Two Former Georgia Department of Family and Children Services Employees Sentenced for EBT Fraud

The Atlanta Crime Examiner reports that Gene Tell and Kristy Nicole Williams were sentenced last Thursday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. Tell and Williams, employees of the DeKalb County office of the Georgia Department of Family and Children Services (DFCS), were charged with defrauding the U.S. Department of Agriculture of nearly $600,000. The defendants took the funds through DFCS' electronic benefits transaction (EBT) system.

Georgia Resident and DOD Employee Charged with Bribery

As reported by Reuters, Desi Deandre Wade, of Climax, Georgia, was a chief of fire and emergency services for U.S. Department of Defense, based in Kabul, Afghanistan. Wade has been charged with allegedly accepting a $95,000 bribe from a contractor in exchange for providing the contractor with quotes from competing bidders.

Wade was arrested last week in Atlanta while attending a Fire Rescue International Conference.

Former CEO of Kansas Utility Westar Energy Receives $36 Million Settlement, Plus $3.1 Million in Legal Fees for Dismissed Criminal Prosecution

Westar Energy, the largest electrical utility in the State of Kansas, announced last week that it will pay former Chief Executive Officer, President and Chairman of the Board, David Wittig $36 million as an arbitration settlement relating to Wittig's compensation contract, as well as $3.1 million in attorney's fees and $2.7 million in stock compensation, according to the Topeka Capital-Journal. Westar's settlement with Wittig follows its settlement in the Spring with its former Vice President of Corporate Strategy, Douglas Lake for $21 million in unpaid compensation and $5.3 million in legal fees. Wittig and Lake claimed Westar violated their employment contracts by terminating them prematurely.

Image source: aggregateresearch.com

The compensation for legal fees was for Wittig's and Lake's defense of a criminal prosecution. In 2003, the men were charged in the U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas with conspiracy, circumventing internal accounting controls and falsifying books and records, honest services fraud, wire fraud, submitting false statements and engaging in monetary transactions derived from an unlawful activity. Their first trial ended in a mistrial in 2004 after the jury could not reach a verdict. They were convicted at their second trial in 2005, but the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed their convictions last year following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision regarding honest services fraud in U.S. v. Skilling.

Mistrial in First Trial Following Massive Foreign Corrupt Practices Bribery Sting

As reported by Reuters, last week, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia declared a mistrial in the trial of four arms salesmen for alleged bribes under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). The defendants,  Andrew Bigelow, Pankesh Patel, Lee Tolleson and John Wier, were accused of attempting to bribe two individuals who were posing as representatives of the defense ministry of the African nation of Gabon in order to win a $15 million deal to provide guns, body armor and other equipment. The defendants were alleged to have told the informants that they would add a 20 percent commission to any prices quoted as bribes. The mistrial was declared following a six week trial in which the jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict after six different votes.

The sting operation, which involved a staggering 250 FBI agents, resulted in 22 individuals being charged, including a former U.S. Secret Service agent and an executive for U.S. firearm manufacturer Smith & Wesson Holding Co. Department of Justice officials have informed the media that the Department intends to retry the case. Three of the 22 individuals charged as a result of the sting have pled guilty. Trials have been scheduled for the remaining defendants.

Image source: normandy12341

Economic Concerns Driving DOJ's Prosecutorial Discretion in Large Corporate Prosecutions; Government Files Civil Suit Against Deutsche Bank Over Alleged Massive Mortgage Fraud

Federal officials last week announced that Deutsche Bank and its mortgage division, MortgageIT, allegedly engaged in fraud on a massive scale as a civil complaint was filed against Deutsche Bank. The complaint alleges that the massive German bank allegedly defrauded the government of up to $1.2 billion through alleged reckless lending practices. The Federal Housing Administration has allegedly paid out approximately $386 million in wrongful insurance claims. The government is seeking three times this amount in fines and penalties. Among the government's allegations is a charge that documents which would have informed bank officials about high rates of default were hidden in a closet at MortgageIT. The civil complaint fails to disclose any incriminating documents which could be used to establish an intent to defraud the government.

However, according to an article by Fox Business News, the government is holding back in the Deutsche Bank case from bringing criminal charges in response to the alleged massive fraud. The author points to the case as illustrative of a trend by Federal officials to prosecute alleged wrongdoing by corporations through civil, rather than criminal, means.

The article speculates that Federal officials might have elected civil, rather than criminal, proceedings due to the lower burden of proof , as well as the more time and resource-consuming nature of criminal proceedings. It also acknowledges concerns by prosecutors over potential harm to corporations, investors and the economy and markets in general, illustrated by the demise of accounting giant Arthur Andersen in 2002 as a result of the federal prosecution in the wake of the Enron scandal. The article cites the fact that criminal, as opposed to civil, actions, are often accompanied or followed by de-licensing actions by regulatory bodies.

The article also cites the relatively few criminal prosecutions following the financial collapse of 2007. What criminal proceedings there have been have focused on individuals with various Wall Street firms--rather than the firms themselves. Furthermore, several of these prosecutions have ended in failure, as exemplified by the acquittal of former Bear Stearns hedge fund managers Ralph Cioffi and Matthew Tannin in 2009.

Tax Fraud on the Rise in Georgia--52,000 False Returns in 2010

According to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the IRS found more than 52,000 fraudulent tax returns filed in Georgia in 2010, worth $41 million in refunds, an increase over the 29,000 fraudulent returns discovered in 2009 and the almost 16,000 returns in 2008. Last year, the Service and the Georgia Department of  Revenue launched more than 20,000 investigations of tax fraud in Georgia, and initiated 200 criminal cases.

Many of the fraudulent returns involve identity theft, including stolen Social Security numbers and bank information. The article also cites the cases of tax preparers who have become involved in fraudulent tax schemes. It furthermore describes a scheme by Decatur, Georgia, residents Michael Romeo St. Romain and Brian Dupree several years ago which obtained more than $475,000 in fraudulent refunds and would have netted another $1 million in refunds before St. Romain and Dupree were caught. The men are currently serving approximately five year sentences in federal prison. Another Georgia man, Michael Stringer, obtained $560,000 from false state tax returns in 2008, attempting to defraud the State of $1.4 million.

Representatives of the Gwinnett County Police Department stated that their White Collar Crime Unit receives approximately 10 cases of tax fraud each week, increasing to 15 to 20 per week in March and April.

DOJ's Stingy Office of the Pardon Attorney

Merry Christmas and happy holidays to our readers. On this day of giving, the Blog notes, by way of Grits for Breakfast, that the Department of Justice's Office of the Pardon Attorney, which makes recommendations to the President regarding executive pardons, has been a veritable Scrooge over the years in recommending cases for clemency. Our Blog noted that President Obama issued a whopping nine pardons back on December 6--many for offenses which were allegedly committed when Lyndon Johnson held his office. Grits for Breakfast cites a letter to the LA Times from Samuel T. Morison, a former staff attorney for the Office of 10 years, in which Mr. Morison states that presidents give far too much deference to the Office in recommending pardons, and that the Office's primary concern is protecting prosecutorial perrogatives.

DOJ Responds to USA Today's Prosecutorial Misconduct Allegations

The Blog commented back in October about the investigative report by USA Today on the alleged prevalence of governmental misconduct in Federal criminal cases. Well, the Department of Justice has responded to the allegations through DOJ spokesperson Tracy Schmaler, who released a statement on Friday, published in USA Today, calling the paper's story a "selective review" of a "handful" of cases over the past 18 years. Ms. Schmaler claimed that DOJ  has conducted an internal review of the 90,000 cases brought annually and found prosecutorial misconduct in only a small fraction of them. Ms. Schmaler claimed that the Department corrects any mistakes as quickly as possible, and emphasized its priority to prevent mistakes before they occur. She cited the fact that Attorney General Eric Holder has instituted a comprehensive training curriculum for all Federal prosecutors, and has made discovery training for all prosecutors mandatory. Ms. Schmaler also stated that the DOJ Office of Professional Responsibility has recently caught up on a four year backlog of cases.

The Main Justice blog reports that Attorney General Holder made statements on Friday following a meeting with European officials that the “overwhelming majority” of DOJ attorneys act appropriately.

 

Life in Shambles for New Hampshire Psychiatrist Acquitted of VA Charges

Dr. William Weeks had a life many would envy. He was a prominent psychiatrist, a professor at Dartmouth College, a physician at the local Department of Veterans’ Affairs hospital, a nationally-recognized expert on rural healthcare, the head of his town’s School Board and treasurer of his church.

However, as reported by Fox News, his life fell apart after 2004 when investigators conducting an audit began looking at five $1.5 million contracts between Dr. Weeks and the VA hospital. The VA was believed to have developed an animus against Dr. Weeks over his articles in medical journals discussin how the VA could improve healthcare to veterans in rural areas by using non-VA providers. The investigation led in 2009 to Dr. Weeks being charged with five misdemeanor charges of violations of conflict of interest rules. The government alleged that Dr. Weeks placed himself on both sides of the contracts and funneled unused grant monies to his expense account at Dartmouth to pay for a sabbatical.  The VA also filed a civil action against him.

 

Fortunately for Dr. Weeks, he was acquitted on all counts following an eight day trial in April. However, his life had been ruined. He was terminated from his position, his marriage fell apart, he had incurred six-figure legal bills and he had attempted to commit suicide three times—twice by carbon monoxide and once by pills. The VA agreed to pay Dr. Weeks $800,000 to settle his civil claims. However, it insisted that he resign his position as a condition. Darmouth also agreed to pay the VA to settle allegations of improper conduct involving the administration of contracts with the hospital. Prosecutors continue to maintain that the prosecution was justified.

 

LAPD Officer Acquitted on Weapons Export Charges

It is a rather slow news day, so the Blog would like to take the opportunity to note that, earlier this month, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California acquitted Los Angeles Police Department Officer Johnny Augustus Baltazar on charges of illegally exporting weapons and ammunition to the Central American nation of Belize, as reported in the L.A. Times. Baltazar was alleged to have purchased eight .40-caliber handguns, two 9-millimeter handguns and more than 1,500 rounds of ammunition from the LAPD police academy store for his Belize business, Elite Security. The guns and ammunition were shipped inside a safe, however the shipment was stopped by Belize officials who determined that the shipment was allegedly not in compliance with regulations banning the export of handguns larger than 9 mm. The officials sent the shipment back, and Baltazar planned to substitute smaller caliber guns for the larger caliber ones, however Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency discovered them and started an investigation.

Baltazar's counsel emphasized the confusing nature of export regulations to the jury at trial. He cited errors by the shipping company. He also argued that Baltazar was a law-abiding person merely looking to build a business in Belize for his retirement. A juror questioned following the verdict stated that he believed that Baltazar was merely following the advice of the shipping company. Baltazar remains an LAPD officer, however he has been on leave since the LAPD was notified of the investigation.

Smith & Wesson Investigated for Foreign Corrupt Practices Violations; Ponzi Schemer Scott Rothstein's Partner Invokes Fifth in Deposition

Ashby Jones of the Wall Street Journal Law Blog writes today that Firearms manufacturer Smith & Wesson is being investigated by the U.S. Department of Justice for alleged violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). The company disclosed the investigation and potential future criminal indictments of the company and its officers and employees to investors in filings with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Smith & Wesson also acknowledged that it could face debarment by the U.S. State Department. The investigation is related to an FCPA sting operation which resulted in the indictment of 22 individuals in the arms industry.

According to Law.com, Stuart Rosenfeldt, of Rothstein Rosenfeldt Adler--as in Scott Rothstein, the convicted $1.2 billion Ponzi schemer--was deposed last week by the law firm's bankruptcy trustee concerning his law firm's finances and political contributions. Rosenfeldt repeatedly invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination in response to many of the questions. Rosenfeldt stated that he never looked at the firm's books. Also, when asked about groups which he made donations to, such as Common Sense Coalition and Broward Coalition for Truth, Rosenfeldt denied being familiar with the groups or what they stood for. Rosenfeldt's attorney has stated the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida is investigating Rosenfeldt's contributions.

Director of BOEMRE Announces Investigations and Review Unit and More Agressive Tactics to Investigate Companies Engaged in Offshore Drilling

In response to the massive oil spill (over 19,000 square miles in area--or larger than the state of Maryland) in the Gulf of Mexico, on June 18, 2010, U.S. Department of the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar issued an order renaming the Minerals Management Service (MMS) the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement (BOEMRE). MMS/BOEMRE manages the nation's natural gas, oil and other mineral resources on the outer continental shelf. On June 15, President Barack Obama appointed Michael Bromwich to head the reorganized MMS and overhaul regulations governing offshore oil drilling.

The appointment of Bromwich--a former prosecutor--as Director of BOEMRE reflects the no-nonsense response of the Administration to the environmental disaster and growing public dissatisfaction. Bromwich was an Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Justice. Prior to that, he was an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. Bromwich was an Associate Counsel for the Office of the Independent Counsel for Iran-Contra, and headed an Investigation into the Federal Bureau of Investigation Laboratory. He has been appointed as an independent monitor to investigate the Metropolitan Police Department for the District of Columbia, and the crime lab for the Houston Police Department. Prior to his appointment as head of BOEMRE, Bromwich was a partner with Fried Frank in New York and Washington. Bromwich has developed a reputation for helping to turn around troubled federal agencies.

Director Bromwich has written a column today in Newsweek which confirms the Adminstration's tough approach. In the column, Bromwich discusses his acceptance of the appointment by President Obama and Secretary Salazar. He emphasizes that his career has been defined by law enforcement, and that his experience in monitoring agencies will guide his reform of BOEMRE. Bromwich cites the alleged "coziness" of MMS with oil companies. On the subject of the Deepwater Horizon oil leak, he comments that the evidence suggests that British Petroleum (BP) and other companies "cut corners or made grave errors that led to the explosion."

Bromwich cites a need for "aggressive" investigators and states that BOEMRE has announced an "Investigations and Review Unit" (IRU), composed of prosecutors, investigators, scientists and other experts, to investigate allegations of misconduct by companies regulated by BOEMRE. The column states that companies that fail to cooperate may have their drilling permits suspended. "Serious wrongdoing" will be referred to the Department of Justice for prosecution.

Bromwich further states that BOEMRE and the IRU will investigate potential conflicts of interest, will conduct more thorough reviews of applications for drilling permits and more thorough environmental analyses, and will increase research of spill control. Bromwich concludes with the caveat that his efforts "while potentially aggressive, will not be hasty."

Bromwich's statements are certainly not comforting to BP, TransOcean or the other companies with ties to the Deepwater Horizon disaster. However, only time will tell if Bromwich's and BOEMRE's efforts are successful in bringing about any reform to the offshore drilling industry, especially in the face of a risk of increased energy prices. On June 30, 2010, Secretary Salazar issued a press release announcing that the Department of the Interior is postponing public scope meetings on the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 2012–2017 Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Oil and Gas Leasing Program until later this year. The release states that, while the Department is committed to "strong" reforms in the oil and gas industry, "[o]ffshore oil and gas production will remain an important component of our nation’s energy portfolio as we transition to a clean energy economy." With a "clean energy economy" being a distant dream at this point, it is uncertain how much increased regulation the Adminstration is willing to heap upon the industry.

Image from The Canadian

Report Alleges Bush Administration DOJ Shielded BP and Executives from Criminal Prosecution over Alaska Spill

As the oil spill from the Deepwater Horizon well in the Gulf of Mexico turns two months old, an article in Digital Journal details how the government considered bringing criminal charges against British Petroleum and its executives during the Bush Administration. The article quotes Scott West, a former Special Agent in Charge for the Environmental Protection Agency. West was in charge of investigating the rupture of a pipeline at Prudhoe Bay, Alaska, which occurred in March 2006. The rupture went undetected for nearly a week due to malfunctions in monitoring equipment, and spilled more than a quarter of a million gallons of crude oil. The rupture was reportedly the size of a pencil eraser and was caused by corrosion. BP shut down five oil processing centers for nearly two weeks, causing a rise in gas prices.

EPA's criminal division, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Department of Justice spent thousands of hours investigating the rupture, and supposedly was considering criminal charges against BP and certain of its executives for ignoring warnings from employees about the condition of pipeline and the monitoring equipment.

However, the article claims that the DOJ allegedly "killed" the investigation in August of 2007. BP pled guilty to a misdemeanor violation of the Clean Water Act and paid a $20 million fine. BP also entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the government in relation to an explosion at a refinery in Texas City which resulted in 15 deaths.  

Department of Justice Targets Gulf Oil Spill Disaster and British Petroleum

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder informed the media yesterday that the federal government has opened criminal and civil investigations into the 44 day-old oil spill disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, as reported in the L.A. Daily News and elsewhere. Last month, U.S. President Barack Obama appointed an independent commission to investigate the causes of the disaster and to recommend measures to prevent a recurrence in the future. The commission is co-chaired by former Florida Governor Bob Graham and former head of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, William K. Reilly.

The lack of procedures to handle the possibility of a deep undersea spill and the seeming lack of haste in staunching the spill by United Kingdom-based British Petroleum, which leases the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, and Switzerland-based Transocean, Ltd., which owns the rig, have justly opened the companies to public criticism and condemnation, civil suits and likely civil penalties and fines. The disaster is the largest offshore oil spill in U.S. history, and is on its way to becoming the largest spill in world history as the leak continues (the largest was the willful discharge of oil by the Iraqi military from the Sea Island Terminal in Iraq in January of 1991 during the Gulf War, which discharged 462 million gallons of oil into the Persian Gulf).

Some challenges facing any potential criminal investigation or prosecution include the fact that the spill is allegedly accidental, and that its source was some 52 miles southeast of Louisiana--outside U.S. territorial waters. However, some theories of prosecution may be available. For instance, Title 33 United States Code Section 1321, entitled "Oil and hazardous substance liability," applies to discharges from "offshore facilities." The statute provides, in part, that:

(3) The discharge of oil or hazardous substances (i) into or upon the navigable waters of the United States, adjoining shorelines, or into or upon the waters of the contiguous zone, or (ii) in connection with activities under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act [43 U.S.C.A. § 1331 et seq.] or the Deepwater Port Act of 1974 [33 U.S.C.A. § 1501 et seq.], or which may affect natural resources belonging to, appertaining to, or under the exclusive management authority of the United States (including resources under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act [16 U.S.C.A. § 1801 et seq.] ), in such quantities as may be harmful as determined by the President under paragraph (4) of this subsection, is prohibited...

33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(3). Persons in charge of a vessel or offshore facility and having knowledge of a discharge of oil must immediately notify the appropriate U.S. agency. Failure to do so can result in a fine and up to 5 years' imprisonment. The statute also provides for administrative and civil penalties for owners, operators or persons in charge of vessels or facilities from which there is a discharge, or who fail or refuse to comply with relevant regulations issued by the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection agency, as well as any recovery costs by the government.

Undoubtedly, grounds for charges might be found in the U.S.' extensive environmental laws and regulations. One thing is certain--now that the Department of Justice has been mobilized to respond to the disaster, the corporate actors in relation to the spill will almost certainly not emerge without paying a steep criminal and civil settlement.

 

 

Florida Tax Defiers and Advisor to Actor Wesley Snipes Convicted for $1 Billion Tax Fraud Scheme

Eddie Ray Kahn, Stephen C. Hunter, Danny True and Allan J. Tanguay, who operated American Rights Litigators/Guiding Light of God Ministries (ARL), were about making money. Specifically--making over $1 billion in false bills of exchange which purported to be drawn on the U.S. Treasury. A jury in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia convicted Florida residents Kahn, Hunter, True and Tanguay of conspiracy to defraud the United States and to commit mail fraud yesterday following an 18-day trial, according to a Department of Justice press release. Khan, the head of ARL, had previously gained notoriety for giving false tax advice to actor Wesley Snipes, who was found guilty of failure to file tax returns in February of 2008.

The government alleged that, from 1996 through 2004, the defendants, through ARL, enrolled more than 4,000 customers nationwide in tax defiance schemes based on deliberate misrepresentations of the legal foundation of the tax system. The defendants were alleged to have manufactured and sold more than 1,000 phony bills of exchange which were sent to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration in Washington for payment of taxes. The defendants also allegedly continued to submit false and obstructionist correspondence to the Internal Revenue Service even after a preliminary injunction was entered in December of 2003 directing the defendants to stop engaging in their schemes.

Image courtesy of www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22955757/

Massachusetts Defendants Convicted for Shipping Electronics Equipment to China's Military

Yesterday, after a five week trial, a jury in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts found Zhen Zhou Wu, a/k/a Alex Wu; Yufeng Wei, a/k/a Annie Wei; and Chitron Electronics, Inc., a corporation based in Shenzhen, China, with an office in Walthan, Massachusetts, guilty of conspiring to violate U.S. export laws and illegally exporting electronic equipment from the United States to the Peoples' Republic of China, according to a press release by the Boston Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

From 2004 to 2007, Chitron purchased equipment used in electronic warfare; military radar, guidance and control equipment; satellite communications, including global positioning systems; and fire control and exported the equipment to China through Hong Kong. The equipment is primarily used in military phased array radar, electronic warfare, military guidance systems, and military satellite communications. The defendants sent the equipment to Chinese military entities and research institutes, including China Electronics Technology Group Corporation. The equipment was shipped without export licenses from the Department of Commerce, in violation of the U.S. arms embargo against China which has been in place since 1990. The press release notes that the equipment could make a significant contribution to weapons systems and fighting capabilities of adversaries of the U.S.

Source: chinalawandpolicy.com/page/2/

Wu and Wei were also convicted of filing false shipping documents with the U.S. Department of Commerce, and Wei was convicted of immigration fraud for using a U.S. Permanent Resident Card which she allegedly knew had been procured by making false and fraudulent statements to immigration officials in order to enter the U.S. A co-defendant, Bo Li, a/k/a Eric Lee, previously pled guilty to making false statements on shipping documents.

Responding to Criminal Subpoenas for Electronically Stored Information

An article in the New York Law Journal today analyzes the difficulty faced by corporations having countless bytes of electronically stored information when they are served with subpoenas in a federal criminal investigation. In addition to a need for caution in disclosing information so as not to waive any privileges, companies can face staggering costs and consumption of resources in attempting to comply with government demands for information. The authors also note the risk that targeted searches for information might be alleged to be insufficient by a prosecutor or regulator after the fact, creating a risk of additional demands for information or, at worst, charges of obstruction of justice. There are currently no Department of Justice guidelines for requesting electronically-stored information.

The article points out the potential for negotiating with the government regarding the scope of the subpoena and the actions to be taken in compliance. The authors recognize that prosecutors may often be reluctant to narrow the scope of a subpoena out of a concern that doing so may reveal information about its investigation. A corporation may also not want to reveal its methods for responding to a subpoena, considering it to be confidential attorney work-product.

The authors note that Federal Criminal Rule 17(c) sets forth some limitations on the government's power to subpoena. A subpoena must be reasonable, including in the scope of the requests and the burden on the party responding to the subpoena. The article indicates that an objection to the overbreadth of a subpoena's requests for information may be used to negotiate a narrower scope to the subpoena or the manner in which the subpoena will be complied with. The authors cite the Supreme Court's decision in Hale v. Henkel, in which the Court held that subpoena requests must be particularized, as a basis to argue that subpoena requests for electronic information are not sufficiently particularized enough to allow the recipient to identify responsive documents throught the use of targeted search terms or other methods.

The authors further note recent decisions by courts which indicates that courts may soon impose such a requirement that the government negotiate with targets of subpoenas over the scope and manner of compliance. They advocate meet and confer sessions between investigators and recipients of subpoenas, or possible meetings overseen by a magistrate judge or a special master approved by the government, similar to civil litigation, as a step before filing a motion to quash. Involvement of a magistrate or special master would also provide the added benefit allowing a subpoena recipient to submit information in camera.

DOJ Publishes Reference for Search and Seizure of Electronic Evidence

A large portion of government searches and seizures today involve the seizure and search of electronic media and information. The manner in which such searches and seizures of electronic media and information are conducted can become critically important afterwards if criminal proceedings are instituted. Well on Tuesday, the U.S. Department of Justice's Office of Justice Programs announced the publication of Electronic Crime Scene Investigation: An On-the-Scene Reference for First Responders by the National Institute of Justice, and may be viewed in its entirety on OJP's website. The publication is a guide for first responders responding to electronic crime scenes, and is a companion to an earlier publication, Electronic Crime Scene Investigation: A Guide for First Responders, Second Edition.

The publication is available as a "flip book" which agents may consult on-scene during investigations and searches. It describes the types of electronic devices, guidelines for securing and evaluating a scene, guidelines for packaging and transporting digital evidence, and special considerations for electronic and digital crime evidence by type of crime. The guide instructs investigators, among other things, to:

*Document, photograph and secure digital evidence.

*Not to alter any electronic device.

*To exclude unauthorized persons from the area where the evidence is being collected.

 

*To interview witnesses regarding the use and users of any computers or devices.

*To document various facts relating to the electronic devices, as well as to video, photograph or sketch the scene.

 

*Not to alter devices or attempt to explore them on the scene, or even to press a key or click a mouse.

The OJP publication may prove of great assistance to defense practitioners in attempting to suppress the fruits of searches and seizures of electronic information and media. Counsel should carefully review the facts of any search and seizure of such evidence and interview all witnesses to any search and seizure to ascertain whether these procedures have been followed.

Sir Robert Allen Stanford's Congressional Ties and Prison Blues

So whatever happened to indicted billionaire Sir Robert Allen Stanford? Well, not much, as reported by the Houston Chronicle. Stanford, who is charged with allegedly defrauding investors of more than $7 billion, is still incarcerated, despite his extensive efforts to secure release prior to his trial since his arrest in June of last year. Stanford has submitted a report from a physician to U.S. District Judge David Hittner of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, in which the physician opines that Stanford is close to “a complete nervous breakdown.” Two psychiatrists have diagnosed Stanford with severe depression as a result of his confinement.

Stanford's counsel complained to the court that Stanford needed to have frequent communication with his defense team in order to review the more than 7 million documents in the case and answer questions by his counsel. Unmoved, Judge Hittner denied Stanford's latest motion for release in an order issued two days before Christmas, and Stanford has appealed the denial.

Stanford's trial is still a year away, scheduled to begin in January 2011. He has denied the government's charges, as well as civil fraud charges brought by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Also reported in the Chronicle, similar to confessed attorney/Ponzi schemer, Scott Rothstein, Stanford allegedly had many ties to politicians. The Department of Justice is investigating approximately $2.3 million dollars in alleged contributions from Stanford and his staff to politicians over the past decade, as well as $5 million paid to lobbyists.  Donations by Stanford and his staff included $40,000 to the Senate Republican Campaign Committee, $100,000 to the inaugural committee of George W. Bush and $500,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. He furthermore set up his own lobbying firm in Washington, D.C. Stanford is alleged to have successfully lobbied to defeat legislation in Congress relating to financial secrecy and offshore banking which would have allegedly revealed his activities.

Stanford allegedly treated politicians to trips to the Carribean, hosting dinners with lobster and caviar. Illustrative of Stanford's high level government contacts was the fact that, mere hours after Stanford was arrested last year, Representative Pete Sessions of Texas, Chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, sent Stanford an e-mail stating that he "loved" Stanford and believed in him, and offering his advice or to listen to Stanford. Stanford and his staff contributed $44,375 to Sessions. Stanford entertained numerous Congressional delegations to the Carribean nation of Antigua, where Stanford was based, at a total cost of $311,307. Stanford also hosted a wedding dinner for New York Representative John Sweeney at a five-star restaurant owned by Stanford in Antigua, and held a cocktail fundraiser for Ohio Representative Bob Ney in Miami. Ney was later sentenced to 30 months imprisonment for accepting money and gifts from convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

Stanford opened a trust office in Miami in 2001, which allegedly enabled his bank to sell millions in certificates of deposit. This event allegedly prompted him to become involved in politics in order to prevent legislation which would have forced Stanford to reveal the source of the flow of monies to the office.

19 politicians have returned a total of $87,800 in contributions from Stanford to the court-appointed receiver. Other politicians have stated that they have donated money contributed by Stanford to charity, including $45,000 by Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, and $11,800 by Representative Charlie Rangel.

 

Telecommunications Company UTStarcom Enters into $3 Million Settlements with DOJ and SEC for Alleged Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Violations

As reported by the Wall Street Journal and DOJ, UTStarcom Inc., a California-based global communications corporation which designs, manufactures and sells network equipment and handsets has agreed to pay $1.5 million in penalties to the government for alleged acts of bribery in the People’s Republic of China in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA). The company simultaneously reached a settlement with the Securities and Exchange Commission over the same conduct in which it agreed to pay an additional $1.5 million.

UTStarcom entered an agreement with the government--in which UTStarcom neither admitted nor denied the allegations--which states that, between 2002 and 2007, the company's employees and agents allegedly arranged and paid for employees of Chinese state-owned telecommunications companies and UTStarcom customers to travel to popular tourist destinations in the U.S., including New York City, Las Vegas and Hawaii, purportedly to participate in training at UTStarcom facilities. However, UTStarcom purportedly had no facilities in the locations and conducted no training. UTStarcom recorded the trips as alleged "training" expenses. The government charged that the trips were for the alleged purpose of securing telecommunications contracts in China. The value of the trips and other gifts to foreign employees was alleged to be approximately $7 million.

The SEC has also alleged that UTStarcom obtained work visas for employees of its foreign customers to work in the U.S. and paid the individuals salaries and benefits although the individuals allegedly did no work. It claims that UTStarcom allegedly falsely accounted for payments to the individuals as employee compensation and created false annual performance reviews for personnel files of the individuals.

In addition to paying penalties, the agreement requires UTStarcom to implement various internal controls and to cooperate fully with the Department of Justice. The agreement also recognizes UTStarcom's voluntary disclosures to, and cooperation with, the government, and the company's efforts to correct the conduct. DOJ has agreed not to prosecute UTStarcom or its subsidiaries in exchange for its cooperation and its compliance with the agreement.

UTStarcom's focus has been Asian markets, in particular China. The company does business in China through UTStarcom China Co. Ltd., a wholly-owned subsidiary.

DOJ Issues New Discovery Guidelines for Prosecutors

 

 

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.

Federal Prosecutions of Corporate, Financial and White-Collar Crimes Fall to Six-Year Low; Congress Increases Funding & DOJ Increases Criminal Probes

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..