2012 Decisions

Opinions of the United

States Court of Appeals

for the Third Circuit

7-23-2012

USA v. Francisco Del Toro

Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential

Docket No. 11-3769

Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012

This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2012 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova

University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.

Recommended Citation

"USA v. Francisco Del Toro" (2012). 2012 Decisions. Paper 683.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2012/683
NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

_____________ 

No. 11-3769

_____________

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

 

v.

FRANCISCO GERARD DEL TORO,

a/k/a Frank

Francisco Del Toro,

Appellant 

_____________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of New Jersey

(Criminal No. 09-cr-00508-001)

District Judge: Honorable Joseph E. Irenas

_____________ 

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a)

July 9, 2012

Before: FUENTES, HARDIMAN and ROTH, Circuit Judges

(Opinion Filed: July 23, 2012) 

_____________

OPINION OF THE COURT 

_____________

FUENTES, Circuit Judge.

Francisco Del Toro appeals his convictions of two counts of mail fraud and three 

counts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343. Del Toro requests that 
2

we vacate his judgment of conviction on these counts and remand for a new trial. For the 

reasons stated below, we will affirm.

I.

Because we write primarily for the parties, we recite only those facts necessary to 

our decision.

On July 14, 2009, a federal grand jury returned a nine-count indictment charging 

Del Toro with two counts of mail fraud, five counts of wire fraud, one count of 

conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, and one count of conspiracy to commit money 

laundering. The following facts were revealed at trial.

From 2003 to 2005, Del Toro worked with two acquaintances, Steven Chen and 

Donald Weiner, to complete a series of fraudulent, double-escrow real estate closings. 

Del Toro orchestrated the scheme after he was hired by American Water Works 

Company (“American Water”) to sell twelve of the company‟s unused properties “at or 

above their appraised value.” App. 95. American Water instructed Del Toro to sell the 

properties as quickly as possible to meet internal financial targets. App. 60-61, 80-81. 

Del Toro met with Chen and Weiner—his co-conspirators—and explained that he was 

having trouble selling the properties. App. 100-01, 178-79. Ultimately, Del Toro 

convinced Chen and Weiner to help him “look good” to American Water by purchasing

the listed properties at their appraised value and then using their local real estate 

connections to immediately re-sell the properties at a higher price. Appellant‟s Br. 19; 

App. 178-79. Del Toro explained that he and his co-conspirators could then share the 

resulting profits. Because both sales would close on the same day, Chen and Weiner 
3

were not required to actually make deposits on the properties, as these could be paid 

directly from the proceeds of the second sale. App 102, 179. Moreover, if a second 

buyer could not be located, Del Toro assured Chen and Weiner that he would cancel the 

contract. App. 102, 179.

After agreeing to join in this scheme, Del Toro and his co-conspirators completed 

seven fraudulent closings. Each time, Del Toro misrepresented to American Water that 

the properties had been sold for the highest possible price—fair market value—and 

concealed his relationship with Chen and Weiner entirely. He used his personal email 

account, rather than the one provided by American Water, to communicate with Chen 

and Weiner; created false invoices; and developed fictitious business entities, also in 

cooperation with Chen and Weiner, to inject fraudulent costs into the settlement of each 

transaction. All told, the scheme netted hundreds of thousands of dollars for Del Toro 

and his co-conspirators. 

At trial, Chen and Weiner testified to the details of this scheme and explained that 

Del Toro orchestrated both the sales and the re-sales. App. 199, 288-90. They admitted 

that neither of them had a real estate license or the financial means to purchase any real 

estate and that they had done nothing to improve the real estate they purchased prior to 

re-selling it at a higher price. App. 100-01, 178-79, 582-85. They also admitted that they 

shared the proceeds from the re-sales with Del Toro and accepted fees on behalf of their 

respective fictitious business entities. App. 249-51, 352-55.

Based on this and other evidence, the jury convicted Del Toro on all nine counts. 

The District Court sentenced Del Toro to 41 months‟ imprisonment, to be followed by a 
4

five-year term of supervised release. This timely appeal followed.1

II.

This appeal is limited to Counts 2 through 6 of the indictment, the substantive mail 

and wire fraud charges, which were brought in connection with three of the 

aforementioned real estate transactions. The sole issue for our review is whether there 

was sufficient evidence from which a jury could conclude that Del Toro acted with intent 

to defraud. 

In determining whether sufficient evidence supports the jury‟s verdict, “[w]e 

review the record in the light most favorable to the prosecution to determine whether any 

rational trier of fact could have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on 

the available evidence.” United States v. Wolfe, 245 F.3d 257, 261 (3d Cir. 2001). 

Where, as here, the defendant does not properly raise the issue before the District Court, 

we review for plain error. See United States v. Vazquez, 271 F.3d 93, 99 (3d Cir. 2001). 

Under the plain error standard, “before an appellate court can correct an 

error not raised at trial, there must be (1) error, (2) that is plain, and (3) that 

affect[s] substantial rights. If all three conditions are met, an appellate 

court may then exercise its discretion to notice a forfeited error, but only if 

(4) the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of 

judicial proceedings.”

United States v. Williams, 464 F.3d 443, 445 (3d Cir. 2006) (quoting Vazquez, 271 F.3d 

at 99).

In order to prove mail or wire fraud beyond a reasonable doubt, the government 

must present evidence of the following elements: “„(1) the defendant‟s knowing and 

 

1

The District Court exercised jurisdiction pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3231. We have 

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
5

willful participation in a scheme or artifice to defraud, (2) with the specific intent to 

defraud, and (3) the use of the mails or interstate wire communications in furtherance of 

the scheme.‟” United States v. Al Hedaithy, 392 F.3d 580, 590 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting

United States v. Antico, 275 F.3d 245, 261 (3d Cir. 2001)).

Turning to the element at issue, specific intent to defraud, Del Toro contends that 

the evidence produced at trial merely showed that he failed to disclose his “inherent 

conflict of interest” to American Water. Appellant‟s Br. 19. He concedes that this was 

unethical, but maintains that it does not rise to the level of criminal intent. Id. at 10. He 

further argues that the Government failed to prove that American Water suffered any 

detriment from the subsequent re-sales because it received what it bargained for—the 

appraised value of each property. Id. at 10-11. These arguments are unavailing.

Del Toro cites to cases involving honest services fraud to support his contention 

that an employee‟s undisclosed conflict of interest alone does not pose an economic 

detriment to his employer or constitute criminal mail and wire fraud. See, e.g., United 

States v. Skilling, 130 S. Ct. 2896, 2926-34, 177 L. Ed. 2d 619 (2010) (holding that 18 

U.S.C. § 1346 criminalizes only bribery and kickback schemes, not mere self-dealing). 

This argument fails for two reasons. First, Del Toro was not charged with honest 

services fraud. Consequently, the jury was not instructed regarding honest services fraud 

and did not render a verdict based on that theory. This line of authority is therefore 

irrelevant to Del Toro‟s claim. Second, Del Toro‟s failure to disclose his conflict of 

interest did cause detriment to American Water. Although Del Toro is correct in his 

assertion that American Water stated that it would accept the appraised price of its 
6

properties, he fails to mention that, based on his own misrepresentations, American 

Water believed that Del Toro sold its properties at the highest possible price. Moreover, 

the evidence demonstrated that American Water suffered real financial harm, in excess of 

$150,000, as a result of Del Toro‟s scheme. Thus, it is clear that American Water did not 

receive what it bargained for in hiring Del Toro to sell its properties “at or above their 

appraised value.” Accordingly, Del Toro‟s arguments lack merit.

After carefully considering the trial record, we conclude that the evidence amply 

supports the jury‟s finding of Del Toro‟s intent to defraud. The jury was presented with

Chen‟s and Weiner‟s testimony describing the details of the scheme, the fraudulent 

documents produced by Del Toro and his co-conspirators in furtherance of the scheme,

and the documents demonstrating the profits the scheme generated for Del Toro and his 

co-conspirators. Collectively, this evidence showed that the success of Del Toro‟s entire 

scheme rested upon secretly re-selling the properties at a higher price and then pocketing 

the proceeds. Indeed, when a higher offer was not received, Del Toro canceled the initial 

contract, demonstrating that the initial sales to Chen and Weiner were fraudulent. 

Accordingly, viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, it is 

clear that a rational juror could conclude that Del Toro had the requisite intent to defraud. 

See United States v. Riley, 621 F.3d 312, 333 (3d Cir. 2010) (recognizing that because 

there is rarely direct evidence of an intent to defraud, “[j]uries may infer intent from 

circumstantial evidence”).

III.

For the foregoing reasons, we will affirm Del Toro‟s conviction.