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

On June 24, the United States Supreme Court rendered its decision in the case of former Enron executive Jeffrey Skilling. The majority in U.S. v. Skilling, No. 08-2349, in an opinion authored by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg (which may be read in its 114 page entirety here), held that the "honest services" mail fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. §1346, applies to bribery and kickback schemes, and not to mere "undisclosed self-dealing by a public official or private employee," alone. The majority held that Skilling did not violate §1346 since, although the Government charged Skilling with conspiring to de-fraud Enron’s shareholders by misrepresenting the company’s financial health and therefore profiting, the government never alleged that Skilling solicited or accepted any payments from third parties in exchange for making the misrepresentations.

The recent Skilling decision is already having an impact on federal prosecutions. As reported by Law.com, this week, Judge Ellen Segal Huvelle of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia told the parties in the prosecution of Kevin Ring, a former associate of convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff, that the Court would grant Ring more time to file a motion for judgment of acquittal in light of Skilling. Ring was charged with bribery and tried last year, however the trial ended in a hung jury. The Court intentionally delayed Ring's retrial to await the Supreme Court's decision in Skilling and the cases of Black v. U.S. and Weyhrauch v. U.S. The prosecution has announced its intent to push forward with a second trial of Ring.

In Georgia news, attorney M. Dewey Bain, of Sugar Hill, Georgia, was sentenced to 5 years and 3 months imprisonment today in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia for defrauding clients--including a 97 year-old woman--out of $4.3 million, as reported by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Bain entered into trust agreements with clients in which Bain falsely promised he would invest their monies in safe accounts, but instead fraudulently diverted the monies to his own personal use.

In Southeastern news, Snamprogetti Netherlands B.V.--yes, that Snamprogetti Netherlands B.V.--has agreed to pay $240 million in penalties to the government for alleged violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) for allegedly bribing officials in Nigeria to obtain engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) contracts to build liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities on Bonny Island, Nigeria, according to an FBI press release. Snamprogetti is a Dutch corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of Snamprogetti S.p.A., an Italian corporation. Snamprogetti was alleged, along with Kellogg Brown & Root Inc. (KBR), Technip S.A. (Technip), and a Japanese engineering and construction company to have engaged in a joint venture that was awarded four EPC contracts by Nigeria LNG Ltd. (NLNG), between 1995 and 2004 to build LNG facilities on Bonny Island. Snamprogetti allegedly caused the venture to hire two agents, Jeffrey Tesler and a Japanese trading company, to pay approximately $172 million in bribes to Nigerian officials. The deferred prosecution agreement was filed today in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas. Snamprogetti also reached a settlement of a related civil action by the SEC.

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

On Monday, the SEC filed a Complaint for Injunctive and Other Relief, in Federal court in Tampa, Florida, which may be viewed here, against Neil V. Moody and Christopher D. Moody, managers of the hedge funds Valhalla Investment Partners, L.P., Viking IRA Fund, LLC, and Viking Fund, LLC. Neil Moody, 71, and his son Christopher D. Moody, 35, are co-owners of the funds, based in Sarasota, Florida.

The Complaint charges that the Moodys allegedly recklessly violated anti-fraud provisions of Federal securities laws. Specifically, the SEC alleges that, from 2003 to 2009, the Moodys allegedly overstated investment returns and the value of the funds' assets by as much as $160 million in account statements provided to investors and offering materials provided to prospective investors. The Complaint also charges that the Moodys allegedly recklessly misrepresented to investors that they actively managed the funds, when in fact the investment and trading activities of the funds were managed by a third-party, namely Arthur Nadel of Scoop Management. Nadel, however, was the operator of a large Ponzi scheme involving hundreds of investors, including investors in the Moodys' hedge funds. Nadel allegedly fabricated false performance and account information which overstated the value of the Moodys' funds, and shared management and performance fees with the Moodys. The SEC filed an emergency action against Nadel in the Middle District of Florida last January, and was indicted in the Southern District of New York in April on six counts of securities fraud, eight counts of wire fraud, and one count of mail fraud.

Counsel for Christopher Moody has responded to the Complaint. “The SEC's complaint does not allege that Chris Moody knowingly intended to harm investors. The complaint alleges recklessness which Mr. Moody neither admits nor denies. Mr. Moody has cooperated from the outset with the receiver in the recovery of assets and will continue to do so,” said Mr. Moody’s attorney, Jeffrey L. Cox, of Sallah & Cox, LLP.

The Complaint alleges violations of Sections 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78j(b); Section 17(a) of the Securities Act of 1933, 15 U.S.C. § 77q(a); Section 206(4) of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940, 15 U.S.C. § 80b-6(4); Exchange Act Rule 10b-5, 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5; and Advisers Act Rule 206(4)-8, 17 C.F.R. § 275.206(4)-8. It seeks declaratory relief, a permanent injunction against the Moodys, disgorgement of all profits and civil penalties. A Receiver has been appointed for the funds.

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

The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has held that the United States must be the ultimate target of a conspiracy to defraud under 18 U.S.C. § 371. Jildardo Mendez wanted a Florida commercial drivers license (CDL), but spoke very poor English. Mendez contacted Steven Baez, a member of the Florida Army National Guard, who was illegally selling DA-348E forms, which were Department of the Army Operator Qualification Records which would allow an individual to waive completion of Florida CDL testing. Mendez paid Baez $1,000 for the form and obtained a Class A CDL, but was arrested during a subsequent investigation of Baez, and charged and convicted of conspiracy to defraud the United States in violation of § 371, and unlawful production of a Florida CDL in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1028.

Mendez appealed, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction pursuant to § 371 because there was no evidence that he was aware of any connection between a Florida CDL and the federal government, and the Eleventh Circuit agreed with him and reversed in United States v. Mendez, No. 07-13443, 2008 WL 2117607, *5 (11th Cir. May 21, 2008) (per curiam). The Court observed that § 371, which provides that it is a crime to “conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner of for any purpose…,” contains two clauses. Id. at *2. Under the “any offense” clause, the government does not have to allege that the United States was the intended victim of the conspiracy, however under the “defraud” clause, “‘the government must prove that the United States was the ultimate target of the conspiracy,” whereas under § 371's “any offense…’” Id. at *2 (quoting United States v. Harmas, 974 F.2d 1262 (11th Cir.1992)). The Court then discussed the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Tanner v. United States, 483 U.S. 107 (1987), in which the Supreme Court reversed the defendants’ convictions for conspiracy to defraud under § 371 where the victim of the conspiracy, the federal Rural Electrification Administration, was a private corporation which merely received financial assistance from, and was supervised by, the United States. Id. The Eleventh Circuit held:

Mendez’s § 371 conviction is precisely what the Tanner Court meant to prevent. The facts to which the parties stipulated do not show that Mendez even knew the federal government was in involved in the issuance of Florida CDLs, let alone that the United States was the ultimate intended target of Mendez’s conduct. Accordingly, under Tanner, there was no basis for the district court to find that Mendez was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of defrauding the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371.

Id. at *3.

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