Since 2011. An occasional commonplacing of the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
Neither an authoritative statement of the law nor legal advice. Quick work.
Listing qualified staff members who never showed up to work for purposes of a certification by a state agency was a violation of the identity theft statute, as the misrepresentation was at the crux of the fraud.
CONCURRENCE:
("Dubitante") The fraudulent aspect wasn't in the identities of the staff members, but in their qualifications.
Proof that an IP associated with the house was used to access relevant email and crypto-coin sites, combined with affidavit statement that financial and personal records are often kept at the home, was sufficient probable cause for a search of the house in an online fraud investigation. The fact that the fraudulent transactions were committed before moving there isn't dispositive of whether there was likely to be evidence at the house.
A 15-20 month gap between the thefts and the affidavit didn't make the affidavit claims stale, given the nature of computer memory.
Discrepancy in URL TLD on the warrant affidavit was inconsequential.
Personally issued website development test accounts sufficiently identify their authorized users to be the basis for a charge of aggravated identity theft.
Deft's immigration status wasn't critical to establishing a defense for the use of crypto-coin; court did not abuse its discretion in excluding it.
Juror's work with the same large corporate division was insufficient for a claim of implied bias, since the fact patterns at issue in the trial weren't similar to the events of their employment.
Where testimony objectively establishes fraudulent medical billing practices, there is no categorical requirement to establish actual falsity of diagnosis in particular cases.
When appealing a denial of a chance to speak at sentencing, the appellant must cite a basis for reversal or remand, or make a proffer of evidence that would have been offered.
Sufficient evidence of pervasive fraud to shift the burden of proof on the calculation of damages.
Evidence as to where, how, and to whom allegedly false representations were made can state a claim under the statute for fraudulent claims against the government.
Evidence as to the who, what, where, when, and how can state a claim for fraudulent inducement in contractual negotiations; a relator who is not a party to the negotiations might be unable to provide details of the negotiations.
Implied false certification is a species of fraud, and therefore subject to heightened pleading.
Continuing to bill the set capitation after ending the subcontracting that provided enhanced services states a claim for implied false certification under the Act, since the services were a material term of the deal.
DISSENT (CJ)
Mere request for payment from the government while not materially complying with a contractual term is insufficient to state a claim under the Act, given the Act's extreme remedies, including treble damages.
Contract was a contract to provide beneficiaries with access to needed services, not needed services themselves.
These circumstances wouldn't state a claim, even absent heightened pleading. There was no express factual falsity; the omission was an implied falsity. Precedent requires that a request for payment also make specific representations in order to be actionable. Suggesting that noncompliance is material means that any noncompliance is material.
Proof that a company had certain knowledge prior to its employees' contrary statements is insufficient to state a fraud or fraud-adjacent claim under the state's heightened pleading rules.
Evidence that work stopped after a certain meeting can't speak to the mindset of statements made at that meeting. Evidence of a contrary financial interest is at most only a factor, as is the amount of work that it would have taken to accomplish the task.
Expert testimony on ambiguity of contract terms is inadmissible, as ambiguity is a legal conclusion.
Given testimony that the overruns were paid to preserve the business relationship, there was no question for trial on the reliance on the underlying representations. Under state law, the counterparty's expectations of the plaintiff's reliance are insufficient to establish the plaintiff's reliance.
Forging of clients' signatures on immigration petitions without the knowledge of the clients constitutes sufficient unauthorized use of their personal information under the aggravated identity theft statute.
Material falsity of the filing is sufficiently independent from the use of the forged signature to justify the independent sentencing increase.
Sufficient evidence for the relevant hundred-document threshold by a preponderance where it was established that 100 basically identical petitions of factual clams were filed.
CONCURRENCE:
While lawful, the indictment's additional charge of identity theft was possibly an unfair use of prosecutorial discretion.
Joseph Watley, Karin Hasemann v. Department of Children and Families
Objection to the disclosure of the deft's past occupation was waived when deft raised it several times during the trial.
Deft affirmatively agreed to the admission of the draft email at trial, waiving any subsequent objection.
Appellant carries burden on plain error review to show why forfeited objection at trial meets the standard for plain error.
Sufficient evidence to establish that deft had the requisite intent to defraud and was an active and knowing participant, since deft knew that the funds were illicit, and continued to spend them.
Alteration of another person's tax forms and pay records in order to secure a lease is sufficient for the sophisticated means sentencing bump.
Employer's contract claim against potential trustee of employee stock benefit plan is remote from the usual ERISA concerns, and therefore not preempted by the statute.
Implied spoken promise subsequent to execution of written contract can be the basis for a promissory estoppel claim.
Integration clause refers only to the time of formation -- when subsequent parties to the contract were substituted in, the integration clause still looked back to the time of initial formation.
A lie about a side issue in the course of a contractual breach is separately actionable as fraud where the lie implicates a broader social duty owed to all individuals.
By conceding valid substitution into the contract for the purposes of the breach claim, the plaintiff is estopped from arguing that the indemnification agreement compelling the payment of legal fees doesn't apply to the defendant. Plain meaning of indemnify encompasses first party claims. Under state law, it wouldn't be specific enough to cover any damages award.
Given intervening state court decisions, the economic loss doctrine (barring recovery in tort from claims arising from a contract) does not bar claims for economic loss under the federal deceptive practices statute.
Gist of the action doctrine does not bar recovery in tort for claims squarely arising in contract, where the contract is collateral to the fraud or negligence.
Given the specific misrepresentations made, and the fact that insurers would have otherwise more carefully scrutinized the clinic, sufficient evidence for a scheme or artifice to defraud, despite the fact that some percentage of the claims were legitimate.
Restitution, and sentencing calculations should have been offset for the percentage of treatments that were medically necessary. Forfeiture, though, looks to the gross proceeds of the criminal activity and did not have to be offset.