Federal Criminal Lawyer Blog

Lawyers that specialize in defending federal criminal cases may be interested to know that the federal sentencing commission recently released a document entitled: "Selected Post-Booker and Guideline Application Decisions for the Eleventh Circuit". According to the Commission, "[t]he document is not a substitute for reading and interpreting the actual Guidelines Manual or researching specific sentencing issues." However, those of you that practice federal criminal law in Georgia, Alabama and Florida will find the document useful, because it does contain helpful "annotations to certain Eleventh Circuit judicial opinions that involve issues related to the federal sentencing guidelines."

I reviewed the document this morning and it is a fairly comprehensive. It not only includes case annotations dealing with many of the more common guideline provisions (including fraud, internet, and immigration offenses), but it also includes several sections that involve general principles of federal sentencing law, such as burden of proof issues, the requirements for sentencing on acquitted conduct, and departures and variances.

The document can be found here and for those of you that practice in other federal circuits, links to similar documents for those other circuits can be found here.

The Eleventh Circuit issued an opinion today on a fraud case out of Florida involving issues related to restitution. The appellate court reversed the restitution order, ruling that the government had not adequately proved the amount of restitution, nor had the district judge calculated restitution based on specific factual findings. The case is United States v. Singletary.

Like many of the federal fraud cases we handle, Singletary involved questions of how much "loss" was involved, along with how much "restitution" could be ordered. Many lawyers forget that these are two very distinct issues. "Loss" is a calculation under the United States Sentencing Guidelines, and this figure is one of the major factors that drives the calculation of the prison sentence in a fraud case. The Guidelines tell a judge to calculate "loss" as the "greater of actual or intended loss". Additionally, the Guidelines also instruct that loss can be "estimated" when the proof is difficult to establish.

Restitution is quite different than "loss." Restitution is based on the loss the victim actually suffered. In other words, "loss" can be much higher than restitution when the defendant tried to get money but was unsuccessful.

While "loss" and restitution are distinct concepts, each figure needs to be adequately proven by the prosecutor. Furthermore, when a defendant objects to either calculation, the sentencing judge must support the ultimate "loss" or restitution number with specific factual findings.

In Singletary, the Court of Appeals confronted a case where the prosecutor used a broad-brush approach to restitution, trying to come up with an estimated figure. The sentencing judge basically agreed with the prosecutor's approach, estimating a loss of $1 million. The Eleventh Circuit reversed because the trial court "failed to carry out the task" of rendering factual findings for each and every specific loss that supported the restitution order.

This case holds lessons for lawyers who handle federal fraud cases. Remember to make the government prove both the "loss" and restitution, and when they do not, appeal the issue. It might help the client in the long run.

Last week, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions of Larry Langford, the former mayor of Birmingham, Alabama who was convicted last year on various federal white collar offenses, including mail and wire fraud, bribery, money laundering, and federal tax offenses.

To me, the most interesting aspect of the opinion is the way in which the Court of Appeals discussed the honest services portion of the federal mail and wire fraud charges. As we discussed in this previous post, last summer, the Supreme Court issued its opinion in United States v. Skilling, a case which, in essence, limited the honest services provision of the federal fraud statutes to bribery and kickback schemes.

Before Skilling was decided, many (if not all) federal circuits made a distinction between honest services prosecutions that involved public officials, as opposed to those working in the private sector. At the risk of simplifying the issue too much, it was far easier for the government to prove an honest services violation against a public official. Skilling itself, however, did not distinguish between public officials and private actors, leading some to believe that after Skilling, the prosecution of both public and private officials would be governed by the same standards.

In its decision in Langford last week, though, the Eleventh Circuit appeared to recognize that the public official/private actor distinction that existed in this Circuit before Skilling still exists. According to the Eleventh Circuit: Public officials inherently owe a fiduciary duty to the public to make governmental decisions in the public’s best interest. . . . [I]n a democracy, citizens elect public officials to act for the common good. When official action is corrupted by secret bribes or kickbacks, the essence of the political contract is violated. Illicit personal gain by a government official deprives the public of its intangible right to the honest services of the official."

Well before Skilling, there was considerable disagreement among judges regarding the reach and meaning of the honest services statute in both the public and private sector. Although Skilling limited the reach of the statute to cases that involve bribery and kickbacks, it did not address the abundance of issues over which this considerable disagreement existed. Given the Eleventh Circuit's apparent decision to return to the pre-Skilling era in which a distinction exists between the standards governing the prosecution of public officials and private actors, there are many issues that should and will be litigated in this amorphous area known as "honest services" fraud. As Justice Scalia himself recognized in Skilling, even with the majority's pairing down of the statute, the honest services statute nonetheless remains unconstitutionally vague.

The full opinion in Langford can be found here.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, which sits several blocks from our offices here in Atlanta, reversed some of the convictions in a federal fraud prosecution that were brought against a defendant in Alabama. The reversal of some of the charges was because the indictment failed to allege the necessary facts for one type of federal fraud. This issue about what is needed in federal fraud indictments arises in many such cases we handle. It is refreshing to see the court make prosecutors indict such cases correctly, or else face the consequences.

The case is United States v. Suzanne Schmitz, and it was published on March 4, 2011. We have gotten a little behind in our blogging here, and over the next couple of weeks we will try to catch up by posting some entries from earlier this year.

In the Schmitz case, the defendant was charged with two varieties of fraud, mail fraud and fraud involving a program that received federal funds. The mail fraud charges were OK, appropriately setting out facts to support what we call the "scheme to defraud." However, the counts alleging that Ms. Schmitz defrauded a program that got some money from federal funds fared less well. These charges merely alleged that she worked for the program, that she got her salary each year by engaging in fraud, and that such conduct violated the specific law in question.

On the one hand, indictments that set out the language of a law sometimes are good enough. However, the indictment also needs to set out sufficient facts and circumstances so that the defendant knows what he or she must defend against. Here, the part of the indictment involving federal funds fraud failed to allege any such facts.

The prosecutors in the Schmitz case had a fallback position. There is another set of rules that tell judges to look at the indictment "as a whole" and give it a "common-sense construction." The prosecutors in Schmitz argued that by looking at the mail fraud charges (which, as mentioned above, were pled correctly) a person could understand what was charged in the counts alleging federal funds fraud. The Eleventh Circuit rejected this argument. While one part of an indictment can "inform" the meaning of other portions, this does not mean that one part can be simply read into that other portion of the indictment. The better practice is to have explicit cross-references between the various parts of a complex indictment, so that the defendant knows exactly what he or she must defend against.

We are currently involved in a case with somewhat similar issues. We filed a series of pretrial motions in an attempt to force the prosecutors to tell us exactly what we must defend against. In one way we were successful, in that the government went back and got a new indictment that included some of the material we suggested had been missing from the earlier version. The Schmitz decision is a lesson to those prosecutors who fail to plead fraud cases with the appropriate particularity.

Bruce Karatz, former CEO of KB Homes, was sentenced last Wednesday for fraud and false statements in connection with underlying stock-options backdating charges (of which he was acquitted.) He received eight months of house arrest, five years probation, $1 million in fines, and 2,000 hours of community service, the sentence recommended in the probation office’s presentence investigation report (PSR). Judge Otis D. Wright II admonished the prosecutors for their “mean-spirited” sentencing memorandum.

This New York Times article explains the backdating scandal and its results, quoting one professor who analogized it to a “corporate crime lottery.” Although backdating was a widespread practice, relatively few corporate executives have been prosecuted, and then with mixed results. The longest prison sentence given to a backdating defendant has been 2 years.

In this case, the government requested 6 years incarceration and $7.5 million in fines. In their sentencing memorandum, prosecutors argued that sentencing Mr. Karatz to home detention in his “24-room Bel-Air mansion” would suggest “a two-tiered criminal justice system, one for the affluent … and a second for ordinary citizens.” “To promote respect for the law, the public must be assured that a wealthy, well-connected individual, regardless of his station, array of prominent friends and associates, history of private success or acts of public largess, will be subject to the same standard of criminal justice as those less fortunate,” prosecutors wrote.

Judge Wright said he was disturbed by “the inflammatory language in the government’s report that if this court did not impose a harsh sentence that it was evidence of a two-tiered justice system, one of the rich and one for everyone else.” He told the prosecutors, “To invite public ridicule and scorn on this institution, I think, is unspeakable.” “I don’t care, sir, whether or not you have a pot to piss in,” Judge Wright said to Mr. Karatz. “What you get here is fairness.”

Last week the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in United States v. Mateos, a Medicare fraud case in which the Court held that exclusion of an exculpatory videotape was harmless error. This case is an important reminder to all trial lawyers to remain as well-versed as possible in the law of evidence to best represent our clients.

The defendants were employees of a clinic that purported to treat HIV patients. The clinic’s two doctors saw 70 patients per week, each of which was paid to complain about bleeding disorders. Every patient received either saline or a diluted dose of an expensive and medically unnecessary drug, and then the clinic billed Medicare for full treatments. The clinic received more than $8 million from Medicare during the five months that it was open.

Doctor Alvarez’s defense at trial was that she had not known about the fraud. She tried to introduce a video in which a member of the conspiracy assured her that the clinic was not involved in fraud to show that she had not been aware, but the video was excluded as inadmissible hearsay. The Eleventh Circuit held that the video was not hearsay because it was offered for a purpose other than the truth of the matter asserted. However, the Court held that the error was harmless because the defense had elicited the exculpatory content of the video through testimony.

The Court also upheld an upward departure in sentencing, noting that, under the new healthcare laws, the sentence would have been within the guidelines range had the fraud been committed today. Because sentences within the guidelines are presumptively reasonable and because the sentencing judge named numerous reasons for its upward departure, the Court held that a 30-year sentence was not an abuse of discretion, despite sentencing disparities.

The full opinion is available here.

In this post last week, we announced the Supreme Court’s decision in Skilling v. U.S. The Court held that 18 U.S.C. § 1346, the honest services law that the government has been using to prosecute nearly everything as a federal crime, applies only to bribery and kickback schemes.

The honest services fraud statute simply defines “scheme or artifice to defraud” as used in the mail- and wire fraud statutes to “include a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.” Congress enacted this statute quickly after the Supreme Court, in McNally, held that the fraud statutes were “limited in scope to the protection of property rights.” Congress intended to incorporate pre-McNally case law that had recognized fiduciary duties as intangible rights to honest services and a breach of those duties as fraud.

The majority’s rationale for limiting the honest services fraud statute to only bribes and kickbacks was that such cases constituted the “core” of pre-McNally honest services fraud cases and that statutes should be construed, where possible, rather than invalidated. Because, the Court said, circuit conflicts and disagreements regarding honest services fraud cases were primarily outside the bribery and kickback scheme cases, limiting the application of the statute to those cases would avoid vagueness troubles.

The government argued that undisclosed self-dealing cases should be included, but the Court held that the relative infrequency of and intercircuit inconsistencies regarding such cases disallowed the statute’s application to undisclosed self-dealing. In a lengthy footnote, the Court indicated numerous questions Congress would need to clearly address to include such cases in the statute.

Justice Scalia, an open critic of the honest services fraud statute, disagreed with the majority’s limitation of honest services fraud to bribery and kickback schemes. In his concurring opinion, he argued that the Court had no precedent for “paring down” a statute to save it from invalidity and that, even with the limitation, the statute remains unconstitutionally vague. Although the Court clarifies what acts constitute a breach of the “honest services” obligation, the statute and case law do not clearly determine the character of the fiduciary capacity to which the restriction applies. What is the source of fiduciary obligations; who qualifies as a fiduciary; and is anything beyond a breach of fiduciary duty necessary for conviction?

As Justice Scalia recognized, the majority's decision fails to resolve a host of issues surrounding the honest services doctrine. For this reason, litigation surrounding the meaning of this amorphous doctrine will not end with the Court's decision in Skilling. Also, by extending the Yates decision to cases on direct appeal, the impact of the favorable ruling in Mr. Skilling's case is yet to be determined.

While we are relieved that the previously outrageous reach of this statute has finally been limited, we are disappointed that Justice Scalia’s analysis did not gain the support of the majority of the Court.

Last week, the Department of Justice announced a new nationwide mortgage fraud initiative named “Operation Stolen Dreams.” Sally Quillian Yates, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Georgia here in Atlanta, issued an immediate press release to show local federal law enforcement’s commitment to investigating and prosecuting mortgage fraud.

So far, the U.S. Attorney’s Office in this district has brought the following types of criminal charges in mortgage fraud cases:

In relation to the collapse of banks:
· Bank fraud
· Bribery (paying and receiving)
· Securities fraud
· Structuring of Cash Deposits
· False statements
· Payment of kickbacks
· False entries in bank books, records, and statements
· Aggravated identity theft
· Bankruptcy fraud
· Conspiracy

In relation to purchase money “reverse mortgage” fraud and alteration of Multiple Listing Service (MLS) records:

· Bank fraud
· Aggravated identity theft
· Conspiracy

In relation to other recent mortgage fraud prosecutions:

· Bank fraud
· Check fraud
· Mail fraud
· Bankruptcy fraud
· Conspiracy

As you can see, a multitude of fraud charges are possible under the broad heading of “mortgage fraud.” We will continue to follow this renewed focus on such cases here in the Northern District of Georgia.

The press release is available here.

This morning, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinions in three honest services fraud cases: Skilling, Black, and Weyhrauch. We have previously discussed these cases here (discussion of cases and background of honest services fraud,) here (Skilling,) here (Black), and here (Weyhrauch.) In Skilling, the Court limited the federal criminal honest services fraud statute to only bribery and kickback schemes. Based upon that opinion, the Court reversed in Black and Weyhruach. The Court also held that Jeffrey Skilling of Enron fame was not denied a fair trial due to publicity and community prejudice.

We will provide analysis of these opinions next week. In the meantime, the opinion in Skilling is available here; the opinion in Black is available here; and the single-sentence per curium opinion in Weyhrauch is available here.

This past Friday the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in U.S. v. Ghertler, a federal criminal case. The Court held that Ghertler, who had impersonated corporate officials to obtain urgent cash transfers from large corporations, did not abuse a position of trust in perpetrating his frauds because he had no relationship of trust to abuse. For that reason, the abuse of trust sentencing enhancement at U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3 should not have applied.

In 2006 and 2007, Mr. Ghertler researched the names of corporate officers, then called the company and identified himself as an officer, usually the general counsel. He claimed that some urgent matter, such as settlement of a lawsuit, required an immediate cash transfer and provided instructions for distribution of the funds. He pleaded guilty to eight counts of wire fraud in 2008, admitting to defrauding the seven companies named in the indictment. He was sentenced to concurrent 185-month sentences.

One of Ghertler’s arguments on appeal was that the District Court should not have applied U.S.S.G. § 3B1.3, a two-level sentencing enhancement for abuse of a position of trust. The District Court recognized that Ghertler did not actually hold a position of trust, but based its decision on Application Note 3, which provides for application of the enhancement where “the defendant provides sufficient indicia to the victim that the defendant legitimately holds a position of private or public trust when, in fact, the defendant does not.”

The Court held that “[a] relationship of trust between the defendant and the victim is the sine qua non of the abuse-of-trust enhancement.” In this case, there was no relationship of trust between Ghertler and the victims to abuse. The Court looked to the history to Application Note 3, pointing out that the Commission adopted the Note to ensure that the enhancement would apply to defendants who entered into relationships of trust with victims based upon misrepresentations. The relationship of trust remains the touchstone of the abuse-of-trust analysis. Without such a relationship, the enhancement cannot be applied.

The opinion in Ghertler is available here.

The Health Care bill that passed last night provides for additional funding to the Health Care Fraud and Abuse Control Program (HCFAC). This program was established as a part of the Heath Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) in 1996 “to combat fraud committed against all health plans, both public and private.” The HCFAC program coordinates federal, state, and local law enforcement actions with respect to health care fraud and abuse.

Section 1304 of the bill passed last night provides additional funding to the tune of $250 million between 2011 and 2016 to the HCFAC program. The HCFAC Account is funded by the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1395i(k). It covers the costs of:
(i) prosecuting health care matters (through criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings);
(ii) investigations;
(iii) financial and performance audits of health care programs and operations;
(iv) inspections and other evaluations; and
(v) provider and consumer education regarding compliance.

Now is the time to reevaluate compliance programs and prepare for an increase in health care fraud investigations and prosecutions.

A copy of the bill is available here.
A section-by-section analysis of the bill is available here.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has issued a ruling that deals with whether one victim of an economic crime gets to climb to the top of the heap and get more recovery out of the fraudster than the remaining victims. The Court ruled that even when such a victim can trace his money directly into a bank account used by the criminal, such a victim cannot get the money back. Instead, the money goes into the pot, so to speak, and is divided among all victims pro rata.

The case involves two common themes nowadays: Ponzi schemes and forfeiture proceedings that are part of federal criminal prosecutions. As is well known, in a Ponzi scheme, the fraudster takes money from recent investors to pay off those who invested earlier, until the whole thing collapses. Forfeiture is the process by which the government takes from a criminal defendant any money that comes from, is traceable to, or is a substitute for property that is part of the crime itself.

Altogether the defendant had defrauded about $20 million from over 90 people. Just before the defendant’s scheme was discovered, he got one final investor to put in about $2 million. Almost immediately thereafter, the authorities arrested the defendant and seized his bank accounts. The final investor’s $2 million was sitting in the defendant’s bank account. The federal authorities wanted to forfeit the $2 million in the bank account, along with other assets, in order to give the proceeds back to all 90 victims.

The final investor claimed he had a "constructive trust". In this argument, the last investor said that at the very moment the defendant accepted the final $2 million, it was owed to that last investor, and such a debt is a “superior” and “qualifying” interest under the forfeiture laws. Under such an argument, this means he would get his $2 million off the top from all property seized from the defendant.

The Eleventh Circuit rejected the equitable constructive trust argument from the final investor. The Court said that this issue is controlled by state law, and that Georgia did not recognize such a constructive trust on behalf of the final investor prior to the defendant’s arrest. Instead, the principles of equity require fairness. The Court of Appeals noted that the main idea in forfeiture proceedings is to try to get as much as possible and to treat all victims of fraud equally, so that they each get a pro rata share.

The opinion is available here.

Prosecutions against executives accused of fraud in connection with backdating stock options have been plagued by prosecutorial misconduct. In August, the Ninth Circuit reversed the conviction of Gregory Reyes, former CEO of Brocade Communication Systems, due to prosecutorial misconduct. Last week, Judge Carney of the Central District of California dismissed charges against former Broadcom executives with prejudice, entering a judgment of acquittal for one.

Stock-option backdating is a practice in which an employer grants stock options to an employee, retroactively dated to increase its value. Backdating itself is not illegal, but it must be properly disclosed in financial records and filings with the SEC. This article, published at the beginning of the backdating scandal in 2006, explains the history and controversy of backdating options. The SEC began charging corporations and executives in enforcement actions relating to backdating in significant numbers in 2006, and criminal charges have resulted in a few cases. The SEC has continued to bring enforcement actions against corporations and executives for secret backdating of options.

US v. Reyes was the first, and most high-profile, of the criminal cases. Reyes’ defense was that, although he had signed off on backdated options, he had relied on Brocade’s finance department to properly account for the backdated options in the corporate books and was not responsible for false records. The government put up a witness from the finance department who testified that she and other employees in the department did not know about the backdating. However, higher-up finance department employees had told the FBI that they did know about the backdating, but those witnesses did not testify because they were subject to possible criminal prosecution and had been targets of SEC civil suits. In the prosecutor’s closing argument, he told the jury that “finance did not know anything” in direct contravention of the statements given to the FBI. The Ninth Circuit stressed the special duty of federal prosecutors not to impede the truth and remanded the case for a new trial, which is scheduled for February.

Even more egregious prosecutorial misconduct occurred in the backdating cases against former executives of Broadcom. In May 2008, the SEC charged former CEO Henry Nicholas, former CFO William Ruehle, chairman and chief technology officer Henry Samueli, and general counsel David Dull with a backdating scheme. All but Dull were charged criminally, as well. Samueli agreed to a plea deal and the prosecutions of Ruehle and Nicholas went forward.

Ruehle’s attorneys first accused the prosecutor of misconduct in October 2008, when AUSA Andrew Stolper leaked confidential communications with counsel for the defendants to reporters for the L.A. Times and the Wall Street Journal. Stolper initially denied the allegations, but has since admitted to the conduct, calling it “the stupidest thing I’ve done in my career.” However, a more complete picture of Stolper’s misconduct eventually emerged. Stolper intimidated and improperly influenced each of the necessary witnesses for the defense. We have included portions of the transcript from December 15, 2009, when Judge Carney of the Central District of California dismissed the backdating cases, explaining:

Nancy Tullos was Broadcom’s vice president of human resources. This is what Judge Carney said of Stolper’s conduct regarding Ms. Tullos:

The judge had this to say regarding the intimidation of Mr. Dull:

Judge Carney was particularly concerned with the prosecution’s disgraceful treatment of Mr. Samueli, whose guilty plea he vacated on December 9, 2009:

Judge Carney noted that, in addition to the misconduct, because the witnesses were improperly influenced, their testimony was unreliable and must be stricken, leaving insufficient evidence to convict Mr. Ruehle. For that reason, the judge dismissed the indictment with prejudice and entered a judgment of acquittal for Mr. Ruehle.

Because Nicholas needed the same three witnesses for his defense, he was also denied compulsory process and would not be able to receive a fair trial. For that reason, Judge Carney also dismissed the stock option backdating case against him with prejudice. Nicholas is also charged in a drug distribution case and will likely call the same witnesses in that case. The judge ordered the government to show cause why that case should not also be dismissed. He noted that other evidence of government misconduct will be admissible at that trial, including a threat to force Nicholas’ 13 year old son to testify before the grand jury.

In addition, Judge Carney dismissed the SEC case without prejudice and discouraged the SEC from proceeding with that case any further.

The judge concluded eloquently:

The Ninth Circuit’s opinion in Reyes is available here.
The criminal minutes from December 15, 2009 in Ruehle is available here and the full transcript is available here.

Last Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Black v. U.S. and Weyhrauch v. U.S., two of the three federal honest services fraud cases currently before the Court. On Friday, lawyers for Jeffrey Skilling submitted their brief in the third, Skilling v. U.S. This Monday, the Court set oral arguments for Skilling for March 1, 2010, at least three weeks before it would normally be heard. We have previously discussed these cases here, here, here, and here.

Background

For many years, federal prosecutors successfully argued that the mail fraud and wire fraud laws covered schemes to defraud the people of the “intangible right” to have affairs conducted honestly. Now referred to as “pre-McNally caselaw” this body of law was not uniform; the circuits disagreed on exactly what conduct constituted the illegal conduct at the boundaries of the law. In McNally v. U.S. in 1987, the Supreme Court held:

Rather than construe the statute in a manner that leaves its outer boundaries ambiguous and involves the Federal Government in setting standards of disclosure and good government for local and state officials, we read [the mail fraud statute] as limited in scope to the protection of property rights. If Congress desires to go further, it must speak more clearly than it has.

Congress reacted by passing 18 U.S.C. § 1346, which states: “For the purposes of this chapter, the term ‘scheme or artifice to defraud’ includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.” Everyone agrees that Congress intended to overrule McNally and most seem to agree that the statute covers bribery and kickbacks, but because Congress failed to speak clearly, many issues at the borders of the law remain unresolved.

Since 1987, prosecutors have attempted to extend “honest services fraud” to many situations that would be less-than-obvious to readers of the statute. In Black, Conrad Black was convicted of honest services fraud in a private setting for use of a scheme to increase his own compensation that caused no harm to the corporation. In Skilling, Jeffrey Skilling was convicted in a private setting (Enron) in which the scheme involved no personal gain. In Weyhrauch, an Alaska legislator was convicted for failure to disclose a conflict of interest, even though Alaska law imposes no duty to disclose. When the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Sorich v. U.S. this year, Justice Scalia dissented, saying that it seemed irresponsible “to let the current chaos prevail” in this area of law. The Court will finally take on the responsibility with Black, Weyhrauch, and Skilling.

Oral Arguments in Black and Weyhrauch

At the oral argument in Black last week, the Court seemed eager to determine whether the constitutionality of § 1346 was properly before them in these two cases. Many of the Justices asked about a constitutional argument. Black’s lawyer asserted that he was presenting the constitutional question of vagueness (both notice and prosecutorial discretion) as a predicate for the logical disposition of the question presented. The government’s lawyer asserted that the constitutional question had not been posed in Black, but that Skilling, which had not yet been briefed, may present the issue. Chief Justice Roberts responded by asking, “you agree it would be very unusual if in June we announced the opinion in your case agreeing with you and then the next case announced that the statute is unconstitutional?”

The Court asked the government’s lawyer about the ins and outs of what is covered by honest services fraud, particularly what the lawyer called “undisclosed conflicts of interest by an agent or fiduciary who takes action to further that interest.” Justice Breyer worried that “perhaps there are 150 million workers in the United States. I think possibly 140 of them would flunk [the government’s] test.” The government’s explanation was that materiality and intent to defraud would exclude such employees, but Justice Scalia wasn’t satisfied with the government’s circular reasoning, asking, “I’m still waiting to hear what materiality consists. Is it just – de minimus doesn’t count?” and later remarking that nothing in the government’s brief or argument had “eliminate[d] these de minimus kind of … misrepresentations to the employer.”

The Court spent the next hour on oral arguments in Weyhrauch. Weyhrauch’s counsel argued primarily about the duties enforced by the honest serviced statute. When the government lawyer returned, however, the Justices turned back to the constitutional issues. The Court contemplated the ability of the average citizen to understand the law, with Justice Scalia asking at one point, “What is the citizen supposed to do? He is supposed to go back and read all those pre-McNally cases?” The government lawyer eventually assured the Court that vagueness is a legitimate concern that the government would not shy away from once raised in Skilling.

The Court has not asked the parties to brief the constitutional vagueness issue in Black or Weyhrauch, but the Skilling brief addresses it directly. Because oral arguments in Skilling have been pushed forward since that brief was filed, the Court will likely tackle the constitutional issue before announcing opinions in Black or Weyhrauch.

Skilling Brief

Filed on Friday, Skilling’s brief focuses on two issues: the constitutionality of honest services fraud, particularly where no private gain was intended, and whether the Government may rebut the presumption of jury prejudice. Regarding honest services fraud, Skilling set forth the following arguments.

A. To identify any meaning in § 1346, one must consult two decades of conflicting and confusing cases, so it is unconstitutionally vague.

The brief identifies five basic questions that the pre-McNally cases disagreed upon, making it “hopelessly unclear and conflicting” so as not to provide fair notice of what is criminalized by § 1346. These disagreements included: what source of law identifies the illegal conduct; whether contemplated economic harm to the employer was a necessary element; whether public and private sector standards were identical; whether duties extended beyond “official action,” and whether use of the fiduciary position was a necessary element. The brief quotes a dissenting judge from the Second Circuit as saying, “Ordinary people cannot be expected to undertake such an analysis [of the meaning of pre-McNally cases]; rare is the lawyer who could do it…”

The brief also details numerous conflicting meanings assigned to the statute by the government in the history of its prosecutions. The government has used this statute as a deus ex machina (a disgraceful literary device defined here) to proffer any meaning necessary to prosecute whichever defendant happens to be in its sights. By facilitating arbitrary prosecutions, this statute implicates “the other principle element of the vagueness doctrine.” In oral argument in Black, Justice Breyer brought up this point, joking about a criminal statute reading, “'It is a crime to do wrong.’ sometimes adding, ‘in the opinion of the Attorney General.’” He then asked, “Now do you see the problem?”

Because of the vagueness issues and the Justices’ questions and remarks during oral argument, we are hopeful that the Court will decide that § 1346 is unconstitutional, now that the issue has been presented directly. The Court may, however, simply limit its application. Skilling argues that doing so would require creation of federal common law, which is not a part of the Court’s duty. Justice Scalia addressed this point numerous times during oral argument, saying, “[Y]ou speak as though it is up to us to write the statute… but that’s not our job.”

B. If the Court decides to uphold the statute, it should limit it to covering bribes and kickbacks, the only category of conduct unambiguously prohibited in pre-McNally caselaw.

Skilling argues that, if the Court upholds the constitutionality of § 1346, it should limit its application to the bribery and kickbacks that were paradigmatic of pre-McNally caselaw, rather than including the “self-dealing” types of cases that have garnered much of the confusion regarding this law. The bribery and kickbacks cases are what an average citizen would likely find when attempting to determine the meaning of the statute and the government has stated that Congress meant to codify the paradigm cases in enacting § 1346. The rule of lenity requires such a limitation. In addition, the pre-McNally self-dealing cases were effectively money or property fraud cases that did not need to be addressed by a new statute, so this is already-covered territory and extending honest services fraud to it would be redundant.

C. If the Court reads self-dealing into the statute, it should require private gain as an element of the offense, and disqualify normal compensation incentives established by the employer as “private gains.”

Finally, Skilling argued that even if self-dealing is covered by the statute, it should only apply in cases in which the defendant gained privately. Every circuit that addressed a private gain requirement in the pre-McNally cases enforced a requirement that the government prove that the defendant personally gained some economic benefit. Even during oral argument in Weyhrauch, the government lawyer stated that the government was after “personal conflicting financial interests.” When the Chief Justice twice repeated the word “financial,” the government lawyer responded each time with “That’s right.” If the majority of the Court follows through with these comments by the Chief Justice, then it appears that private gains will be a necessary element in an honest services fraud prosecution.

Skilling then argued that normal compensation incentives for doing a good job for the employer is not a private benefit for the purpose of § 1346. No pre-McNally cases held that normal compensation incentives qualified as private gains. In addition, since people are presumed to act in their financial self-interest and employers count on that behavior in incentivizing performance, “every salaried employee can be said to work for her own interest while purporting to act in the interests of the employer,” according to Judge Jacobs of the Second Circuit, in his dissent in U.S. v. Rybicki.

We look forward to reading the government’s reply brief, which is due January 25, 2010. We hope the Court will eventually hold that this statute is unconstitutionally vague, but, as Timothy O’Toole pointed out at the White Collar Crime Prof Blog, the Court denied certiorari in another honest services fraud case on December 7th. The case is U.S. v. Kincaid-Chauncey and the Ninth Circuit opinion is available at 556 F.3d 923. Because this case dealt with more straightforward bribery charges against a public official, the denial of cert. leads us to believe the Court may consider leaving the bribery and kickback aspects of the statute intact.

Transcripts from the oral arguments are available here
(Black) and here (Weyhrauch).
Skilling’s brief is available here.
Additional reading is available at the following locations:
ScotusBlog
White Collar Crime Prof Blog
NPR’s All Things Considered

Yesterday, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its fourth opinion regarding the federal sentencing of Kenneth Livesay, former chief information officer for HealthSouth Corporation. The Court has insisted that Livesay must serve time in prison for his role in the accounting fraud at HealthSouth. We are disappointed in the Court’s decision, because in our view, the sentence was supported by the Supreme Court’s decision in Gall v. United States.

Prior to 1999, Livesay was an assistant controller for HealthSouth who played a direct role in the accounting fraud that came to light following Sarbanes-Oxley in 2003. In 1999, however, Livesay decided that he could no longer stomach the fraud, so he transferred to the IT department, where he became CIO. Before the fraud was discovered, he was asked repeatedly to return to the accounting department, but he refused.

In 2004, Livesay pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, securities fraud, and falsifying records; falsely certifying financial information filed with the SEC; and a forfeiture court. Pursuant to his plea agreement, the government agreed to recommend a reduction in his offense level for acceptance of responsibility, a sentence at the low end of the guidelines, and a downward departure in exchange for Livesay’s cooperation with the government.

And cooperate, he did. Livesay immediately assisted the government in its prosecutions relating to the fraud. He created a roadmap for how HealthSouth had manipulated its accounts and provided information, including documents, he had maintained as evidence of the fraud. He met with various governmental agencies on at least 10 occasions and testified against CEO Richard Scrushy for four days and finance exec Sonny Crumpler for two days. The judge in those cases (and his most recent sentencing hearing) was particularly impressed with his credibility as a witness.

Judge Clemon of the Northern District of Alabama sentenced Livesay to 60 months probation, including 6 months of home detention, a $10,000 fine, and forfeiture of $750,000. The government appealed the sentence and the Eleventh Circuit remanded for resentencing in Livesay I, holding that the court below had failed to state the reasons supporting the extent of its departure from the Guidelines sentence.

On remand, he was given the same sentence. The Eleventh Circuit again reversed in Livesay II, holding that the departure and the ultimate sentence were unreasonable due to Livesay’s role in the massive fraud. The Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacated Livesay II, and remanded for reconsideration in light of Gall. On remand, the Eleventh Circuit again vacated Livesay’s sentence in Livesay III, holding that the sentencing court had impermissibly considered Livesay’s repudiation of the conspiracy in its departure. Judge Clemon recused himself.

Judge Bowdre imposed the same sentence again at Livesay’s third sentencing hearing. In explaining its reasoning for the departure, the court focused on the significance and usefulness of Livesay’s assistance to the government, as well as the timeliness of that assistance. Then in its Booker analysis, the court focused on Livesay’s history and characteristics, including his inability to stomach participating in the fraud by remaining in the accounting department.

The court also focused on sentencing disparities in the case, particularly regarding Emery Harris, Kay Morgan, and Richard Botts. Livesay initially directed Harris and Morgan to make false entries, but after his move to another department, they were promoted to positions equal to or higher than his in the fraud and they remained until the end. Harris received only 5 months in custody and Morgan received 48 months of probation. Richard Botts, a senior vice president, received only 60 months probation and 6 months home confinement, like Livesay. After his resentencing for the same amount of time, the government did not appeal his sentence.

In Gall, the Supreme Court held that appellate courts must review the substantive reasonableness of sentences under an abuse-of-discretion standard and must give due deference to the district court’s decision that § 3553(a) factors justify the extent of the variance from the Guidelines range. The Court recognized that “[t]he sentencing judge is in a superior position to find facts and judge their import under § 3553(a) in the individual case” and have “an institutional advantage over appellate courts in making these sorts of determinations.” The Court also pointed out that while custodial sentences are more severe than probation, probation is a “substantial restriction of freedom” that should be given weight.

The Eleventh Circuit ignored the unique position of the sentencing judge and the weight of probation as a sentence in Livesay IV yesterday. Its opinion failed to mention any of the reasons for the sentencing court’s decision, simply holding that the probationary sentence “is patently unreasonable in light of Livesay’s role in this massive corporate fraud” and that “any sentence of probation would be unreasonable.”

Livesay’s attorney has stated his intent to request a rehearing. We hope the Eleventh Circuit reconsiders this case and prevents Livesay from enduring a fourth sentencing hearing. As of now, Livesay has already fulfilled payment of the fine and the forfeiture, as well as serving the home confinement time. He has lost his CPA license and spent 5 years with the agonizing uncertainty of the appellate process. As Judge Bowdre said at the last resentencing: “I believe it’s time for this to come to an end.”

The Eleventh Circuit's opinion in Livesay I is available here.
The Eleventh Circuit's opinion in Livesay II is available here.
The Eleventh Circuit's opinion in Livesay III is available here.
The Eleventh Circuit's opinion in Livesay IV is available here.
The Supreme Court's opinion in Gall is available here.

Ed. Note: This week, the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s 2009 Amendments to the federal Sentencing Guidelines went into effect. Once a week this month, we will post an analysis of some of the more important changes to the Guidelines. The Sentencing Commission’s reader-friendly guide to the 2009 amendments is available here.

Identity Theft Amendments

Congress directed the Sentencing Commission to increase the penalties under several of the identity theft statutes in Title 18. In response to that directive, the Commission added a new enhancement and a new upward departure provision, as well as expanding the definition of “victim” and the factors to be considered in calculating the amount of loss.

The new enhancement is located at §2B1.1(b)(15). It adds two levels if either of two prongs is met: (A) where the offense involved an offense under 18 U.S.C. § 1030 (fraud in connection with computers) and intent to obtain personal information, or (B) where the offense involved unauthorized public dissemination of personal information. The (A) prong was formerly a part of the computer crime enhancement, which has been redesignated as §2B1.1(b)(16).

The new upward departure is an amendment to §2H3.1 (Interception of Communications; Eavesdropping; Disclosure of Certain Private or Protected Information.) It explains that an upward departure may be warranted where an offense involved the personal information or means of identification of a substantial number of people.

The Commentary to §2B1.1 is amended to expand the definition of “victim” for purposes of the victims table at subsection (b)(2). Under the amendment, “victim” includes persons whose means of identification was taken and used, but who was fully reimbursed by a third party, such as a bank or credit card company. It only covers victims, though, whose information was actually used.

The amendments also change Application Note 3(c), regarding calculation of loss, in two ways. (1) Where property is copied, rather than taken, the estimate of loss may be calculated based upon the fair market value of the copied property. (2) In cases involving proprietary information, the estimate of loss may be calculated based upon the cost of developing the information or the reduction in value of the information resulting from the offense.

In this post in May we discussed Flores-Figueroa v. U.S., a Supreme Court case in which the Court held that aggravated identity theft requires the government to prove that the defendant knew that the means of identification that he or she used, transferred, or possessed actually belonged to another person. We discussed the case again in August in this post, when the Eleventh Circuit applied it in U.S. v. Gomez. An amendment to Application Note 1 of §2B1.1 clarifies that for information to be considered “personal information” it must involve information of an “identifiable individual.”

The amendments also clarify Application Note 2(b) of §3B1.3 (Abuse of Position of Trust or Use of Special Skill) to include defendants who exceed or abuse the authority to issue or transfer means of identification.

Counterfeiting Amendments

The Sentencing Commission resolved a split in the circuits regarding whether offenses involving “bleached notes” should be sentenced under §2B5.1 or §2B1.1. “Bleached notes” are genuine U.S. currency that has been stripped of ink and re-printed to appear as a high denomination note.

In U.S. v. Inclema in 2004, the Eleventh Circuit held that, because such notes are altered, they should be sentenced under §2B1.1. The amendments change this rule, specifically providing for bleached notes to be sentenced under §2B5.1. The Commission explained that technological advances in counterfeiting “have rendered obsolete the previous distinction in the guidelines between an instrument falsely made or manufactured in its entirety and a genuine instrument that is altered.”

Intellectual Property Amendments

In response to Congress increasing the maximum sentences for violations of 18 U.S.C. § 2320 (Trafficking in counterfeit goods or services) where the offender causes or attempts to cause serious bodily injury or death to 20 years or life, respectively, the Sentencing Commission amended the enhancement at §2B3.5(b)(5) (Criminal Infringement of Copyright or Trademark.)

The amendment brings the two-level enhancement into parallel with §2B1.1(b)(13) by clarifying that the guideline also applies when the offense involved the risk of death and increasing the minimum offense level to 14.

Housing and Economic Recovery Act Amendments

Congress created two new offenses in the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008. The Commission refers 12 U.S.C. § 4636b to 2B1.1 and 12 U.S.C. § 4641 to 2J1.1 and 2J1.5. Other similar statutes were referred to the same statutes.

Section 4636B criminalizes working for regulated entities in certain capacities after the Federal Housing Finance Agency has prohibited it. The Commission explains that it is similar to an economic crime and thus best accounted for by reference to §2B1.1. This testimony by the Chair of the Federal Defender Sentencing Guidelines Committee describes the unsuitability of the chosen guidelines for these new offenses.

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in another honest services fraud case: Skilling v. United States. Jeffrey Skilling, of Enron notoriety, is challenging his conviction for honest services fraud and the venue of his trial.

The honest services fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1346, expands the definition of a scheme or artifice to defraud under the mail and wire fraud statutes to encompass schemes that “deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.” This federal criminal case will address whether the statute requires the government to prove that the defendant’s conduct was intended to achieve “private gain” rather than to advance the employer’s interests, and, if not, whether the statute is unconstitutionally vague. A second issue in the case involves when a presumption of jury prejudice arises.

We have previously discussed two other honest services fraud cases, Black v. United States and Weyhrauch v. United States, that the Court will also hear this term. Our discussion of Black is here and of Weyhrauch is here.
The differences between the three cases are:
Black: A corporate executive’s use of a fraudulent scheme to increase his own compensation that caused no harm to the corporation.
Skilling: A corporate executive’s use of a fraudulent scheme with no personal gain or benefit to the corporation.
Weyhrauch: A state legislator’s failure to disclose conflict of interest where state law does not require such disclosure.
Although these three cases have not been consolidated, we hope that the Court takes a comprehensive approach and straightens out the myriad issues plaguing interpretation of this law.

In its amicus brief in support of Skilling’s petition for a writ of certiorari, the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) encouraged the Court to resolve three principal issues: whether courts have the power to engraft limiting principles on the vague language of § 1346; if courts do not have that power, whether § 1346 is void for vagueness; and if they do, the content of those limiting principles. In addition to addressing these three issues, we hope that the Court takes the opportunity to create some meaningful and clear distinctions between public sector and private sector honest services fraud.

For an interesting analysis of the potential outcomes from these cases, see this post at the SCOTUSblog.
For more detail on the chaos plaguing interpretation of this statute, see this New York Times article. (A favorite tidbit of ours quotes Justice Scalia carrying it to its logical extreme, saying, “it would seemingly cover a salaried employee’s phoning in sick to go to a ballgame.”)
The briefs filed in Skilling are available at the SCOTUSblog.

Frank DiPascali, Bernie Madoff’s top financial aide, pleaded guilty on Tuesday to ten criminal counts, including conspiracy, tax evasion, and securities fraud. He was taken into federal custody immediately after the hearing, at which he had waived indictment and admitted to helping Madoff falsify trading records for decades.

Although he faces up to 125 years in federal prison for his crimes, he may receive a lenient sentence due to his cooperation with the prosecution. Other than Madoff (who received a 150-year sentence) and DiPascali, only accountant David Friehling has been charged in connection with the massive Madoff fraud. DiPascali likely has a wealth of information on many potential targets of investigation and has been cooperating with the prosecution since January. Based upon his cooperation, the prosecution recommended a bail package pending sentencing in his case. Despite the recommendation, Judge Richard Sullivan denied bail, ordering DiPascali into custody immediately. Whether he will benefit from his cooperation at sentencing remains to be seen.

One of the prosecution’s most formidable tools in a criminal case is the bargaining power inherent in its prosecutorial discretion. The prosecution usually wields significant power at sentencing. In other accounting scandal cases, highly culpable defendants who have cooperated have received light sentences in comparison to their former co-workers. Scott Sullivan, for instance, former WorldCom CFO who testified against CEO Bernard Ebbers, has already returned to his home in Boca Raton, after serving four years of his five-year sentence. Ebbers, on the other hand, is scheduled for release in 2028. Jeffrey Skilling, former president of Enron, is also scheduled for release in 2028, whereas CFO Andy Fastow received only six years, due to his significant cooperation with the prosecution.

More worrisome is the pressure prosecutors place on lesser associates to cooperate in the investigation and prosecution of bigger fish. Prosecutors investigate potential witnesses who may be useful to their cases. When those witnesses refuse to cooperate for any number of reasons, prosecutors will sometimes threaten those people with indictments of their own. Even when innocent, many people cannot afford the economic and social costs of fighting such charges, let alone the risks of losing at trial. In any case the pressures to cooperate are immense and those who do not are penalized heavily when it comes to sentencing. Because of the risks, defense attorneys face difficult decisions when advising clients as to whether they should cooperate.

A recent law review note by Sarah Ribstein addresses the economic costs white-collar criminal defendants face. “A Question of Costs: Considering Pressure on White-Collar Criminal Defendants” is available here.

Last Monday, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Weyhrauch v. United States, a federal criminal honest services fraud case. We are in Atlanta, Georgia, which is in the Eleventh Circuit. Because this case may impact Eleventh Circuit law, we will follow this case closely and provide any updates.

The question to be decided in Weyhrauch is "Whether, to convict a state official for depriving the public of its right to the defendant's honest services through the non-disclosure of material information, in violation of the mail-fraud statute (18 U.S.C. Sec. 1341 and 1346), the government must prove that the defendant violated a disclosure duty imposed by state law."

The defendant in this case is a lawyer and was a member of the Alaska House of Representatives. He is accused of honest services fraud due to conflicts of interest in conducting business with an oil field services company. The government wanted to introduce evidence of his concealment of the conflicts of interest to support the fraud charges, even though the state did not require disclosure.

We have been disappointed in how far federal prosecutors have gone in stretching honest services fraud to cover an expansive range of conduct and we hope that the Supreme Court finally limits this statute. In her post at the White Collar Crime Prof Blog, Professor Pogdor quotes Justice Scalia’s stance:

This case presents another opportunity for Justice Scalia to use his words from the denial of cert in the Sorich case, where he stated that the "28 words" in the statute had "been invoked to impose criminal penalties upon a staggeringly broad swath of behaviour, including misconduct not only by public officials and employees but also by private employees and corporate fiduciaries."

He stated that "[w]ithout some coherence limiting principle to define what 'the intangible right to honest services" is, whence it derives, and how it is violated, this expansive phrase invites abuse by headline-grabbing prosecutors in pursuit of local officials, state legislators, and corporate CEOs who engage in any manner of unappealing or ethically questionable conduct." Justice Scalia concludes his dissent in Sorich by stating that "it seems to me quite irresponsible to let the current chaos prevail."

The Petition for Certiorari is available here.
The Brief in Opposition is available here.
The Petitioner's Reply is available here.

We are currently following another honest services fraud case, Black v. United States, that the Supreme Court agreed to hear back in May. Our posts about it can be found here and here. In that case, the Court will decide whether Section 1346 applies in a purely private setting where the defendant’s conduct did not risk any foreseeable harm to the putative victims.

As we discussed in this post, the Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear media mogul Conrad Black’s appeal regarding whether the honest services fraud statute applies in a purely private setting where the defendant’s conduct risks no foreseeable harm to the putative victims. We are very interested in the outcome of this case because it has the potential to change the law in the Eleventh Circuit (the court that hears federal criminal appeals from Georgia, Florida, and Alabama.) Unfortunately, we will have to wait a while. The appeal will not be heard until after the beginning of the Court’s new term this fall, likely as late as November or December.

As reported over at the SCOTUS Blog, Black has requested bail during the time his appeal is pending. He has served 15 months of a 78-month prison sentence and, if bail is denied, will have served about two years before the Justices decide his case. If his conviction is reversed, those are several months he cannot get back. His lawyers also argue that he should be released from prison in the meantime because his co-defendant, John Boultbee, has been released on a $500,000 bond and allowed to return to Canada to await the Supreme Court’s decision.

You can read Black’s application here.

Eleventh Circuit case law, the controlling federal law here in Georgia, is at risk of changing next fall, when the Supreme Court will likely decide a criminal case and resolve a split among the circuit courts of appeals.

The mail fraud and wire fraud laws are the bread and butter for federal prosecutors bringing white collar cases. Each of these laws requires a scheme to defraud another person out of “money or property.” For many years, federal prosecutors successfully argued that the word “property” included the right to “honest services” from public employees (such as elected officials). In 1988, the Supreme Court ruled that the word “property” does not include “honest services,” but several months later Congress amended these statutes so as to include the concept of “honest services” within the universe of cases that can be prosecuted under the federal mail and wire fraud statutes. Specifically, Section 1346 of the Federal Criminal Code expands the definition of a “scheme or artifice to defraud” under the mail and wire fraud statutes to encompass schemes that “deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.”

Despite the background of this type of fraud, the concept of “honest services” has now been extended by federal prosecutors beyond situations where a public official may have engaged in fraud. Recently, federal prosecutors are bringing more and more cases against people who work for private companies, arguing that the employee breached his or her duty of rendering “honest services” to the employer.

Last Monday the United States Supreme Court granted certiorari in Black v. United States. The Court will decide whether this Section applies in a purely private setting where the defendant’s conduct did not risk any foreseeable harm to the putative victims.

The case involves media mogul Conrad Black, who built an international newspaper empire from a single Canadian newspaper, eventually owning hundreds of community newspapers, as well as several large newspapers, such as the Chicago Sun-Times and London’s Daily Telegraph. In the late 1990s, Black predicted the affect the internet would have on newspapers and suggested that the company sell most of its smaller newspapers. As a part of those deals, purchasers paid Black for covenants not to compete, which the government construed as a scheme to defraud the company’s shareholders, although the money from those deals would have been paid to a different company controlled by Black and his co-defendant, anyway. The trial court’s instructions permitted the jury to convict even if they found that the shareholders didn’t lose any money. Black was convicted. The Seventh Circuit upheld the conviction, even though the law in at least five other circuits would have required reversal.

In 1999, the Eleventh Circuit here in Atlanta decided United States v. DeVegter, requiring the government to prove that economic harm was at least reasonably foreseeable in a private “honest services” case such as this one. Without this rule, Black argued in his petition to the Supreme Court, “[t]he only obstacle to converting every violation of corporate governance or company rules into federal crimes would seem to be the moment-to-moment whims of federal prosecutors.” We hope that the Supreme Court, when it decides this case, agrees with the Eleventh Circuit.

The Court's docket for this case is available here.
The Seventh Circuit's opinion below is available here.
Mr. Black's petition for certiorari is available here.
The government's brief in opposition is available here.
Mr. Black's reply brief is available here.

In a previous post we discussed the federal statutes on money laundering, why they can prove complicated for criminal defense lawyers in defending cases, and how much broader they are than most people think, affecting even white collar cases. Last week President Obama signed the Fraud Enforcement and Recovery Act of 2009 (FERA) into law, expanding the money laundering statutes (and many fraud statutes) even further.

In our post linked above, we mentioned that used car dealerships are “financial institutions” under the federal criminal code’s definition, even though most people would never consider them to qualify as such. FERA expands the definition even further, including even businesses that are not directly regulated or insured by the federal government.

FERA also expands the money laundering statutes by reacting to a significant Supreme Court case that was decided last year. In United States v. Santos, the Court held that the word “proceeds” in the money laundering statutes referred only to profits obtained from illegal activity, rather than all money brought in, or the “gross receipts.” FERA overrules that part of the Court’s decision by defining “proceeds” as “any property derived from or obtained or retained, directly or indirectly, through some form of unlawful activity, including the gross receipts of such activity.”

FERA expands the government’s ability to prosecute fraud in a number of ways in addition to those enumerated above. Financially, it authorizes over $500 million in additional funding for the DOJ, SEC, USAO, FBI, U.S. Postal Inspector, and Secret Service. It also amends fraud statutes to punish significantly more broad behavior, enlarging the mortgage applications statute, major fraud statute, and securities statute, and significantly expanding the civil, but punitive, False Claims Act. FERA will have an important impact on white collar criminal law.

Professor Pogdor gives a more detailed analysis of FERA’s impact on the money laundering provisions over at the White Collar Crime Prof Blog.

In a move that is sure to keep federal criminal defense attorneys in Atlanta and other places busy, the Federal Bureau of Investigation recently announced an increase in federal criminal mortgage fraud investigations. According to recent news reports, since last October, the FBI has transferred 75 agents working on other matters to the more than 2,000 open, federal mortgage fraud cases.

In total, there are approximately 254 FBI agents working on this task force, and as expected, this has resulted in an increase in the number of open federal mortgage fraud investigations. Indeed, based on figures provided to Congress by the FBI Director, the FBI has opened about 200 mortgage fraud investigations in the past five weeks.

As our firm noted back in 2007 on this earlier Georgia Federal Criminal Lawyer Blog post, "those of us that handle federal criminal cases have seen a surge in federal mortgage fraud prosecutions. And from what we have seen, we do not expect this surge to slow down anytime soon."

As you may remember, we have been closely following United States v. Svete, which involves the federal criminal mail fraud statute, in the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in here Atlanta, Georgia. In this post back in April 2008, Paul Kish explained the facts of the case and the original Eleventh Circuit’s decision’s potential implications for criminal defendants. In early July, Carl Lietz reported in this post that the Court had vacated its opinion in Svete and decided to re-hear the case before the entire Court. He later reported in this post that the Court had identified the issues on which it would focus. In September we again kept you updated with this post by linking to the briefs that had been submitted to the court by the defendants and the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

This Monday, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals finally filed their en banc opinion in this case. Unfortunately for criminal defendants, the Court overruled its very sensible opinion in United States v. Brown and broadened its definition of mail fraud, and by extension, probably the other types of federal fraud, as well. We hope that this is not the final installment in this case, as we believe that the Court violated the contemporary understanding doctrine in this case.

Elementary social studies classes teach about one of the most important aspects of our government: the separation of powers between the three branches of government. This separation of powers provides checks and balances so no single branch becomes too powerful. This system, established by the framers of the Constitution, is the basic foundation of our democracy.

The contemporary understanding doctrine helps maintain the separation of powers by preventing judges from usurping Congress’s legislative role. It mandates that judges interpret laws by taking their ordinary meaning at the time Congress enacted them, rather than giving laws a modern interpretation. The idea is that Congress is the branch of government that should update laws, not judges. Judges should not be lawmakers. Our elected representatives in Congress are the lawmakers.

In this case, the Eleventh Circuit used modern sources to update (and expand) its prior interpretation of the very old mail fraud statute. By disregarding the definition of fraud as it was intended at the time the statute was made law, the Court has legislated from the bench. This decision violates the fundamental principles of democracy.

Chief Judge Edmondson, who wrote the opinion in Brown, wrote a concurring opinion in Svete that stressed the necessity of capturing the historical meaning of the statute as Congress enacted it. He concurred in the result because he believed the error was harmless due to the complexity of the scheme in this case, but his analysis of the law was faultless. The historical meaning of fraud, combined with the rule of lenity, "requires the government to show that the pertinent scheme or misrepresentation was capable of inducing reliance on the part of a reasonable person exercising ordinary prudence for the protection of his own interests." We hope that the United States Supreme Court will decide to hear this case on appeal and agrees with Chief Judge Edmondson.

Some prosecutors are a little like complaining children, they are never satisfied unless they get their way, and they will continue to whine for a long time until they do. This past Friday, in an appeal involving a white collar federal criminal prosecution the Supreme Court took a case to answer whether federal prosecutors can get a second bite at the apple when at the first trial the defendant was acquitted of the major counts, the jury hung on other counts, and in finding the defendant not guilty the jury must have resolved the facts in the defendant's favor. (Defendant's Petition here)

The defendant was involved in the Enron mess. He was charged with conspiracy, mail and wire fraud, securities violations, insider trading and for laundering the money related to the insider trading. The jury found him not guilty of everything except the insider trading and money laundering, and on these charges, they were unable to reach a verdict. The prosecutors tried to crank up a new set of charges based on the areas where the jury did not reach a verdict. The defendant pointed to the Double Jeopardy protection which includes what we call "collateral estoppel". This is the issue the Supreme Court will address in the case.

The collateral estoppel question is both a technical legal issue, along with being a common-sense concept that the average man or woman on the street can figure out (think "Joe the Plumber" gets prosecuted a second time when the first jury found him innocent on basically everything charged). Here's the technical description. Under the rule of collateral estoppel, when a first jury necessarily decides a certain fact against a party, that same party is prevented (or what as we lawyers say, is "estopped") from again trying to litigate that same fact at a later trial. However, what happens when a first jury rules for the defendant, but the jury for some reason is unable to reach a verdict on other charges that have the same basic factual underpinnings? Some of the federal courts say that the hung counts prevent the courts from being certain that the facts underlying the acquitted counts were necessarily found in the defendant's favor. Other federal courts rule in the complete opposite direction: saying that it makes no sense to even consider the charges where the jury was unable to reach a verdict when deciding whether certain facts were necessarily found in the defendant's favor. These inconsistent rulings were likely the major reason the Supreme Court agreed to take the case involving the Enron defendant.

As I said above, the question in this case is both highly technical, yet also something that non-lawyers can grasp. Most folks would understand that when you go through a trial and the jury finds you not guilty on basically everything, prosecutors should not get a second chance. Let's hope that the Supreme Court remembers to apply the Constitution that most of us live under, and not the version wanted by some whining prosecutors who will do anything to get their way.

The Office of the Inspector General for the U.S. Department of Justice issued a massive report earlier this week concerning how the various federal prosecutors around the country are doing (or not doing) their jobs. While there's a lot of truth to the old saying about "lies, damn lies and statistics", the numbers in this report give some clues about why certain federal white collar criminal investigations simply wither away over time.

The Department of Justice is the mother ship for all of the various lawyers who work for the federal government. When it comes to prosecuting federal criminal cases, the 94 U.S. Attorneys offices around the country have front-line responsibility. The U.S. Attorney him or herself is a person appointed by the President to head up one of these 94 offices. However, the day-to-day operations usually are handled by prosecutors who have generally made a career of or have spent a long time as an Assistant U.S. Attorney (AUSA). The statistics in this new report show that there can be great variations between the 94 offices when it comes to how AUSA's handle white collar federal criminal cases.

Some of the statistics in this report are set out in Appendix XIV. This Appendix details how federal prosecutors have handled white collar criminal investigations over the past 5 years. The Appendix goes through each of the 94 U.S. Attorneys offices, and details how many such cases were referred to the prosecutors, provides numbers on how many were actually prosecuted, gives figures on how many were refused for prosecution, and sets out how many are still just hanging around with no decision.

Again, remember that statistics can often mislead. Nevertheless, this report shows that in some U.S. Attorneys' offices, the majority of white collar cases lead to formal criminal charges. In others, a relatively small percentage ever result in a criminal case. In many districts, the majority of white collar cases languish for many years before anyone makes a decision.

We represent many people who are investigated for federal white collar offenses such as mail or wire fraud, public corruption, money laundering and the like. The toll of such an investigation can weigh heavily on our clients and their families. These statistics show clearly that for some of our clients, they may have to wait many years before the case is either refused for prosecution or simply dies on the vine.

Most of us that practice criminal law in federal court have become familiar with the federal identity fraud statute. In essence, this statute requires a federal judge to impose a two year mandatory minimum sentence on an individual who, in the context of committing a certain enumerated federal felony offense, "knowingly transfers, possesses, or uses . . . a means of identification of another person . . . ." Significantly, this two year sentence must be imposed to run consecutively to any other sentence that the court imposes.

Currently, a split in the circuits exists on the manner in which the term "knowingly" has been interpreted. In some circuits, the Government is required to prove that the defendant is aware that the "means of identification" at issue actually belonged to another person. In other circuits, however, the Government is not required to make such a showing. This showing can be significant because in some cases, particularly those involving undocumented aliens, the Government is unable to prove that the defendant knew that the means of identification actually belonged to someone else.

Earlier this year, in two separate cases, lawyers representing criminal defendants in federal court asked the Supreme Court to resolve the circuit conflict on this important issue. Although these requests were not unusual, the Government's response to these petitions seems to ensure that the Supreme Court will in fact take up this issue in the upcoming term. As reported over at the Scotusblog, in its brief in response to one of the cert petitions, the government conceded that a “clear and entrenched” conflict existed over the proper interpretation of the law. And based on this conflict, the Justice Department recommended that the Court grant cert to resolve the conflict. The Government's response brief can be found here, and additional background on the issue can be found here.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit recently issued a very lengthy opinion that covers a variety of sentencing issues we see quite often in federal white collar cases. Although this case came out of the appellate court that covers Denver, we see similar issues in cases here in Atlanta, the rest of Georgia, as well as in Alabama and Florida.

The case out in Denver involved charges of fraud against some bankers. They were convicted, and on appeal both the defendants and the prosecutors argued that the trial judge made mistakes when imposing the sentences.

The main sentencing issue on appeal involved the question of "loss" under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. I have written at length on the Guidelines in other posts. The "loss" calculation is especially tricky. The defendants in the Denver case, through their very able lawyers, made the rather sensical argument that what they got out of the crime is the same as the "loss." Unfortunately, a lot of lawyers who do not get into federal court all that often mistakenly believe that this is the law. It is not. The concept of "loss" under the Sentencing Guidelines is far greater than what a person gets. It also covers "intended loss", along with losses caused by other people who did the same thing.

The court in the Denver case sent it back for a new sentencing hearing. The defendants' attorneys did a good job for their clients the first time. They will have a rougher road the second time around.

Recently, the Eleventh Circuit (which is headquartered here in Atlanta, Georgia) identified the issues that it will address in a federal criminal appeal involving the federal mail fraud statute. As both Paul Kish and I have discussed here and here, one of the main issues in the case is whether the pattern jury instruction that courts typically utilize in federal fraud cases accurately defines what the government must prove in order to convict an individual who is charged under the federal mail fraud statute.

In Paul's previous post, he noted that, initially, the court of appeals concluded that the pattern jury instruction is deficient in that it failed to require the government to prove that the defendant participated in a scheme that was "reasonably calculated to deceive persons of ordinary prudence and comprehension." Therefore, since the pattern instruction failed to include this important language, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the fraud convictions in the Svete case.

Svete's victory, however, was short lived. As I previously discussed, not long after this ruling, the Eleventh Circuit vacated its opinion and ordered that the case be heard by the entire court, rather than just the three judges that sat on the panel. I also noted that although the opinion vacating the initial ruling did not identify the issues that the Court will focus on in the en banc sitting, it is safe to assume that the jury instruction issue would in fact be the focus.

Recently, the Court confirmed that it will indeed focus on the jury instruction issue when the case is heard by the entire court. According to a letter recently sent to the parties in the case, the Court will focus on "whether the district court erred when it gave the pattern jury instruction about mail fraud . . . and declined to instruct the jury that the government must prove that the defendants devised or participated in a scheme reasonably calculated to deceive persons of ordinary prudence and comprehension." In addition, however, the Court will also address whether it should overrule the decision that established the rule which now requires the Government to prove that a defendant participated in a scheme reasonably calculated to deceive persons of ordinary prudence and comprehension. As noted previously, this is an important case, and one that should be followed closely by attorneys that defend individuals charged with white collar crimes.

In a case that is being closely watched by federal criminal defense attorneys, the Eleventh Circuit vacated its prior opinion in a federal fraud case. In the initial opinion, the Court concluded that the pattern jury instruction for federal mail fraud cases is deficient in that it fails to require the Government to prove that the defendant intended to create a scheme reasonably calculated to deceive persons of ordinary prudence and comprehension. According to the Court, this burden is not reflected in the current Eleventh Circuit pattern jury instruction for mail fraud. For this reason, the Court vacated the defendants' convictions on the mail fraud charges.

Earlier today, however, the Court entered an Order vacating its prior opinion and directing that the case be reheard by the entire Court. Although today's Order did not identify the issues that Court will focus on in the en banc sitting, it is safe to assume that the jury instruction issue will in fact be the focus.

Our firm has been following this case very closely. In fact, shortly after the initial decision was handed down, my law partner Paul Kish outlined the significance of the decision in a previous post. As he pointed out, the decision had the potential to impact a whole host of other cases, including those that involved other varieties of alleged fraud. We will certainly continue to follow the case, as it develops.

In a federal mortgage fraud case origninating out of Atlanta, Georgia, the Eleventh Circuit affirmed a 360 month sentence against a real estate closing attorney. The appeal arose after a two week federal trial that occurred in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

On appeal, the closing attorney made a number of arguments, including the argument that the 360 month sentence was "unreasonable." With respect to that argument, as well as all the others raised on the attorney's behalf, the Eleventh Circuit disagreed. According to the Court of Appeals, "the sentence imposed [was] both procedurally and substantively reasonable."

After the attorney's sentencing, the U.S. Attorney's Office reported that the case involved one of the largest cases of mortgage fraud in this district. In recent years, those of us that handle federal criminal cases have seen a surge in federal mortgage fraud prosecutions. And from what we have seen, we do not expect this surge to slow down anytime soon. Indeed, as an excelent article from a fellow member of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers points out, "the tumultuous state of the mortgage industry, combined with increasing reports of millions of dollars of loss from mortgage fraud schemes, has created the perfect storm for law enforcement initiativies."