Showing posts with label White Collar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label White Collar. Show all posts

Fifth Circuit: USA v. Jose Bedoy

Obstruction, Crim

No error in finder of fact's determination that the deft knew of the grand jury investigation and that the agents were intertwined with it; this suffices for the requisite actual knowledge.

Jury instructions with an extra element did not heighten the prosecutor's burden.

Deft's instruction to potential witness went beyond simply information about the right to remain silent.

No constructive amendment on count alleging destruction of physical object, given deft's instruction to get rid of a phone number -- and sufficient evidence existed to prove that he intended the destruction of the phone.


USA v. Jose Bedoy

Ninth Circuit: USA V. NICHOLAS LINDSEY

Fraud

Where a lender requests specific information, the information provided is considered material to the lender's deliberations.


USA V. NICHOLAS LINDSEY

Seventh Circuit: USA v. Saliou Mbaye


Fraud, Crim, Sentencing

Testimony of co-defts and lack of tax reporting established sufficient evidence for bank fraud.

Obstruction enhancement appropriate where deft sticks to alibi on the stand.

Within guidelines sentence substantively upheld.

USA v. Saliou Mbaye




Eleventh Circuit: USA v. Harvey Zitron

Tax, FrCrimP

No error in joining tax crimes with fraud crimes in the indictment, as prejudice was speculative.

Comment elicited on cross about hypothetical silence of deft didn't violate 5A, shift burdens.

Where deft has in the past opened credit accounts for family, doing so with unlawful intent suffices for statutory bar on knowingly opening the account with unlawful authority.

No plain error in court's determining amount of fraud based on scope of fraud versus funds deposited by deft.

Leadership enhancement upheld.

http://media.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/files/201410009.pdf

Ninth Circuit: USA v. Mark Spengler

White collar, FRE

Deft can challenge exclusion of expert on appeal, even if deft didn't offer any witnesses at trial.

Exclusion of expert under Daubert/6A upheld, as even if investments were ultimately prudent, deft thought his acts fraudulent at the time.

Prosc witnesses' references to deft as fiduciary did not mislead jury.

No error in court not striking count from superseding indictment, despite the improper citation of statute and omission of willfulness element, as willfulness was alleged broadly in the indictment.

https://d3bsvxk93brmko.cloudfront.net/datastore/opinions/2016/01/15/14-30042.pdf





Fifth Circuit: USA v. C. Nagin

White Collar

Although honest services wire fraud requires a bribery element under Skilling, the transaction need not be an explicit quid pro quo.

Personal monetary judgments are a legitimate form of forfeiture.

http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/14/14-30841-CR0.pdf