Justia U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Pust and Anderson ran a $10 million Ponzi scheme for over two years getting clients to invest in a phony low-income housing investment program in the Chicago area. Anderson pled guilty, but Pust proceeded to trial. He was convicted by a jury of four counts of wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1342, and was sentenced to 34 months’ imprisonment to run concurrently on each count. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting a claim that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he acted with intent to defraud the alleged victims, and upholding court’s decision to admit statements of a co-conspirator under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(E). The court noted that defense counsel responded “no objection” regarding the testimony and that other evidence included testimony by several victim-investors and numerous emails between Pust and Anderson, Pust and the victim-investors, and Anderson and the victim-investors. View "United States v. Pust" on Justia Law

Black repeatedly tried to pay off a more than $5 million tax debt with checks drawn on checking accounts that he knew were closed to prevent the IRS from collecting taxes from him. A jury convicted Black of one count of obstructing and impeding the IRS from collecting taxes and four counts of passing and presenting fictitious financial instruments with intent to defraud. The district court sentenced Black to 71 months in prison. The Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded for resentencing, agreeing that the district court erred in determining his sentencing range under U.S.S.G. 2T1.1, by improperly calculating the tax loss by aggregating the face value of the fraudulent checks and by including penalties and interest in the calculation. The court upheld refusal to consider audit errors and apply available deductions because Black could not establish that he was entitled to any reduction in taxes owed. View "United States v. Black" on Justia Law

Just before investing in Zhongpin on behalf of Prestige, Yang, a Chinese citizen employed at a U.S. investment firm, purchased Zhongpin shares and option contracts for himself. Yang was Prestige’s only officer and employee and sole investment manager. Yang did not disclose the purchases to Prestige. After its purchases, Prestige owned more than five percent of Zhongpin’s common stock, triggering an obligation to file Schedule 13D, 15 U.S.C. 78m(d). Yang and two others associated with Prestige filed Schedule 13D on behalf of Prestige, disclosing that Yang shared voting and dispositive power over Prestige’s Zhongpin shares, but failing to list the shares that Yang had purchased for himself, as required. The Schedule 13D misleadingly stated that, except for transactions listed on the form, “no transactions in the Common Stock were effected by any Reporting Person” in 60 days prior to Prestige’s attainment of its interest. Claiming deceptive “front-running,” the Securities and Exchange Commission instituted a civil suit. The jury found that Yang had violated the law by front-running and by filing a fraudulent disclosure. The court imposed a $150,000 penalty and enjoined Yang from future violations of U.S. securities law. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. Yang forfeited his arguments regarding the illegality of front-running and the materiality of his disclosure. View "Sec. & Eexch. Comm'n v. Yang" on Justia Law

McClellan operated T&M Daycare. Nearly all of its clients participated in an Illinois program that reimbursed daycare centers. To qualify, a parent or guardian had to reside in Illinois, be employed or attend school, and have an income below a specified amount. McClellan instructed T&M’s director to falsify records so that T&M could receive state reimbursement. McClellan was also seen changing numbers on sheets submitted for state reimbursement of meals. McClellan purchased Paragon restaurant. The Department of Homeland Security had been investigating information that illegal aliens were working there. Paragon’s manager agreed to record conversations with McClellan and to provide documentary evidence that McClellan was paying wages in cash and was not reporting those wages to the state. McClellan used T&M’s account to purchase a house, where undocumented kitchen staff lived rent‐free. Recorded conversations revealed McClellan’s knowledge of the workers’ illegal status. Agents executed search warrants and found 12 workers without legal status. McClellan was charged with harboring illegal aliens, 8 U.S.C. 1324(a)(1)(A)(iii); mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1341, based on his submission of fraudulent employment tax reports; and engaging in a monetary transaction involving criminally derived property, 18 U.S.C. 1957, based on the transfer of T&M funds for the house purchase. The Seventh Circuit affirmed his convictions, rejecting challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence and to jury instructions. View "United States v. McClellan" on Justia Law

Before the 2008 presidential election, federal agents were investigating then-Governor Blagojevich and obtained warrants authorizing the interception of his phone calls. When Barack Obama, then a Senator from Illinois, won the election, Blagojevich was to appoint his replacement. Interceptions revealed that Blagojevich viewed the opportunity to appoint a new Senator as a bonanza. After two trials, Blagojevich was convicted of 18 crimes, including attempted extortion from campaign contributors, corrupt solicitation of funds, wire fraud, and lying to federal investigators. The district court sentenced Blagojevich to 168 months’ imprisonment. The Seventh Circuit vacated convictions on five counts, concerning Blagojevich’s proposal to appoint Valerie Jarrett to the Senate in exchange for an appointment to the Cabinet, and remanded. The court rejected a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, but concluded the instructions permitted the jury to convict even if it found that his only request of Obama was for a Cabinet position. A proposal to trade one public act for another, logrolling, is unlike the swap of an official act for a private payment. The instructions do not ensure that the jury found that Blagojevich offered to trade the appointment for a private salary. Because the court affirmed on most counts and concluded that the sentencing range lies above 168 months, Blagojevich is not entitled to release pending further proceedings. View "United States v. Blagojevich" on Justia Law

Defendant, the billionaire creator of Beanie Babies, pled guilty to one count of tax evasion after hiding assets in a Swiss bank account, made full restitution, and paid a $53.6 million civil penalty. On appeal, the government challenged defendant's sentence of two years' probation with community service, plus $100,000 fine and costs. The court concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion by not including a term of incarceration to the sentence. In this case, the district court fully explained and supported its decision and reached an outcome that is reasonable under the circumstances. The district judge found defendant’s record of charity and benevolence “overwhelming.” Further mitigating factors - including the uncharacteristic nature of defendant’s crime, his attempt to disclose his account, his payment of a penalty ten times the size of the tax loss, and the government’s own request for a sentence well below the guidelines range - justified leniency. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment. View "United States v. Warner" on Justia Law

Bell established mutual funds, raised $2.5 billion, and invested in vehicles managed by Petters, who said that he was financing Costco’s electronics inventory. Instead he was running a Ponzi scheme, which collapsed in 2008. Bell and Petters went to prison for fraud. Peterson, the Funds’ trustee in bankruptcy, filed multiple suits. The Funds’ auditors appealed a finding that they committed accounting malpractice because they did not perform spot checks that would have revealed the Petters scheme. On remand, the auditors contended that Bell had committed fraud because documents sent to potential investors represented that the money lent to Petters entities was secured by Costco’s inventory and that repayment was ensured by a “lockbox” arrangement under which Costco would make payments into accounts that the Funds (not Petters) would control. Bell admitted that he knew from the outset that this was not true. The district court concluded that the Funds’ misconduct was at least equal to the auditors, if not greater, and dismissed the auditors, without considering whether they failed to perform their duties. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the pari delicto doctrine in Illinois applies only when plaintiff and defendant commit the same misconduct and stating that it is time to focus on the investors’ claims. View "Peterson v. Lesser" on Justia Law

From 2007-2010, Harris and co-conspirators added themselves as authorized users on existing credit card accounts without the account holders’ knowledge or permission, then took cash advances, cashed convenience checks, and made fraudulent purchases with the accounts. The scheme involved over 50 victims, and resulted in $300,000 in pecuniary loss. In 2008, Harris was taken into custody when a bank became suspicious and called police. Police took, from plain view in Harris’s truck, a notebook, containing a litany of personal information about 14 people. A fingerprint examination revealed 48/50 prints pulled from the notebook matched Harris’ prints. Harris was released, but did not claim the notebook. In 2013, Harris was convicted of fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud with identification documents, 18 U.S.C. 1028(a)(7), 1028(f), 1029(b)(2), and 1349; production and trafficking in counterfeit devices (credit card fraud), of 18 U.S.C. 1029(a)(2); and aggravated identity theft, 18 U.S.C. 1028A. The district court sentenced Harris to 156 months’ imprisonment and ordered him to pay $299,298.67 in restitution. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the court erroneously denied his motion to suppress the notebook and of insufficient evidence to support his conviction, and a challenge to the sentence. View "United States v. Harris" on Justia Law

Kielar, a pharmacist, got many patients from Dr. Barros, whose office was in the same building, and began defrauding two insurance companies. Kielar forged prescriptions for Procrit under Barros’s name and submitted them for payment, knowing that Procrit had neither been prescribed, nor provided, to the individuals under whose policies he sought reimbursement. The insurers lost $1,678,549. Kielar was indicted for health care fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1347, with a forfeiture allegation, 18 U.S.C. 982(a)(7) that identified properties subject to forfeiture, including a Florida property. Kielar asserted that he needed the proceeds of its sale to pay legal fees. The court granted a motion to release lis pendens and ordered that the proceeds of the sale be placed in escrow with the U.S. Marshals Service. Kielar unsuccessfully requested that the court allow him to use the sale proceeds “for taxes, legal fees and other expenses.” He was convicted of six counts of health care fraud; three counts of aggravated identify theft, 18 U.S.C. 1028A(a)(1); and of using false records to impede a federal investigation, 18 U.S.C. 1519. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting arguments that the court erred in failing to hold a hearing on his request to release his escrowed funds, by limiting cross-examination of Barros, and by preventing Kielar from calling a former patient as a defense witness. View "United States v. Kielar" on Justia Law

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission concluded that Battoo committed fraud. Battoo and his companies, all located outside the United States, defaulted in the suits. The district judge froze all assets pending a final decision about ownership. The court appointed a Receiver to marshal the remaining assets and try to determine ownership. The Receiver has been recognized as the assets’ legitimate controller in several other nations, including China (Hong Kong), Guernsey, and the Bahamas. Battoo defied the injunction and transferred control of some investment vehicles, located in the British Virgin Islands, to court-appointed Liquidators, who asked the judge to modify the injunction and allow them to distribute assets located in the U.S. or England immediately. The Liquidators maintain that, because Battoo no longer has control, the justification for freezing the assets has lapsed. The court assumed that the Liquidators are now under judicial control, but declined to modify the injunction, ruling that the funds should remain available so that an eventual master plan of distribution can treat all investors equitably. The Seventh Circuit affirmed. It is not clear whether some investment interests can be disentangled reliably from those affected by Battoo’s frauds against U.S. investors; the Liquidators have not argued that any investor is suffering loss as a result of the Receiver’s investment decisions. View "Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n v. Battoo" on Justia Law