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

Arthur "Avi" Hiaeve, owner of the Manhattan diamond store, Hiaeve & Co., was acquitted last Wednesday on money laundering charges in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York. According to Reuters, Senior District Judge Allyne Ross granted Mr. Hiaeve's motion for judgment of acquittal on the seven counts of laundering drug money through his business as well as charges of avoiding currency reporting requirements, holding that a single telephone call by Mr. Hiaeve to a government informant was insufficient to establish venue in the Eastern District, and that Mr. Hiaeve should have been prosecuted in Manhattan in the Southern District of New York. The prosecution responded that Mr. Hiaeve allegedly had reason to know that he was laundering money coming from drug operations operating in the Eastern District of New York. Double jeopardy bars a subsequent prosecution of Mr. Hiaeve in Manhattan.

The government had alleged that Mr. Hiaeve laundered at least $106,000 on five occasions. Employees of Hiaeve, Kevin and Tanny Donaldson, were also charged with laundering drug money and entered pleas of guilty to conspiracy to distribute controlled substances and money laundering, respectively. Mr. Hiaeve is still involved in a civil forfeiture suit involving $3 million in diamonds and $17,900 in seized currency.

 Source: Elite Choice

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The fur continues to fly in the Wecht case in the run up to the retrial, currently scheduled for May, 27 2008. 

As I have previously stated in this blog, it is my hope that this blog will raise the standard of the criminal defense bar by posting pleadings that can be accessed and then used in one’s own practice. In that respect, the filings by Wecht’s counsel provide us with an excellent standard to emulate:

•             The defense has recently filed a Motion to Dismiss for Prosecutorial Misconduct (the brief is available here), alleging that the investigating agent and the lead AUSA have committed prosecutorial misconduct which infected the search warrant affidavit and the trial by suggesting that the movement of certain evidence occurred on one day in an effort at concealment, when, in fact, it occurred on a different day, such that no concealment could have occurred. This post trial motions practice is of an exceptionally high quality and brings to light some very disturbing allegations related to the prosecution’s handling of this troubling case.
•             The defense has Renewed its Motion for Verdict of Acquittal under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 alleging that the government failed to prove any misrepresentation or concealment. It is particularly interesting how interwoven these pleadings are because the Renewed Motion for Verdict of Acquittal ties in nicely with the prosecutorial misconduct motion and the government contention of concealment of evidence, which, is at the very least mistaken.  
•             And, finally, the defense has raised a Double Jeopardy claim related to the manner in which the mistrial was declared (this is no doubt a long shot, but generally a litigant is entitled to a direct appeal from the denial of a double jeopardy claim), and now seeks to appeal the trial judge’s denial of that motion.

Wecht is being capabably represented. These pleadings provide all of us in the defense bar with exceptional post judgment guides.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link