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

Earlier this month, as reported in the Wall Street Journal's MarketWatch, a Federal jury in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California acquitted Howard H. Berger, a business consultant, on four criminal tax charges. The charges stemmed from Mr. Berger's alleged filing of 2006 personal and partnership tax returns allegedly claiming a false charitable donation of $1 million.

The defense at trial presented compelling evidence that Mr. Berger never personally reviewed or authorized his 2006 return. The compelling evidence was that, four days before the return was due in October of 2007, Mr. Berger's ex-wife kidnapped their 4 year-old son from his preschool and fled with the child to her native country of South Africa. Furthermore, this was not the first time the former Mrs. Berger had abducted the child--she had refused to return to the U.S. after taking the child to visit her family in 2005. It took Mr. Berger 8 months working with the U.S. State Department to obtain a court order for the return of his son. The defense furthermore undermined the testimony of IRS agents regarding alleged false statements by Mr. Berger regarding his access to the charity's bank accounts or statements.

Image source: discoverlosangeles.com/photos.html

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

Jerry Eversole, a Harris County (Houston), Texas, Commissioner, was charged in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas with conspiracy, accepting bribes and filing false income tax returns in 2003 and 2004. Eversole was alleged to have accepted $100,000 in gifts from a developer, Michael Surface, in exchange for being awarded County contracts.

Eversole was tried on the charges back in March. The defense put up no evidence of its own at trial. Nevertheless, the jury, during deliberations, raised questions about Eversole's friendship with Surface and the line between friendship and criminal conspiracy. On March 30, 2011, the Court declared a mistrial after jurors deadlocked on the charges. Eversole has spent $1.1 million on his defense. His second trial is scheduled to commence on October 24. He has just $51,000 remaining in legal defense funds.

Image source: examiner.com

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

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.

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

An article in USA Today claims that prison inmates in Georgia, Florida, California and elsewhere caused the Internal Revenue Service to issue $39 million in undeserved federal tax refunds in 2009. Georgia came in second with $3,560,562 in fraudulent refunds issued to prisoners, but was far outstripped by Florida's $12,576,944 in refunds. The IRS identified 44,944 false or fraudulent tax returns filed by prisoners in 2009, however an audit identified 54,410 tax returns which the IRS had failed to identify as having been filed by prisoners.The number of undeserved refunds paid out was up from $13.4 million in 2004.

While some inmates came legally receive income from investments, inheritances and other sources, the false tax returns are typically based on fictitious jobs and taxes that were never withheld. Although inmates do work in prison, prison jobs do not pay enough to trigger withholding. The scams often involve the theft of Social Security Numbers and other information from others. In some cases, the inmates will find the names of businesses which have declared bankruptcy, in order to make it more difficult for the IRS to verify the claims.

A Florida inmate, Danilo Suarez, obtained $58,022 in tax refunds by filing 14 or more false tax returns. Jeanni Renee Hillin, a Tennessee inmate, received $58,651 in refunds in 2006. 

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

We knew it was coming, but Bloomberg reports today that Switzerland's Federal Tax Administration has said that it expects to deliver account data on almost 4,450 U.S. clients of UBS AG to the IRS in exchange for the IRS' withdrawal of a "John Doe" summons served on UBS and accompanying lawsuit. The IRS had sought information on approximately 52,000 UBS accounts, however the agency and UBS entered into a settlement in August 2009 in which UBS would provide information on 4,450 accounts. UBS also paid the U.S. government $780 million as part of the settlement. UBS was alleged to have aided wealthy U.S. citizens in evading taxes from 2000 to 2007.

The article notes that, since February 2009, the Justice Department has filed criminal tax charges against 17 U.S. clients of UBS clients, two UBS bankers and three others accused of aiding tax evasion.

And in Georgia tax news, the government has sued two tax preparers in Cobb County, Georgia, seeking to put them out of business, according to a press release. A complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia against Christopher Musyoki, Samuel Nganga and Musyoki’s tax preparation business, Simba Consultants Inc., alleging that the defendants allegedly underreported their customers' income on tax returns and made false claims for earned income credits, child tax credits and fuel tax credits.

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

On Friday, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued an opinion in the highly-publicized tax evasion case against actor Wesley Snipes, U.S. v. Snipes, No. 08-12402, which may be read here. The odd facts in the case are as follows: around 2000, Snipes became involved with a tax resistance organization, American Rights Litigators (“ARL”), operated by Snipes’ co-defendant Eddie Ray Kahn, which made various arguments on behalf of its clients against the IRS’ collection of taxes, including that domestic earnings of individuals allegedly do not qualify as “income” under 26 U.S.C. § 861 because the earnings do not come from a listed “source.”
 

From 1999 to 2004, Snipes earned more than $37 million, however he did not file income tax returns for any of these years. During this period Snipes did, however, send the IRS correspondence, altered tax forms and demands for income which he had paid in earlier years. Snipes made wildly outlandish arguments to the IRS, including that he was a non-resident alien; that earned income must come from sources wholly outside the U.S.,; that taxpayers are legally defined as persons operating “a distilled spirit Plant;” that the Tax Code is limited to the District of Columbia and insular possessions of the United States, and excludes the other 50 states; and that Snipes was “a fiduciary of God” and a “foreign diplomat” who was not required to pay taxes. In addition, Snipes’ companies ceased deduction of income and payroll taxes for employees. Snipes invited his employees to attend an “861” seminar at his home and threatened one employee who questioned the theory, Carmen Baker, that if Baker was “not going to play along with the game plan,” she should find another job.
 

Snipes, Kahn and Douglas Rosile were indicted in 2006 in the Middle District of Florida for conspiracy to defraud the United States by impeding the IRS in its collection of income taxes, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, filing a false claim for a refund, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 287; and willfully failing to file tax returns, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7203. Snipes filed several motions to transfer venue to the Southern District of New York pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3237(b) and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 21(b), which were denied by the district court.
 

Snipes’ trial commenced in January 2008. Carmen Baker testified at trial that Snipes had allegedly ordered her not to talk to anyone or disclose any information when she received a grand jury subpoena, telling Baker that he had a confidentiality agreement with her signature, and that if she contacted the government, she would have to “pay the consequences.”

Snipes requested several specific jury instructions, including that the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects a defendant’s right to trial in the district where a crime is committed, and on good faith and good faith reliance on advice of counsel.

Defense attorney and former Deputy Independent Counsel Craig Gillen also notes regarding the case that Snipes was charged with six counts of willfully failing to file his individual tax returns for tax years 1999 through 2004, in violation of Section 7203. In May of 2002, Snipes and his lawyer had a telephone conference with an IRS agent wherein Snipes was informed that he was under investigation for tax crimes. The agent read Snipes his non-custodial rights which included the right to remain silent. Snipes replied "very interesting." At trial, Snipes requested a jury instruction based on good faith reliance on his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. Snipes claimed that because the IRS agent advised him of his right to remain silent, he believed he had a 5th Amendment privilege not to file his tax returns. Snipes claimed that because he had a good faith belief in his right not to incriminate himself, he could not be guilty of willfully failing to file the returns. The trial court refused to give the requested instruction.
 

On February 1, 2008, the jury convicted Snipes on three--misdemeanor--counts of willful failure to file individual federal income tax returns for calendar years 1999, 2000, and 2001. The presentence investigation report calculated Snipes’s intended tax loss at $41,038,051 under U.S.S.G. §§ 2T1.1(a) and 2T4.1. It also recommended an enhancement for obstruction of justice pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, for Snipes’ direction to Baker to conceal evidence from the grand jury’s investigation, and recommended an overall sentence of 36 months’ imprisonment. The district court overruled Snipes’ objection to the obstruction enhancement and, discussing the sentencing considerations in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), imposed a sentence of 36 months. Snipes appealed.
 

In its opinion, the Eleventh Circuit panel affirmed Snipes’ conviction and sentence. On appeal, the government conceded that Snipes' proposed instruction on good faith reliance on the privilege against self-incrimination was substantially correct. The Court of Appeals, however, held that there was no error because the conduct which formed the basis for Snipes' counts of conviction occurred before  the May 2002 conversation with the IRS agent, and also held that the trial court's instruction on good faith was sufficient. Although the trial court had refused to give the Snipes instruction, in closing arguments, Snipes' counsel did argue to the jury that Snipes' reliance on the IRS agent's pre-interview advice of rights constituted a good faith basis for his failure to file the tax returns. Apparently this argument resonated with the jury--on all counts for tax years subsequent to the May 2002 interview, Snipes was acquitted.

In regard to Snipes' other arguments, the Court rejected Snipes’ argument that the district court erred in denying his motion for elective transfer under Section 3237(b) as untimely, finding that Snipes failed to properly move to extend the elective transfer deadline. The Court also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in not holding a pretrial evidentiary hearing on venue, concluding Snipes was not entitled such a hearing, but rather had a Sixth Amendment right to have the issue of venue decided by the jury. The Court also held that the district court did not err in sentencing Snipes pursuant to Section 2T1.1, or in enhancing his sentence by two levels for obstruction of justice under Section 3C1.1. It concluded that Snipes’ comments to Baker amounted to encouraging Baker to avoid complying with a grand jury subpoena, which may be considered obstruction of justice. Lastly, the Court held that Snipes’ 36 month sentence was reasonable.
 

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

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/

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

In Georgia federal criminal news, Jamil Flowers pled guilty on Tuesday in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia to conspiracy to defraud the government and making false claims and statements to the IRS for defrauding the federal government of more than $1 million in tax refunds, according to the AJC. Flowers, Rico Lampkin and Jason Soudemire, who have also pled guilty, admitted to filing more than 100 tax returns containing false statements of income and withholding. Most of the false returns contained false 1099-R forms showing that the taxpayers had allegedly received money from a pension with the U.S. Railroad Retirement Board. The conspirators used other persons to open bank accounts to receive the tax refunds.

According to a press release by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georiga, John Duffey and Jennifer Duffey of Locust Grove, Georgia, were both sentenced to a year and a day in the Northern District for illegally disposing of hazardous wastes. The Duffeys operated a company Joint Military Development Services (JMDS), which conducted training exercises for the military. JMDS purchased approximately 560 "napalm bursts," containing napthalene, a federally-listed hazardous waste. The Duffeys were charged with burying the napalm bursts on an adjacent landowner's property in Locust Grove, Georgia, rather than paying to have the bursts lawfully disposed of. JMDS did not have a permit from the Environmental Protection Agency to dispose of the waste.

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

Georgia federal criminal news today includes:

A warning by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of Georgia to would-be tax law violators, listing recent tax prosecutions (which has become something of an annual tradition as April 15 approaches).

Two Marietta, Georgia, men were sentenced in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia for defrauding investors, as reported by the Atlanta Journal Constitution. James Reece's and Patrick Soltis' outlandish false representations included claims that actress Raquel Welch was the spokeswoman for a cosmetics company they owned, and that they were working in conjunction with the University of Minnesota to develop a faster growing species of tree. Reece was sentenced to 6 years and 6 months. Soltis recieved 3 years and 5 months. Both men were ordered to pay hundreds of thousands in restitution.

Picture courtesy of www.verumserum.com.

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

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
• Share Link

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
• Share Link

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
• Share Link

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
• Share Link

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
• Share Link

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
• Share Link

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
• Share Link

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
• Share Link

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
• Share Link

The Federal government is building criminal cases against more than 150 U.S. citizens holding overseas bank accounts with Union Bank of Switzerland (UBS), as reported by Reuters and the Banking Times. The criminal investigations are part of a Federal crackdown on tax evasion by means of overseas accounts and were facilitated by a settlement between U.S. and Swiss authorities earlier this month in which Switzerland agreed to disclose the identities of some 5,000 U.S. citizen account holders, contrary to Switzerland's longstanding tradition of banking secrecy. UBS has already settled charges that it assisted U.S. customers in evading taxes for $780 million.

As the IRS states on its website, under the agreement, the IRS will receive information on accounts of various amounts and types, including bank-only accounts, custody accounts in which securities or other investment assets were held and offshore company nominee accounts through which an individual indirectly held beneficial ownership in the accounts. UBS will give account holders notice if information relating to the acocunt holders is included in the IRS treaty request. "Information provided to the IRS through this process will be thoroughly examined for all potential civil and criminal tax violations." "The IRS will also recommend criminal prosecution in those cases where the facts warrant such an action."

Four U.S. clients of UBS, three in Florida and one in California, are already being prosecuted based on the information provided by UBS. And the number of investigations and prosecutions are expected to grow. In a press release,Tax Commissioner Doug Shulman claimed that the U.S./Swiss agreement "puts in place an apparatus for the IRS to obtain information on thousands of offshore accounts. Further the Swiss government is prepared to work with us regarding similar U.S. requests, if any, involving other financial institutions." U.S. and Swiss authorities are reportedly negotiating for the disclosure of thousands of additional names of U.S. account holders. Commissioner Shulman stated that international tax evasion is a "top priority."

Commissioner Shulman stated that the IRS has set a "voluntary disclosure" deadline of September 23, 2009, for UBS customers with unreported, offshore income, and advised persons to contact a tax professional. Customers receiving notification from the bank may come forward under the voluntary disclosure program--however "once the Swiss government sends [the IRS] the name, all bets are off." UBS customers with any reason for concern should strongly consider promptly contacting tax and legal professionals.

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

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
• Share Link

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
• Share Link

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
• Share Link

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
• Share Link

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
• Share Link

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
• Share Link

Sir Robert Allen Stanford is scheduled to be arraigned today on conspiracy, mail and wire fraud, money laundering and obstruction charges in Houston in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Stanford is represented by attorneys Dick DeGuerin and Sean Ryan Buckley, of the Houston firm of DeGuerin and Dickson.

According to the docket for the case, the Government obtained its 21-count indictment, which can be viewed here, last Thursday and promptly moved to seal (i.e. prevent public access to) it, and then unsealed it on Friday shortly before Stanford’s arrest.

The Court will likely revisit the issue of whether Stanford is entitled to release before trial. On Friday, the Court ordered co-defendants Mark Kuhrt and Gilberto Lopez released on a $100,000 unsecured bond. However, given Stanford’s considerable wealth and ties abroad, any amount of bond imposed in his case will undoubtedly be far higher, if Stanford is granted pre-trial release at all, that is. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia determined that Stanford posed a high risk of flight, and denied bond.

The case will be tried before U.S. District Judge David Hitter, a brief description of whom can be found here.

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

The writers of Federal Criminal Defense Blog have been busy writing on other matter and apologize for the brief hiatus. Much has happened in the sphere of white collar crime even during our short absence, most notably developments in the two largest Ponzi schemes in U.S. history, and we have some catching up to do.

We’ll start with the second largest—an indictment indictment against billionaire Texas financier Sir Robert Allen Stanford, 59, was unsealed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on Friday according to the Associated Press  and the BBC. The 50-page indictment alleges that Stanford and six other defendants with allegedly perpetrated a $7 billion Ponzi-style fraud. It charges Stanford and the other defendants with 21 counts, including 7 counts of wire fraud, 10 counts of mail fraud, conspiracy to obstruct an investigation for the Securities and Exchange Commission, obstruction of an investigation by the SEC and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Defendants Laura Pendergest-Holt, Gilberto Lopez and Mark Kuhrt are executives of Stanford Financial Group. Defendant Leroy King, a former bank regulator for the Caribbean island nation of Antigua and Barbuda, allegedly accepted more than $100,000 in bribes from the other defendants in order to allow the alleged scheme to continue.

The indictment alleges that the defendants sold certificates of deposit issued by Stanford International Bank, based in Antigua, to investors, promising large returns. The defendants allegedly made false claims to investors regarding the growth of Stanford Financial Group’s assets.

The scheme had approximately 30,000 investors. Stanford is alleged to have diverted more than $1.6 billion in investment funds in personal loans to himself. More than $1 billion in investment money is allegedly unaccounted for. Stanford is also charged in the indictment with allegedly conspiring to obstruct an SEC proceeding. Stanford Financial Group’s finance chief, James M. Davis, is cooperating with investigators. Davis has been charged with fraud and obstruction in a separate indictment.

Stanford was the owner of a newspaper, two restaurants, and a development company in Antigua, and was a cricket enthusiast and owner of the Stanford cricket grounds in Antigua. In 2008, Stanford staged a $20 million, winner-takes-all, match between a West Indian XI and England at the grounds. In 2006, Stanford became the first American to be knighted by Antigua and Barbuda.

Stanford is represented by attorney Dick DeGuerin, who has issued a statement to the press that Stanford is innocent of the charges. Stanford has made repeated statements as to his innocence and has alleged that no money was lost.

Stanford surrendered to the FBI on Thursday and had his initial appearance on Friday. U.S. Magistrate Judge Hannah Lauck determined that Stanford posed a flight risk and ordered him to remain in custody pending a future detention hearing in Houston. Several governments have frozen his assets. Stanford faces as much as 250 years in prison if convicted.

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

By way of background, the Government originally charged Syed Haris Ahmed in a sealed indictment filed on March 23, 2006. The Government obtained a Superseding Indictment on July 19, 2006. It has charged Ahmed and his co-defendant, Ehsanul Islam Sadequee, with one count of conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists, in violation of Title 18 United States Code Sections 956 and 2332b; one count of providing and attempting to provide material support to terrorists, in violation of Title 18, Sections 956, 2332b and 2339A; one count of conspiracy to provide material support to a Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization, in violation of Title 18, Section 2339B; and one count of attempting to provide material support to a Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization, in violation of Title 18, Section 2339B.

The Government’s Superseding Indictment contains the following facts and allegations:

Ahmed was born in Pakistan in 1984 and became a naturalized U.S. citizen. Sadequee, who is allegedly nicknamed “Shifa,” was born in Virginia in 1986, and is of Bangladeshi descent.

In or around late 2004, Ahmed and Sadequee and another person engaged in alleged paramilitary training, including with paintball guns, in Northwest Georgia.

On or about February 26, 2005, Ahmed and Sadequee traveled to Toronto, Canada, by bus. While in Toronto, Ahmed and Sadequee allegedly met in person with “supporters of violent jihad” and “discussed strategic locations in the United States that were suitable for terrorist attack, including military bases and oil storage facilities and refineries.” Ahmed, Sadequee and the others allegedly also “explored how they might disrupt the world-wide Global Positioning System (GPS)” and “a plan for members of the group to travel to Pakistan to seek and receive paramilitary training that they would then use to engage in violent jihad.”

After returning to Atlanta, in or about March or April 2005, Ahmed and Sadequee further discussed these plans, and also the possibility of attacking Dobbins Air Reserve Base in Marietta, Georgia.

At or around this time, Sadequee was allegedly in communication with Younis Tsouli, an unindicted co-conspirator in the United Kingdom.

On or about April 10 and 11, 2005, Ahmed and Sadequee traveled to Washington, D.C., in Ahmed’s pickup truck. On April 11, Ahmed and Sadequee allegedly “made short digital video recordings… of symbolic and infrastructure targets of potential terrorist attacks in the Washington, D.C., area, including the United States Capitol; the headquarters building of the World Bank…; the Masonic Temple in Alexandria, Virginia; and a group of large fuel storage tanks near I-95 in northern Virginia.”

On returning to Atlanta, Ahmed allegedly gave the video clips to Sadequee so that he could send the clips to supporters of violent jihad abroad. Sadequee allegedly sent the video clips to Tsouli in the United Kingdom and Tsouli stored the clips on his computer along with other materials relating to violent jihad.

Between March and July 2005, Sadequee allegedly provided Ahmed with the contact information for Abu Umar, an unindicted co-conspirator, and told Ahmed that Abu Umar could assist Ahmed with obtaining paramilitary training in Pakistan. On or about July 17, 2005, Ahmed traveled from Atlanta to Pakistan for the alleged purpose of studying in a madrassa and then obtaining paramilitary training to engage in violent jihad in Kashmir or other locations, including the U.S. Ahmed is alleged to have intended to join Lashkar-e-Tayyiba (“Army of the Righteous”). Ahmed was allegedly unsuccessful in his attempts to enter a madrassa or to obtain paramilitary training, and returned to Atlanta.

On or about August 18, 2005, Sadequee traveled from Atlanta to Bangladesh to allegedly get married and to pursue violent jihad. Sadequee was stopped as he traveled through John F. Kennedy Airport in New York and was discovered to allegedly have two compact discs concealed in the lining of his suitcase which contained a Fairfax County, Virginia, Visitor’s Center map of the Washington area, including the sites of four potential terrorist targets which Sadequee and Ahmed had videotaped in April 2005. Sadequee was interviewed by federal agents and allegedly falsely stated that he had traveled to Toronto alone.

On or about August 19, 2005, Ahmed returned to Atlanta from Pakistan and was interviewed by federal agents at Hartsfield International Airport in Atlanta. Ahmed allegedly made false and misleading statements about his travel to Canada and Pakistan, allegedly stating that he had made the trips to visit friends and family and to attend a religious school.

In the Fall of 2005, Ahmed allegedly researched shaped explosive charges and methods to defeat surveillance by government authorities. He also allegedly cautioned an individual to avoid discussing certain topics over the telephone.

On or about November 27, 2005, Ahmed allegedly told a supporter of violent jihad of his intent to go abroad again to train for, and engage in, violent jihad, and told the individual to read the indictment against Jose Padilla. At or around this time, Ahmed allegedly reviewed a periodical for gun enthusiasts.

In early 2006, Ahmed allegedly engaged in efforts to detect and evade suspected government surveillance. In March of 2006, agents from the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Force engaged in a series of interviews with Ahmed, in which Ahmed allegedly attempted to conceal the true nature of his, Sadequee’s and their alleged co-conspirators’ discussions, activities and plans. After the interviews began, Ahmed communicated with Sadequee in Bangladesh and warned him about the FBI’s interest in their activities.

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

The trial of Syed Haris Ahmed is Georgia’s most significant terrorism case and we will collect for readers daily information on the trial and additional information. Today’s information on the Ahmed/Sadequee Trial comes from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, WSBTV and CNN.

Ahmed is 24, an Atlanta area native and a former student at Georgia Tech. Ahmed waived his right to jury trial, and his case is being tried before District Court Judge William S. Duffey in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia without a jury. Jack Martin, of Martin Brothers, P.C., is representing Ahmed. Assistant U.S. Attorney Robert McBurney is representing the United States. Ahmed’s co-defendant, Ehsanul Islam Sadequee, will be tried in August. Stephanie Kearns of the Federal Defender Program is representing Sadequee.

On Monday, Mr. Martin gave his opening statements to the Court, describing Ahmed as a confused, frustrated and immature young man who “fell prey” to websites espousing extremist views. Mr. Martin characterized the alleged plans for terrorist acts as “passing random thoughts, momentary ideas, childish fantasies, unformed, inchoate notions.” Mr. Martin argued that Ahmed had the ability to commit the alleged acts but said “No.” He stated that Ahmed’s idea of paramilitary training was shooting paintball guns with a friend in the North Georgia woods.

Mr. McBurney argued that Ahmed “one step removed from the bomb throwers” and intended to wage violent jihad. Mr. McBurney argued that Ahmed was a would-be terrorist who went to Pakistan to join the Taliban. He said that the videos made by Ahmed while allegedly “casing” locations in Washington, D.C., including the Capitol and the Pentagon, were intended to prove to terrorists overseas that Ahmed had access to Washington’s “backyard” and could get in close to targets. McBurney said the government’s case is about supporting terrorism and not actually “pulling the trigger or dropping the bomb.”

FBI Special Agent Mark Richards testified for the government. During Agent Richard’s testimony, the government showed some of the videos. In one video of the World Bank Building, Ahmed bobbed up and down so much that Mr. Martin asked Special Agent Richards “If a terrorist was attacking on a pogo stick, this might be useful, right?” However, another video shows Ahmed and Sadequee driving past the Pentagon with Sadequee stating “This is where our brothers attacked.”

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

The government’s case in many instances will evolve or shift to some extent over the course of a criminal prosecution. It may be a long time between indictment and trial, and the prosecution may come into possession of new evidence before trial, or may not have thoroughly reviewed the evidence which it does possess until after the return of the indictment. In addition, the prosecution may adjust its arguments or evidence in reaction to the defense. Whatever the reason, the prosecution in many criminal cases may determine to argue or present evidence at trial regarding a theory of criminality which differs to some degree from the crimes alleged in its original indictment. A thorough prosecutor will sometimes seek to provide for such a shifting theory by obtaining a superseding indictment from the grand jury, but in other cases the prosecution may not notice any need to do so or may simply neglect to do so. In any event, attorneys should carefully evaluate the prosecution’s arguments and proof at trial, as well as the trial court’s instructions to the jury, in order to determine whether a variance or amendment of the indictment has occurred. Following is a brief survey of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals’ current position on amendments to or variances with the indictment.

“A constructive amendment occurs when the essential elements of the offense as alleged in the indictment are altered to broaden the potential bases for conviction beyond what the indictment contains.” United States v. Tampas, 493 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing United States v. Narog, 372 F.3d 1243, 1247 (11th Cir. 2004); United States v. Keller, 916 F.2d 628, 634 (11th Cir. 1990)); see also United States v. Ward, 486 F.3d 1212, 1227 (11th Cir. 2007). A constructive amendment of the indictment constitutes per se reversible error because it violates a defendant’s Fifth Amendment right to be tried on charges presented to the grand jury. See United States v. Tampas, 493 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing United States v. Weissman, 899 F.2d 1111, 1114 (11th Cir. 1990)). Under the Fifth Amendment, “a defendant can only be convicted for a crime charged in the indictment. It would be fundamentally unfair to convict a defendant on charges of which he had no notice.” Ward, at 1227 (citing Keller, at 632-33). The mere presentation of evidence not referenced in the indictment, such as pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), does not constitute an amendment or variance. See United States v. Lavigne, 282 Fed.Appx. 790, 793 (11th Cir. 2008) (unpublished).

In contrast, “a variance occurs when the facts proved at trial deviate from the facts contained in the indictment but the essential elements of the offense are the same.” Ward, 486 F.3d at 1227 (citing Keller, at 634; United States v. Flynt, 15 F.3d 1002, 1005-06 (11th Cir. 1994)). A variance only requires reversal where the defendant can establish that his or her rights were substantially prejudiced. Id. (citing Keller, at 633).

The Court has found no constructive amendment where an indictment charged the defendant with distributing crack cocaine and the trial court instructed the jury that it could find the defendant guilty if he had distributed either cocaine or crack cocaine, based upon the fact that the type of drug is not an element under the controlled substance statute, 21 U.S.C. § 841, United States v. Porter, 293 Fed.Appx. 700, 703, 04 (11th Cir. 2008) (unpublished); where the government argued in its closing arguments that it need not prove that all of the defendants named in the indictment were members of the scheme, but the indictment charged the defendant with conspiring with two named co-defendants as well as “other persons” United States v. Nunnally, 249 Fed.Appx. 776, 778 (11th Cir. 2007) (unpublished); where the trial court failed to instruct the jury that it had to find that the defendant embezzled a specific amount, but the indictment alleged that the defendant embezzled property having a value in excess of $5,000, Tampas, at 1291; where the trial court instructed the jury that it could still convict the defendant on the substantive mail and wire fraud counts of the indictment if it was unable to reach agreement on the conspiracy charge did, despite the fact that the government had referenced the conspiracy in the substantive counts of the indictment, Ward, at 1227, 28; where, despite the fact that the indictment alleged that the defendant possessed “more than 20 kilograms of cocaine,” the trial court instructed the jury that it could find the defendant guilty if it found that he possessed “a measurable amount” of a controlled substance, United States v. Knight, 213 Fed.Appx. 835, 838, 39 (11th Cir. 2007) (unpublished); where the government alleged in its indictment that the defendant committed an act “on or about” a particular date, but the proof at trial showed that the act was committed on a different date, United States v. Strevell, 185 Fed.Appx. 841 (11th Cir. 2006) (unpublished); where the indictment charged the defendant with an offense involving cocaine, but the proof at trial and the trial court’s jury instructions referred to crack cocaine, United States v. Rutherford, 175 F.3d 899, 906 (11th Cir. 1999); where the government’s indictment alleged that a certain person was the victim of the defendant’s extortion, but the proof at trial demonstrated that the person had no connection with the money obtained, United States v. Flynt, 15 F.3d 1002, 1006 (11th Cir. 1994); where the district court deviated in its instructions to the jury from the allegations in the indictment concerning a non-essential element of the crime, United States v. Lignarolo, 770 F.2d 971, 981 (11th Cir. 1985); where the government proved events of a conspiracy at trial which were not listed in the overt acts section of the indictment, United States v. Gold, No. 83-3231, 83-3230, 83-3267, 83-3239, 1984 WL 48339 (11th Cir. 1984); and where the government dropped two alleged co-conspirators from its conspiracy allegations at trial, United States v. Davis, 679 F.2d 845, (11th Cir. 1982).

However the Eleventh Circuit has found constructive amendments of indictments and improper broadening of the potential bases for conviction where the indictment charged the defendants with knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that pseudoephedrine would be used to manufacture methamphetamine, but the trial court instructed the jury that it could convict the defendants if it found that they knew or had reasonable cause to believe that the pseudoephedrine would be used to make “any controlled substance,” Narog, at 1249; where the government charged that the defendant knowingly and “willfully” committed money laundering, but the court redacted the term “willful” from its charge on the definition of “intentional,” United States v. Cancelliere, 69 F.3d 1116, 1121 (11th Cir. 1995); where the indictment alleged that the defendant conspired with a particular person and the trial court instructed the jury that it could convict the defendant if it found he conspired with “any” person, Keller, at 636; where the RICO charges in the indictment charged that the “enterprise” was a particular organized crime family but the court instructed the jury that it could convict the defendants if it found a different enterprise, United States v. Weissman, 899 F.2d 1111, 1115 (11th Cir. 1990); and where the trial court instructed the jury that it could convict the defendant if it found the elements of an offense which had not been charged in the indictment, United States v. Peel, 837 F.2d 975, 979 (11th Cir. 1988).

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

In an opinion issued on Tuesday, Montejo v. Louisiana, --- S.Ct. ----, 2009 WL 1443049 (2009), the Supreme Court removed a layer of protection of criminal defendants against coercive and badgering police interrogations by overruling, Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625, 106 S.Ct. 1404 (1986), in which the Court had held that “if police initiate interrogation after a defendant's assertion, at an arraignment or similar proceeding, of his right to counsel, any waiver of the defendant's right to counsel for that police-initiated interrogation is invalid.”

The petitioner in Montejo was arrested in connection with a robbery and murder and waived his rights pursuant to Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (1966), while being interrogated by police detectives. A preliminary hearing was then held in which the court ordered an indigent defender to represent the petitioner. After the hearing, two detectives visited the petitioner and requested that the petitioner lead them to the murder weapon. The detectives read the petitioner his Miranda rights, and the petitioner proceeded to go along with the detectives, writing an inculpatory letter of apology to the widow of the victim in the process. Only following this excursion did the petitioner meet his court-appointed attorney and consult with him. The State admitted the petitioner's letter of apology against him at trial, and the petitioner was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death.

The petitioner appealed, arguing that the State's admission of the letter was error pursuant to Jackson. The Louisiana Supreme Court held that Jackson is not triggered unless and until a defendant has actually requested a lawyer or has otherwise asserted his Sixth Amendment right to counsel. It held that because the court had appointed the petitioner counsel while the petitioner stood mute, the petitioner had not sufficiently asserted his right to counsel. The Courtaffirmed his conviction and the Supreme Court granted certiorari.

Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, observed that some States require an indigent defendant to affirmatively request counsel before an appointment is made, while other States automatically appoint counsel upon a finding of indigency. Justice Scalia recognized the problem that "Defendants in States that automatically appoint counsel would have no opportunity to invoke their rights and trigger Jackson, while those in other States, effectively instructed by the court to request counsel, would be lucky winners." The majority rejected the petitioner's position that, once a defendant is represented by counsel, police may not initiate any further interrogation.

The majority proceeded to overrule Jackson and its holding that waivers of a defendant's right to counsel after the right to counsel is asserted are presumed invalid. The Court noted that it had created the presumption in Jackson by making an analogy to a similar prophylactic rule which the Court had established in Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880 (1981), for the Fifth Amendment right to have counsel present at any custodial interrogation under Miranda. The majority held that where a defendant does not invoke his right to counsel, such as where a court appoints counsel in the absence of any request by the defendant,there is no initial election "that must be preserved through a prophylactic rule against later waivers." It noted that the benefits of the prophylactic rule of Jackson were outweighed by its costs in "hindering “society's compelling interest in finding, convicting, and punishing those who violate the law." The majority observed that, even without the rule of Jackson, defendants are still entitled to the protections of Miranda, Edwards and Minnick v. Mississippi, 498 U.S. 146, 151, 111 S.Ct. 486 (1990). It held that "Jackson not only 'operates to invalidate a confession given by the free choice of suspects who have received proper advice of their Miranda rights but waived them nonetheless,' ... but also deters law enforcement officers from even trying to obtain voluntary confessions."

Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer all dissented.

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

We have tried to sum up for readers the labyrinthine facts and developments in the shocking and fascinating case of Marc Dreier, drawing upon excellent and thorough articles on the subject by Roger Parloff in Fortune Magazine and by Robert Kolker in New York Magazine.

I. The Rise

Marc Stuart Dreier grew up on the South Shore of Long Island, the son of a Polish refugee who built a chain of movie theaters. He graduated from Lawrence High School in the Five Towns.

Dreier attended Yale and then Harvard Law School. On graduation, he became an associate with Rosenman & Colin in New York, and later became a partner.

In 1987, Dreier married Elisa Peters, an associate at Rosenman & Colin. The couple had a son, Spencer, in 1989, and a daughter, Jackie, in 1992. He moved to Houston-based Fulbright & Jaworski’s New York litigation office in 1989. In 1995, Dreier left Fulbright & Jaworski and briefly worked at Duker & Barrett.

In 1996, Dreier started his own firm, Dreier & Baritz, with securities lawyer Neil Baritz. He developed a business practice whereby he entered into agreements with other lawyers and law firms, promising to handle the collection of their gross revenue and payment of their office expenses in exchange for paying guaranteed salaries and incentive bonuses.

II. Sheldon Solow and Kosta Kovachev

It is rumored that Dreier received money to start the firm from New York real estate developer Sheldon Solow, owner of Solow Realty, a billionaire son of a bricklayer turned developer.

               Dreier represented Solow in several matters. One such matter was a dispute over a mansion in East Hampton with Peter Morton, founder of the Hard Rock Cafe, with each man staking a claim to the same multimillion-dollar East Hampton beach house. Another case involved a dispute between Solow and Peter Kalikow, another real estate developer and former owner of the New York Post, over $7 million loaned by Solow to Kalikow while Kalikow’s company was in bankruptcy. Dreier, at the request of Solow, took out full page ads in the Post and the New York Times which looked like legal notices, inviting creditors of Kalikow to call a company called Evergence Capital Advisors.

Evergence Capital Advisors was actually the name of a dissolved Florida corporation formerly owned by a friend of Dreier’s, Kosta Kovachev. Kovachev was a Serbian who attended Columbia University and Harvard Business School and became a banker and securities broker. He was sued by the Securities and Exchange Commission for his involvement in a Ponzi scheme selling time-shares in Florida which defrauded approximately 600 investors in 30 states out of $28 million. Dreier represented Kovachev in the proceeding.

The telephone numbers in the newspaper ads led to Dreier’s offices. More than 50 creditors called the numbers, but never received a response. The U.S. bankruptcy judge sanctioned Solow and Dreier $335,000 over the ads. Solow and Dreier are still appealing the sanctions.

Acquaintances describe Dreier as incredibly charming, but a ruthless litigator. In 2002, Dreier’s wife sued him for divorce. That same year, Baritz severed his ties with Dreier, and in 2003 the firm became Dreier LLP, with about 60 attorneys.

III. The Scheme

Beginning in November 2004, Dreier began to sell promissory notes to hedge funds. Dreier claimed that the notes were issued by Solow Realty, and represented to the funds that he was marketing agent for Solow. In reality, Solow and Solow Realty had no knowledge of the notes, and the notes were forged by Dreier along with fraudulent audit reports on the letterhead of one of Solow Realty’s accounting and firms, Berdon LLP. Dreier would tell fund representatives that Solow was trying to raise $500 million to purchase properties, and that Solow did not want to borrow money from banks for reasons of secrecy and because Solow did not want to be accountable to anyone. He claimed that the notes would return 11% interest a year.

Dreier and his co-conspirators, including Kovachev and a man named Armando Ruiz, would host meetings and conference calls with fund representatives. They would give fund representatives telephone numbers purportedly for Solow Realty’s CEO or Controller, but which actually went to Dreier and his accomplices. Dreier created fake e-mail addresses and obtained no-contract cell phones for the scheme.

The phony notes were purchased by nearly 40 investment funds, including Fortress Investment Group, GSO Capital Partners LP, Elliott Associates, Eton Park, Westford Global Asset Management, Perella Weinberg Partners, Verition and Blackstone Group.

In order to come up with the funds to make quarterly interest payments on the phony notes, Dreier expanded Dreier LLP. The firm eventually employed approximately 260 attorneys and approximately 300 staff and had offices in New York City, Los Angeles, Pittsburgh, Santa Monica, Stamford and Albany, New York. The firm’s New York City office leased 11 floors in a building designed by architect I.M. Pei at 499 Park Avenue.

Dreier lured new attorneys to the firm by guaranteeing them $1 million in salary before bonuses. He financed the expansion by factoring receivables. Although the firm had “partners,” Dreier remained the sole equity partner, which limited oversight.

Dreier amassed a large quantity of luxury property, including a $10 million condominium in Manhattan; two mansions in the Hamptons; properties in the Caribbean; an art collection worth $40 million, including works by Henri Matisse, AndyWarhol and David Hockney; and a 120-foot yacht. Dreier threw lavish parties with private performances by Diana Ross, Bon Jovi or Alicia Keys, and hosted a celebrity golf tournament.

IV. The Fall

By 2008, however, Dreier had a total of $180 million in debt to hedge funds, as well as annual interest payments of $20 million. He began selling a new form of phony note, allegedly issued by the Ontario Teachers Pension Plan (OTPP) and backed by BCE, the parent company of Bell Canada.

In September of 2008, Dreier failed to meet his obligations to one of the funds, likely GSO Capital Partners LP, and the fund demanded to meet with representatives of Solow Realty at Solow Realty’s offices. On October 15, 2008, Dreier, Kovachev and the fund representatives arrived at Solow Realty’s offices, and Dreier, without Solow’s knowledge, proceeded to hold a meeting in Solow Realty’s conference room in which Kovachev pretended to be Solow Realty’s Controller.

Finally, in late October 2008, a prospective buyer of the phony notes finally contacted the Solow Realty’s audit firm, Berdon LLP, whose name had been forged on the notes, and discovered the scheme. Berdon notified Solow, and Tom Manisero, a lawyer for Berdon, telephoned Dreier.

Dreier lied to Manisero, stating that he had only attempted to sell the notes once. He had several other telephone calls with Manisero, which were recorded by the U.S. Attorney’s Office. During the calls, Dreier admitted that the audit reports were fake, and that he was ashamed. On the final call, Dreier attempted to offer Manisero a “settlement.” Meanwhile, the Verition hedge fund discovered the irregularities with the phony notes.

On December 1, a bankruptcy attorney with the firm Norman Kinel sent Dreier an e-mail asking for $38.5 million out of the firm’s escrow account for one of the firm’s clients to pay its creditors. However, less than half of the money remained in the escrow account.

While Dreier was under investigation, he offered Fortress Investment Group $33 million of the phony OTPP notes. A Fortress representative, Howard Steinberg, asked to meet with the OTPP representative in person, and Dreier arranged for a meeting with OTPP’s general counsel in Toronto. On December 2, Dreier flew to Toronto met with the general counsel, Michael Padfield, himself to discuss alleged business opportunities and got his business card. He then proceeded to meet with Steinberg at OTTP’s offices, posing as the general counsel. Steinberg became suspicious and asked the receptionist if Dreier was actually the general counsel, and was told he was not. The police were contacted, and Dreier was arrested for criminal impersonation.

            Prosecutors allege that, after the initial call from Manisero, Dreier attempted to move funds to a personal account Dreier used for his Caribbean properties. On December 3, Dreier’s 19-year-old son, Spencer, attempted to deliver a message from Dreier to about 40 partners of Dreier LLP, but was shouted out of the conference room. Furthermore, at around this time, Dreier succeeded in having the firm’s bank transfer $10 million in escrow monies to one of his personal accounts. At this time also, Kovachev also went to the firm’s offices and took two paintings.

            Dreier posted bail in Canada, and arrived back on New York on December 7, where he was arrested upon arrival. Kovachev was also arrested. Authorities have also subpoenaed all documents from Dreier LLP relating to Armando Ruiz.

On January 29, Dreier was charged with seven counts wire fraud, securities fraud, and money-laundering. He initially pled not guilty, but filed affidavits admitting large portions of the allegations against him. Drier was placed under house arrest in his condominium in Manhattan. He is represented by attorney Gerald Shargel, who has formerly represented members of the Mafia. Dreier’s friend, Erinch Ozada, a Turkish hedge fund manager, is reported to be cooperating with the government.

In the meantime, Dreier LLP has ceased to exist. Attorneys and employees of Dreier LLP have unpaid salaries and unreimbursed expenses.

In all, Dreier is alleged to have committed $700 million in fraud against 13 hedge funds and three individuals, resulting in $400 million in losses, and to have taken $40 million from his clients’ escrow accounts. On Monday, May 11, 2009, Dreier pled guilty to all charges before U.S. District Court Judge Jed Rakoff in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. He faces a potential 20 years on some counts.

Over 200 creditors have already filed more than $450 million in claims against Dreier LLP. Investigators report that any monies are mostly gone. The government has seized Dreier’s luxury property in order to forfeit the property or distribute it among creditors. There has been some interest in the movie or book rights to Dreier’s saga, however New York’s Son of Sam laws prevent such exploitation.

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

Our summary retrospective of Justice Souter’s contributions to the Supreme Court’s criminal law jurisprudence continues. In addition to writing for the majority in many important criminal decisions, Justice Souter has authored concurring decisions in many cases, including criminal cases. While the Justice’s concurrences in criminal cases have typically been brief, Justice Souter has frequently raised important alternative views on issues on which he disagrees with the majority, or raises issues which the majority has overlooked.

Most recently, in Gall v. U.S., 128 S.Ct. 586 (2007) Justice Souter authored a concurring opinion in which he expressed his view that the best resolution of the tension between the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury and consistency in sentencing was for Congress to enact a new statutory system of mandatory sentencing guidelines which provide for jury findings on all facts necessary to set the upper range of sentencing discretion. Justice Souter also concurred with the majority in U.S. v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (2001), in which the majority held that no more than reasonable suspicion was required to support a warrantless search of a probationer’s apartment, reserving the question of whether the Court’s holding in Whren v. U.S., 517 U.S. 806 (1996) that the subjective intentions of investigating officers play no role in searches based upon probable cause should also extend to searches based upon reasonable suspicion. In Illinois v. McArthur, 531 U.S. 326 (2001), the majority of the Court held that police officers preventing the petitioner from entering his home unaccompanied by an officer for about two hours while the officers obtained a warrant to search the home constituted a reasonable seizure of the premises pursuant to the Fourth Amendment. Justice Souter joined the majority in a concurring opinion in which the Justice observed that the exigent circumstances created by the risk that the defendant would have destroyed the illegal drugs stashed on the property would have justified a warrantless search of the premises by the police. In his concurrence in Florida v. White, 526 U.S. 559 (1999), which involved the warrantless seizure of an automobile from a public place by police as contraband under Florida’s contraband forfeiture law, Justice Souter took issue with the majority’s holdings to the extent that they endorsed the warrantless seizure of anything alleged to be “contraband,” holding that “[t]he Fourth Amendment does not concede any talismanic significance to use of the term ‘contraband’ whenever a legislature may resort to a novel forfeiture sanction in the interest of law enforcement, as legislatures are evincing increasing ingenuity in doing…” (citing Bennis v. Michigan, 516 U.S. 442, 443-446, 458 (1996); U.S. v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43, 81-82 & n. 1 (1993) (Thomas, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)). And in Carlisle v. U.S., 517 U.S. 416 (1996), Justice Souter disagreed with the majority opinion that a district court possesses inherent authority to grant a motion for a judgment of acquittal, observing that Congress might possess the power to abrogate courts’ inherent authority legislatively, citing Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29(c).

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

Spam e-mail is nearly universally despised. However, recipients of spam may not fully appreciate the inventiveness and intricateness of some spammers' methods, however dubious or illegal, before considering the charges against Missouri residents Amir Ahmad Shah, age 28, and Osmaan Ahmad Shah, age 25, who operated a company I2O. As reported by IDG News Service, the brothers, along with Paul Zucker of New Jersey and Liu Guang Ming, a citizen of China, were indicted today by a federal grand jury for an e-mail spamming scheme which targeted more than 2,000 U.S. colleges and universities and sold more than $4.1 million worth of products to students. The scheme involved e-mail extracting programs which illegally harvested more than 8 million student e-mail addresses. The defendants then sent targeted spam e-mails to students in at least 31 campaign selling a variety of products and services, including digital cameras, MP3 players, teeth whiteners, pepper spray, magazine subscriptions and spring break travel offers. They developed programs to falsify header information and rotate URLs, subject lines, content, reply addresses and other information to avoid spam filters. The defendants would include false and misleading information in the e-mails suggesting an association with the college or university, using fictitious names, claiming to be "campus representatives," and that the businesses selling the products were "alumni owned." They also created dozens of identical websites for each e-mail campaign to conceal the source of the e-mails and to keep the e-mails from being blocked by spam filters, and initially set up the hosting for the websites in China. The defendants made money through referral fees for sending spam for products and services sold by others, and by buying products in bulk and reselling them. They also offered "offshore hosting" services for other spammers.

Federal investigators began investigating the Shah brothers in 2005, after University of Missouri officials identified them as the source of the spamming. The brothers proceeded to remove all Missouri students' e-mails from their lists, but continued to spam other colleges and universities. The defendants are charged in the indictment with 26 counts of aiding and abetting each other to access a protected computer without authorization and transmit commercial e-mails with the intent to deceive or mislead the recipients about the origin of the messages, and the indictment seeks $4.1 million in forfeiture and other property. Colleges and universities have spent large amounts repairing the damage from the hacking and spamming and in implementing protective measures.

Spamming is regulated by the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, codified at 15 U.S.C. s 7704, which prohibits false, misleading or deceptive information in spam, as well as for sexually explicit spam without sufficient warnings, and carries a maximum sentence of 5 years imprisonment. Some sources estimate that spam now comprises 95% of the e-mails in the world.

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

In follow up to the post earlier today on the Fifth Circuit's letter to counsel in the Minor case, it seems that the Fifth Circuit is obviously troubled by the proof, if any, between the agency receiving federal funds, the Administrative Office of the Mississippi Courts, and the allegedly corrupt activity of Minor and the judges (Whitfield and Teel) that he sought to influence. First, the limiting cases on 666 violations have generally interpreted that statute very broadly, but a reasonable reading of the Court’s questions indicates a concern for the level of proof of the “nexus” between the Administrative Office of the Mississippi Courts and any agent, or activity of a particular matter before the judges.

Secondly, if such a nexus is required, it seems the Court is concerned whether the issue has been properly preserved both at trial and on appeal.

Thirdly, and most surprisingly, the Fifth Circuit, obviously knows what effect a reversal of those counts would have on the other counts of conviction, “even if the convictions on those other counts were not to be reversed?” The posing of that question by the Fifth Circuit seems almost gratuitous. Counts of conviction are routinely reversed that either don’t effect the sentence imposed, or that require re-sentencing consistent with the Court’s opinion. One has to look no further that Governor Siegelman’s recent case in front of the Eleventh Circuit. Quite frankly, re-sentencings happen all of the time after the reversal of some counts of conviction. Just odd that the Fifth Circuit would pose that question publicly.

As for Paul Minor’s quest for vindication before the Fifth Circuit, sadly, the court's letter indicates that they are going to affirm the other counts of conviction.

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

Yesterday, the Fifth Circuit in a letter to counsel, requested additional briefing regarding Counts 11, 12, 13, and 14, which allege a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 666 (what I've always referred to as the devil statute). In Minor the government charged that the agency receiving government funds was the administrative office of the courts of Mississippi. Generally you see a Section 666 violation when someone has stolen monies from say, a local transit authority, which receives in excess of $5,000 in a given year (thereby conferring federal jurisdiction). And, we all know that almost any program receives that amount from the federal government now.

The Fifth Circuit requested additional briefing on the following questions:

1) What evidence shows that the Mississippi judges were influenced or rewarded in connection with matters related to the Administrative Office of the Courts of Mississippi?

2) Describe the nexus that the “in connection with” clause of 666 requires between the Administrative Office of the Courts of Mississippi and the particular matters in front of the judges supposedly influenced by Minor’s actions.

3) What was the proof of that nexus?

4) Did the appellants adequately preserve the issue in the district court and did they adequately raise the issue on appeal?

5) If the Fifth Circuit reverses any of the Counts 11-14, what effect would that have on any of the other counts of conviction, “even if the convictions on those other counts were not to be reversed?”

The Court gave the parties until May 15 to file briefs of less than 15 pages.

More commentary on this later.
 

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

As previously reported here, the Department of Justice and UBS entered into a deferred prosecution agreement wherein UBS is to pay a fine and disclose to DOJ the names of its some 52,000 clients that have used UBS to park income in violation of U.S. tax laws. The New York Times reports today that the President of Switzerland has asked Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner, to drop what the Times inexactly reports to be a lawsuit to disclose the names of the UBS clients. In fact, under the deferred prosecution agreement, UBS has to cooperate with DOJ by providing the client’s names. My guess, Mr. Geithner, who had his own tax issues, isn’t going to touch this one. DOJ has already prosecuted two folks whose names UBS disclosed and, inevitably, many more such prosecutions will follow.

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

Today the Eleventh Circuit held in United States v. Carter, No. 08-14460, that a search of the home of a probationer is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment, if supported by reasonable suspicion. Carter was on probation in 2007, however, his probation did not contain a Fourth Amendment waiver provision. His probation officer though, was suspicious that his lifestyle could not be supported by the unskilled labor he performed and he, along with other probation officers, searched Carter’s town home, which lead to him being charged with possession with intent to distribute crack and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon.

Carter moved to suppress the evidence discovered during the warrantless search. Relying on the balancing test set forth in United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (2001), Judge Carnes writing for the Court, noted that the Knights case first addressed the probationer’s individual privacy interests - in short - not much. Then Judge Carnes addresses the “governmental interests at stake” - in short - for a guy like Carter - prior violent crime and drug conviction - “the government’s interest in monitoring the probationer is particularly high.” This may be a common sense conclusion, but Judge Carnes draws this conclusion virtually out of thin air, citing only U.S.S.G. 4B1.1(a)(providing enhanced penalties for criminals with a history of drug felonies or crimes of violence). However, U.S.S.G. 4B1.1 says nothing about probationers, or the government’s interest in monitoring them more closely. 

Judge Carnes ultimately holds that “the search in this case need only be supported by reasonable suspicion to be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment” and that the search of Carter’s home was permissible.

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

In a case of remarkable chutzpah, Mark Anthony McBride, plead guilty in Atlanta on Friday to a two count information charging him with one count of conspiring to obtain million of dollars in fraudulent mortgages and other loans and one count of bankruptcy fraud.

McBride plead to a scheme he started in 2001 after being released from prison and continued until he reported back to prison in 2002. As soon as he was released from prison in 2006 he was back at making a living in the only, apparent. fashion he knew, being a con artist by completing fraudulent mortgage loans, car loans, lines of credit and continued his scheme until his arrest in September of 2008 for violating his federal probation.

Showing exceptional criminal ingenuity, McBride was able to retain the proceeds of his fraud by filing 8 bankruptcies in Georgia, Alabama and South Carolina.

Methinks McBride's schemes have come to an end. He faces up to 35 years in prison at his sentencing, which is scheduled for July 9, 2009.

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

U.S. Attorney David Nahmias said on Thursday that more charges are expected in the continuing investigation of inmate abuse at the Fulton County Jail. On Thursday, two lieutenants, Lt. Earl Glenn and Lt. Robert Hill, pleaded innocent to federal charges of using excessive force and lying to FBI agents investigating the case.

Nahmias has taken an unusual interest in this case, announcing last month the initial arrest of Curtis Jerome Brown, on civil rights, obstruction and false statement charges.

Last week Nahmias said that more charges were expected in the investigation of inmate abuse.

Judge Shoob has monitored conditions at the jail following a lawsuit filed on behalf of inmates accusing the jail of overcrowding and dangerous conditions.

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

False claims actions, or “qui tam” actions, are well known actions by a “whistleblower,” or relator, who has discovered fraud against the Government, pursuant to the False Claims Act (FCA), 31 U.S.C. § 3729. If the Government decides to intervene in their case, the whistleblower can share in any recovery by the Government.

In addition to the FCA, other government agencies have their own incentives for whistleblowers. The most notable example is the Department of Treasury and Internal Revenue Service, which have long had a whistleblower program in place. However, on December 20, 2006, President George W. Bush signed the Tax Relief and Health Care Act of 2006 into law, which dramatically increased incentives under the IRS’s whistleblower program. Section 406 of the Act, codified at Section 7623 of Title 26 of the United States Code/ Section 7623 of the Internal Revenue Code, entitled “Expenses of detection of underpayments and fraud, etc.” provides in part that:

1.  The Secretary of Treasury is authorized, in cases where such expenses are not otherwise provided for by law, to make awards for (1) the detection of underpayments of taxes, or (2) the detection and bringing to trial and punishment persons guilty of violating, or conspiring to violate, the internal revenue laws. 26 U.S.C. § 7623(a).

2.  If the Secretary proceeds with any administrative or judicial action based upon information brought to the Secretary’s attention by an individual, the individual shall receive as an award at least 15 percent but not more than 30 percent of the collected proceeds (including penalties, interest, additions to tax, and additional amounts resulting from the action), or from any settlement in response to such action, subject to the exception in 26 U.S.C. § 7623(b)(2)(A), discussed below. The amount of the award shall be determined by the Whistleblower Office and shall depend on “upon the extent to which the individual substantially contributed to such action.” 26 U.S.C. § 7623(b). NOTE: All of Section 7623’s award provisions apply only if there is an action against a taxpayer (1) whose gross income exceeds $200,000 for any taxable year subject to the action, and (2) the tax, penalties, interest, additions to tax, and additional amounts in dispute exceed $2,000,000. 26 U.S.C. § 7623(b)(5). NOTE: No awards can be made under Section 7623 unless the information submitted to the Secretary is submitted under penalty of perjury. 26 U.S.C. § 7623(c).

Gillen Withers & Lake LLC, is headed by civil and criminal defense attorneys who are among the most distinguished in the Southeast, with a national reputation and excellent track record, who vigorously represent and make every effort on behalf of their clients. Contact us today by calling or e-mailing Craig Gillen in Atlanta at (404) 842-9700 or cgillen@gwllawfirm.com or Thomas Withers in Savannah at (912) 447-8400 or twithers@gwllawfirm.com.

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

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