in violation of the court’s instructions. The court ordered a mistrial. The article also mentions an Arkansas civil case in which a juror was found to have sent updates regarding the case using the internet social networking service Twitter, and the trial of former Pennsylvania state senator Vincent J. Fumo, in which the defense demanded a mistrial based on a juror’s posting updates on the trial on Facebook, another social networking site.

            As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes observed over a century ago, “[t]he theory of our [legal] system is that the conclusions to be reached in a case will be induced only by evidence and argument in open court, and not by any outside influence, whether of private talk or public print.”Patterson v. Colorado, 205 U.S. 454, 462 (1907). Accordingly, courts have held that “[w]hen jurors consider extrinsic evidence… a new trial [is required] if the evidence poses a reasonable possibility of prejudice to the defendant.” U.S. v. Rowe, 906 F.2d 654, 656 (11th Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original) (citing United States v. Perkins, 748 F.2d 1519, 1533 (11th Cir.1984); United States v. Howard, 506 F.2d 865 (5th Cir.1975)). The extraordinary technological advances of the past 30 years means that today, most jurors possess the means to access to virtually any information and any person at their fingertips, which creates an exceedingly difficult challenge for courts in screening jurors from outside information and improper communication during trial or deliberations.

The problem posed by jurors’ use of new computer and internet technology to gather information or communicate during trial has been on the horizon for some time. In People v. Wadle, 77 P.3d 764 (Colo.App. 2003), a prosecution for child abuse resulting in death, the defendant testified that she was taking the anti-depressant drug Paxil at the time of the child’s death, id. at 769. During the jury’s deliberations, one of the jurors downloaded a description of Paxil from the internet and shared it with the other members of the jury, in direct violation of the trial court’s earlier denial of the jury’s request for such information, and the jury subsequently convicted the defendant. Id. at 770. The defendant moved for a mistrial, which was denied by the court. Id. The Colorado Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding “we discern a reasonable possibility that the introduction of extraneous information about Paxil… may well have influenced the verdict.” Id. at 771 (citing Wiser v. People, 732 P.2d 1139, 1143 (Colo.1987)). The Court of Appeals foresaw the problem posed by juror access to the internet, stating:

We… recognize the problems created by the widespread use and availability of the Internet. Although the Internet has made information more accessible for the average person, the information obtained thereby may be misleading, taken out of context, outdated, or simply inaccurate. Nor is this the first time a juror has looked to the Internet for information during deliberations. [Cit.] In view of the problems and dangers associated with the unsupervised use of the Internet, trial courts should emphasize that jurors should not consult the Internet, or any other extraneous materials, at any time during the trial, including during deliberations.

Id. (internal citation omitted) (citing People v. Kriho, 996 P.2d 158 (Colo.App.1999)).

During the jury deliberations in the defendant’s trial for possession with intent to distribute cocaine in U.S. v. Wheaton, 426 F.Supp.2d 666 (N.D.Ohio 2006), one of the jurors disclosed that he had used his personal computer to play audio of an exhibit admitted in the case and to research locations and distances between cities relevant to the case, id. at 668. The defendant filed a motion for new trial based upon juror misconduct, however, the district court denied the motion, holding that “Defendant failed to show bias or prejudice resulted from the extraneous information; thus, the interest of justice does not warrant a new trial.” Id. at 672.

In Commonwealth v. Guisti, 449 Mass. 1018, 867 N.E.2d 740 (2007), a trial of the defendant for aggravated rape and other crimes, it was discovered that a juror posted two messages regarding the case on an Internet mail service and received two responses from attorneys in other states, and the defendant moved for new trial, which was denied by the trial court, id. at 1018, 19. The Massachusetts Supreme Court affirmed, concluding that “the trial judge's conclusion that the jury were not exposed to extraneous influences was amply supported by the evidence and her findings.” Id. at 1019-1020.

The Court of Appeals and other courts in this Circuit have also had to deal with the growing problem of juror use of technology. In U.S. v. Siegelman, 467 F.Supp.2d 1253 (M.D.Ala. 2006), the prosecution of former Alabama Governor Don Siegelman and former HealthSouth CEO Richard Scrushy, the district court denied the defendants’ motion for new trial based upon, inter alia, emails sent by jurors to one another, holding that the e-mails were wholly unrelated to any evidence of jury exposure to extraneous information or outside influence, id. at 1279. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the trial court’s findings on appeal. See U.S. v. Siegelman, No. 07-13163, 2009 WL 564659, *25 (11th Cir. Mar. 6, 2009).

It will be interesting to see how various courts deal with the problem of limiting juror access to information or communication available through technology in the future, and perhaps even more interesting to see how they deal with instances of the intrusion of technology into the jury’s function at trial. The only certain thing is that these problems will only continue to grow—and must be faced.

 

Gillen Withers & Lake LLC is a law firm with extensive experience in federal corporate and white collar criminal defense and appellate work, as well as complex civil and class action litigation, headed by eminent former federal prosecutors, with an outstanding track record and reputation throughout Georgia and nationwide. The attorneys of Gillen Withers & Lake LLC go to battle for their clients and vigorously represent them at all stages of proceeding. Contact Thomas Withers in Savannah at (912) 447-8400 or twithers@gwllawfirm.com or Craig Gillen in Atlanta at (404) 842-9700 or cgillen@gwllawfirm.com.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks (1)

The defendant in U.S. v. Farinella, NO. 08-1839, 08-1860, 2009 WL 615408 (7th Cir., Mar. 12, 2009) purchased 1.6 million bottles of “Henri’s Salad Dressing” in 2003, id. at *1. The label on each bottle of dressing stated that the dressing was “best when purchased by” and then gave a date from January to June 2003. Id. With enough dressing to flavor a salad the size of Rhode Island, the defendant proceeded to change the dates on the bottles to May to July of 2004, and then resold the bottles to dollar stores, where they were sold to the public. Id.

The Department of Justice viewed the defendant’s change as fraudulent and misleading, and charged the defendant with wire fraud and introducing a misbranded food into interstate commerce with intent to defraud or mislead, and the defendant was convicted and sentenced to five year’s probation. Id. However, eminent Seventh Circuit Judge and legal commentator Richard Posner disagreed.

Judge Posner stated that the government’s characterization of the “best when purchased by” date as an “expiration date” was itself false and misleading, observing that “[s]alad dressing, however, or at least the type of salad dressing represented by Henri’s, is what is called ‘shelf stable’; it has no expiration date.” Id. The Court observed that neither the FDA nor the Federal Trade Commission had published any regulations defining or prohibiting the change of a “best when purchased by” date. Id. at *2. Judge Posner noted that there was no evidence that selling salad dressing after the “best when purchased by” date endangered human health, that any of the 1.6 million bottles had deteriorated, or that any purchaser of the dressing had ever complained about the taste—indeed the Henri’s evidenced no deterioration in flavor by the time of the defendant’s trial, some 4 years after the last “best when purchased by” date. Id. The Court also observed that the government had presented no evidence regarding either the industry’s or consumers’ understanding of the meaning of the “best when purchased by” date. Id. Judge Posner viewed the government’s persistent and self-serving equation of “best when purchased by” with “expires on” as disingenuous to say the least.

         Judge Posner next took the government to task for presenting an FDA expert at trial who testified that he had found no evidence in FDA databases that the defendant had inquired with the FDA regarding the relabeling of the salad dressing—thereby implying that changing the “best when purchased by” date on the label somehow required FDA approval or permission when there was no evidence that it did. Id. at *3. The Court cited the rule that “‘The idea of secret laws is repugnant. People cannot comply with laws the existence of which is concealed.’” Id. (quoting Torres v. INS, 144 F.3d 472, 474 (7th Cir.1998); citing George Campbell Painting Corp. v. Chao, 463 F.Supp.2d 184, 190-91 (D.Conn.2006); Oppenheimer Mendez v. Acevedo, 388 F.Supp. 326, 335 (D.Puerto Rico 1974)).

         The Court concluded that:

[T]o prove a person guilty of having made a fraudulent representation, a jury must be given evidence about the meaning (unless obvious) of the representation claimed to be fraudulent, and that was not done here. We remind that one possible meaning of “best when purchased by” is that it is a guarantee by the seller that if purchased by then (and, presumably, eaten within a reasonable time afterward) it will taste as good as when it was first sold; if this is the meaning that consumers attach to the phrase, there was no misrepresentation.

Id. at *4. It held that because the government had presented insufficient evidence that the defendant had engaged in misbranding, he was entitled to be acquitted. Id.

         Most significantly, the Court called out the prosecutor by name in its opinion, relating that the prosecutor, during rebuttal closing argument, had made statements to the jury to the effect that the defendant was “trying to buy his way out” by hiring a “high-paid lawyer” and that you “can’t buy justice.” Id. at *5. The Court also cited the prosecutor’s implying to the jury that changing the “best when purchased by” date prevented the manufacturer from tracing the product to prevent it from causing illness; her urging the jury that if the defendant’s actions were proper, that they should start “growing their own food;” her references to “truckfulls of nasty, expired salad dressing;” and numerous other references, despite the fact that there was no evidence of any health or safety issues with the dressing, or any problems with its taste or freshness. Id. The Court took a dim view of these repeated instances of misconduct and invited the district court to explore the issue of the proper sanction for such misconduct, concluding:

We are not permitted to reverse a judgment on the basis of a lawyer's misconduct that would not have caused a reasonable jury to acquit, United States v. Hasting, 461 U.S. 499, 505-06, 103 S.Ct. 1974, 76 L.Ed.2d 96 (1983); United States. v. Boyd, 55 F.3d 239, 241-42 (7th Cir. 1995), but in this case, had the government presented enough evidence to sustain a conviction, we would have reversed the judgment and ordered a new trial on the basis of the prosecutor's misconduct. That sanction is not available only because the government presented so little evidence that the defendant is entitled to an acquittal. That does not detract from the gravity of the prosecutor's misconduct and the need for an appropriate sanction. The government's appellate lawyer told us that the prosecutor's superior would give her a talking-to. We are not impressed by the suggestion.

Id. at *6.

Gillen Withers & Lake LLC is a law firm with extensive experience in federal corporate and white collar criminal defense and appellate work, as well as complex civil and class action litigation, headed by eminent former federal prosecutors, with an outstanding track record and reputation throughout Georgia and nationwide. The attorneys of Gillen Withers & Lake LLC go to battle for their clients and vigorously represent them at all stages of proceeding. Contact Thomas Withers in Savannah at (912) 447-8400 or twithers@gwllawfirm.com or Craig Gillen in Atlanta at (404) 842-9700 or cgillen@gwllawfirm.com.

 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks