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

As the final hours of 2009 were running out on New Years' Eve, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts issued the Chief Justice's Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary, available here, a tradition begun by Chief Justice Warren Burger in 1970 to address the most critical needs of the federal judiciary. The Chief Justice has used the Year-End Report in the past to call for salary increases for federal judges. However, this year, the Report merely states that the federal courts are operating soundly, citing the hardships experienced by the nation in 2009.

The Appendix to the Report surveys the workload of the federal courts in 2009. It notes that the total number of cases filed in the Supreme Court decreased by about 6.1% from 2007 to 2008, however the Court hear more cases argued and issued more signed opinions in 2008 than 2007. Filings in the Federal Circuit Courts of Appeals also declined 6% to 57,740, mostly due to a drop in appeals from the Board of Immigration Appeals.

The Year-End Report notes, however, that criminal case filings in federal district courts rose 8% to 76,655, and the number of defendants climbed 6% to 97,982, surpassing the previous record for the number of defendants, 92,714, set in 2003, and reached its highest level since 1932. Filings relating to immigration, fraud, marijuana trafficking, and sex offenses increased. The number of mmigration cases and defendants reached record levels, as a result of illegal re-entries and visa or entry permit fraud. Most of the increase was in five federal districts near the southwestern border. The Report also observes that, as of September 30, 2009, the number of persons under post-conviction supervision was 124,183, an increase of 3% from the previous year. Supervised release cases and pretrial services cases also rose by several percent.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• 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

In affirming the convictions and sentences of Padron for conspiracy to commit mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 4 counts of mail fraud in violation of 18 18 U.S.C. § 1341, the Eleventh Circuit (opinion available here) took up a question not previously addressed in this Circuit – does 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c) authorize criminal forfeiture of specified property in general mail fraud cases. The court noted that Congress enacted 28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), which became effective in August 2000, makes criminal forfeiture available in every case that criminal forfeiture does not reach, but for which civil forfeiture is authorized.

28 U.S.C. § 2461(c), which I had never heard of, provides in pertinent part, that, “If a person is charged in a criminal case with a violation of an Act of Congress for which the civil or criminal forfeiture of property is authorized, the Government may include notice of the forfeiture in the indictment or information pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. If the defendant is convicted of the offense giving rise to the forfeiture, the court shall order the forfeiture of the property as part of the sentence in the criminal case pursuant to the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure . . .”

The Eleventh Circuit found that since civil forfeiture was authorized under 18 U.S.C. § 981 for offenses constituting “specified unlawful activity” under 18 U.S.C. § 1956, and mail fraud is defined under section 1956 as a specified unlawful activity, civil forfeiture was authorized. Therefore, since civil forfeiture was authorized, criminal forfeiture for mail fraud convictions was authorized as well.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks