Source: http://www.caejlaw.com/government-investigations-white-collar-defense/
Timestamp: 2017-08-18 02:50:23
Document Index: 721756303

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 371', '§ 371', '§ 371', '§ 371', '§ 371', '§ 201', '§ 666', '§ 1951', '§ 1346', '§ 1952', '§ 1001']

Government Investigations/White Collar Defense | CAEJ Law Firm
Home / Government Investigations/White Collar Defense /
White-collar offenses are typically related to business, commercial, and financial enterprises and are often result after extensive government investigations in allegations of some sort of corporate wrongdoing. Offenses such as fraud, embezzlement, government procurement fraud, healthcare fraud, and bribery are typically referred to as “white collar” crimes because white collar professionals are generally those individuals who are targeted for investigation. Due to the complex nature of these offenses, it is crucial that anyone facing such charges contact a white collar criminal defense lawyer. Calvin A. Edwards, Jr. possess the skills and experience necessary to provide a strong defense against all white collar crimes, including:
Racketerring Charges (RICO)
All Other Federal & State White Collar Offenses
Understanding Corporate & Individual Liability
In certain circumstances, such as those where a crime involves a corporation or other entity, the government may indict either the entity, the individual wrongdoer(s) or both. The corporate manager overseeing the area in which the wrongdoing occurred may also be indicted.
Under federal law, there are several doctrines of corporate criminal liability, as well as laws, which impose individual liability to employees and agents who act on behalf of corporations and other legal entities.
At its core, respondeat superior imposes liability on corporations for various acts committed by corporate employees and agents (1) acting on behalf of the corporation, (2) to benefit the corporation, and (3) within the scope of the employee’s or agent’s authority.
Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, liability can be imputed to corporations for the acts of all levels of employees as well as for the acts of independent contractors. Additionally, federal courts have allowed successor corporations to be held liable for acts committed by agents of predecessor corporations.
While federal courts follow the doctrine of respondeat superior, states courts are not bound by that law. Some state courts have elected to follow the Model Penal Code, which provides a more restrictive corporate liability standard. Under the MPC, there must be clear legislative intent to impose liability on corporations under a specific statute. By comparison, respondeat superior doesn’t require a showing of legislative intent to impose corporate liability.
Furthermore, in certain cases under the MPC, the government must show that the corporate agent’s act was approved of, or “recklessly tolerated,” by high-level management. No such showing is required under the federal respondeat superior standard.
Finally, the MPC provides a limited “due diligence” defense in cases where the corporation can prove by a preponderance of the evidence that high level management over the wrongdoer employed due diligence to prevent the commission of the offense in question.
Often times, white collar crimes and corporate wrongdoing involve schemes with multiple actors. Due to this fact, the government is often able to charge those persons with the crime of conspiracy. As Justice Jackson stated in Krulewitch vs. United States, conspiracy is “so vague that it almost defies definition.” Because of this vagueness, the government often times uses conspiracy charges to criminalize conduct that otherwise would not be criminal and to also increase penalties for minor offenses.
Additionally, conspiracy charges provide several substantive and tactical advantages to the government. Those advantages include:
Single Trial for All the Parties of the Conspiracy
Federal rules, with some exceptions, allow for the government to prosecute at a single trial all defendants alleged to have been parties to the charged conspiracy. Single trials in conspiracy cases provides the government with a substantial tactical advantage in that the chances of a conviction are increased, particularly for those individuals with minor or peripheral roles in the conspiracy.
It is therefore very important to hire an experienced Corporate Wrongdoing/White Collar Defense attorney who can minimize the risk and exposure for persons and entities charged with conspiracy.
One of the biggest advantages under a conspiracy charge, is the expansion of the rules of evidence. First, while trial evidence is always limited to relevant evidence (theoretically speaking), in conspiracy trials the scope of relevant evidence is greatly expanded because all acts committed by any co-conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy becomes potentially relevant (and often times prejudicial) in the trial of the case.
Secondly, normally inadmissible statements deemed hearsay may very well be admitted in conspiracy trials. Under the Federal Rules of Evidence, statements made by a co-conspirator during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy are admissible even if such statements would otherwise be inadmissible hearsay.
Increased Criminal Liability
Under federal general conspiracy law, not only can an accused be found guilty of both the conspiracy and the object crimes of the conspiracy, but he may also be found guilty of criminal offenses committed by other co-conspirators during the course of the conspiracy. This rule is known as the Pinkerton rule. The rule applies if:
The accused was a party to that conspiracy;
The offense was “within the scope” of the conspiracy;
The offense was “in furtherance” of the conspiracy; and
The accused could have “reasonably foreseen” the offense as a necessary or natural consequence” of the conspiracy.
Under federal law, a conspiracy charge must be brought within five (5) years of the offense. However, that time period does not begin to run until such time that all members of the conspiracy have abandoned the criminal scheme or the conspiracy’s goals have been achieved. Additionally, acts committed outside of the five (5) year period may nevertheless be included within the proof of the conspiracy so long as one (1) of the acts in furtherance of the conspiracy occurred within the five (5) year period.
The government can often bring conspiracy cases in the federal district most convenient to it and its witnesses as, under federal law, a conspiracy case can be brought in any district in which the conspiracy agreement was reached or a co-conspirator committed any act in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Federal Conspiracy Overview
There are several sources for a conspiracy charge under federal law. The general federal conspiracy law is § 371 of the Federal Criminal Code which makes it a crime to conspire to commit any federal offense or to defraud the United States Government. Other federal conspiracy laws address conspiracy within a particular category of crimes, i.e. narcotics offenses, or include conspiracy provisions within certain criminal statutes applicable only to that one particular crime, i.e. the federal RICO statute.
The General Conspiracy Statute Agreement
The vast majority of conspiracy charges in white collar cases fall under the general conspiracy statute. Section 371 of the Federal Criminal Code requires the government to show the following in a conspiracy case:
An agreement existed –
To commit an offense against the U.S., and/or
To defraud the U.S.;
Two or more persons were parties to that agreement (“plurality” requirement);
The accused intended –
To enter into the agreement, and
That the object offenses or fraud occur; and
A co-conspirator committed an “over act” in furtherance of the offense.
The Plurality Requirement
At the core of a conspiracy charge is the agreement. And, under federal law, there must be two or more parties to the agreement. This requirement is often referred to as the “plurality” requirement.
“Bilateral” vs “Unilateral” Approach
The federal plurality requirement is typically referred to as the “bilateral” approach to conspiracies. The bilateral approach requires at least two parties enter into an agreement and actually intend for the object crime(s) to occur.
By comparison, the Model Penal Code, allows for an accused to be convicted upon proof that accused’s intent alone, regardless of whether or not others intended for the object crime(s) to occur.
In practical terms, under the bilateral approach, a single accused who entered into an agreement to commit a crime with an undercover agent would not be guilty of conspiracy. Under federal law, there would not be at least two people who intend to agree to commit a crime, as the undercover agent would have no intent to carry out the crime or scheme. However, that same accused would be guilty of conspiracy under the unilateral approach as there is no plurality requirement.
Many states follow the federal government’s bilateral approach.
Plurality and the Corporation as a Defendant
As it relates to corporations, the plurality requirement presents several unique issues:
Generally speaking, two or more corporations are capable of conspiring with one another with a caveat being if the corporations have acted through the same corporate agent.
With the exceptions of a sole controlling stockholder and in the antitrust context, a corporate entity can conspire with individuals associated with that entity so long as two corporate agents participate.
Under the doctrine of respondeat superior, a corporation can be liable for a conspiracy entered into by its agents.
In regards to individual liability in a corporate context, a group of individuals may be guilty of conspiracy even though they are all associated with the same corporation.
Unlike the conspiracy provisions contained in the RICO and Antitrust statutes, the general conspiracy requires proof of an “overt act” in furtherance of the conspiracy. An “over act” is generally accepted as being any act, or failure to act, by any co-conspirator during and in furtherance of the conspiracy.
As long as the act contributes to the illegal end of the conspiracy, almost any minor act can satisfy this requirement. There is no need that the act be illegal itself. Thus, meetings and phone calls can satisfy this requirement. Additionally, the overt act requirement is met so long as any of the co-conspirators commits an overt act.
The Unlawful Object
Under § 371, two types of offenses are created: conspiracies to violate federal law and conspiracies to defraud the United States. The former offense is punished as a felony or a misdemeanor based upon the classification of the object offense. The latter is punished as a felony.
The “Offense” Clause
In the white collar context, the “offense” clause of § 371 is often used and results in convictions where there is proof that an accused has agreed with one or more persons to violate other federal laws. Additionally, § 371 criminalizes agreements to commit object offenses that themselves would only constitute civil violations, such as an agreement to violate an executive order.
The “Defraud” Clause
The second clause of § 371 (the “defraud” clause) criminalizes (1) conspiracies to defraud the United States of money or property (such as taxes) and (2) conspiracies to obstruct or interfere with government functioning or to deprive the government of information (failure to comply with a record-keeping statute amounting to interference with a government function). The “defraud” clause does not require proof that the accused intended to a commit a crime but only that the object scheme involved misrepresentation, trick, or deceit.
Similar to the federal conspiracy laws, the mail and wire fraud laws are used in a large number and variety of federal white collar cases and are very broad-ranging laws. The frequency of mail and wire fraud charges in federal white collar prosecutions is due in large part to the simplicity of the laws. The federal mail and wire fraud laws only require proof that a scheme to defraud using the U.S. Mail, a private courier, or interstate wires existed. Thus, mail and wire fraud prosecutions have been used in cases ranging from basic fraud to political corruption to complex securities fraud cases.
Elements of a Mail and Wire Fraud Case
In order for the government to be successful in a mail and wire fraud prosecution, they must prove the following:
The accused engaged in a scheme to defraud;
The scheme involved material misrepresentations or omissions;
The accused acted for the purpose of defrauding;
The scheme resulted (or would have resulted) in the loss of money, property, or honest services;
The accused used, or caused the use of, the U.S. mail, a private courier, or interstate or international wires.
The punishment for a violation of the mail and wire fraud laws includes a fine, imprisonment, or both. The maximum sentence is twenty (20) years and if the violation affects a financial institution, the maximum penalty is a $1,000,000.00 fine, maximum imprisonment of thirty (30) years, or both.
Overview: Bribery and Public Corruption
Public corruption is the alleged misuse of governmental powers for illegitimate private gain by government officials. Illegal acts by a common person or by corporations not directly involved with the government are not considered political corruption (although such acts may be a violation of the FCPA).
The majority of public corruption cases involve allegations that a public official solicited or received, or was promised, a bribe, kickback, or gratuity "in return for" or "in connection with" some official action, or that a person offered or gave, or promised, such a bribe, kickback or gratuity to the public official "in return for" or "in connection with an official act." Even if a public official corruptly accepts money he would have taken anyway, he still may be guilty under federal bribery and public corruption statutes if the accepted funds were “in return for” or “in connection with an official act.”
The Hobbs Act was originally enacted to fight racketeering and extortion in labor-management disputes. Today, it is a favorite tool of federal prosecutors in their fight against charges of public corruption. Bribes, kickbacks, and gratuities given and received "under color of official right" are now deemed to amount to "extortion" affecting interstate commerce, a prerequisite for prosecution under the Hobbs Act. Federal prosecutors also favor The Hobbs Act because sentences are often longer than are available through other federal public corruption and bribery statutes.
Honest Services Fraud/Conflicts of Interests
If an individual uses the U.S. mails or interstate wires in connection with an alleged theft of their own honest services from the government or from a private employer, they can be prosecuted for their conduct.
Honest services fraud typically results from varying types of conflicts of interests. Examples of such conflicts include:
A government official awarding contracts to immediate family members and failing to disclose this conflict of interest;
A public official receiving various gifts for only being a public official and not for any particular act;
An executive violating his company's conflict of interest policy through any conduct involving the use of mail or interstate wires.
As demonstrated by the three above examples, Honest Services Fraud is a very broad concept and as expected, federal prosecutors use honest services mail and wire fraud charges as a low threshold to prosecute persons they would otherwise not be able to charge with an offense. If you are a target by the federal government, beware of honest services mail and wire fraud.
CAEJ Law, P.C. represents persons both charged with public corruption and persons who are under criminal investigations for public corruption. Our services include public corruption related offenses in the following areas:
Bribery and Unlawful Gratuities Involving Federal Officials (18 U.S.C. § 201);
Theft or Bribery Concerning Programs Receiving Federal Funds (18 U.S.C. § 666);
The Hobbs Act (18 U.S.C.. § 1951);
Mail and Wire Fraud and The Right of Honest Services (18 U.S.C.. § 1346);
The Travel Act (18 U.S.C.. § 1952);
False Statements (18 U.S.C.A. § 1001);
Election-related Crimes;
Campaign Finance and Lobbying;
Rico and Public Corruption Charges
The punishment for a violation of 18 U.S.C. 201(b) is a fine, imprisonment for not more than fifteen years, or both. That person may also be disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act is a U.S. anti-bribery law which makes it illegal to bribe foreign government officials in order to obtain or retain business in that country. The FCPA applies to both American citizens and corporations and to foreign businesses listed on the U.S. Stock Exchange and those conducting business from within the United States.
Under the FCPA, business are prohibited from making payment or promise of payment of anything of value to a foreign official, political party, party official, or candidate for foreign office with the purpose of influencing that person to use his or her position to assist the firm in obtaining or retaining business or to direct business to any other person.
The FCPA also prohibits third-party payments, including joint-venture partnerships, in which payment is made to a third party with the knowledge that some or all of that payment will be passed on to a foreign government official as a bribe. Thus, the FCPA applies not only to bribery but also to money laundering.
The Anti-bribery provisions apply to a variety of persons and entities: issuers, domestic concerns, and territorial jurisdiction.
A business or corporation is considered an “issuer” under the statutes of the FCPA—and thus liable for adherence to the specifics of the FCPA—if it has securities listed on the United States’ national securities exchange and is therefore required to file periodic financial reports with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Any foreign company which has securities traded on U.S. financial markets is also an issuer and subject to the provisions of the FCPA. It is also important to note that officers, directors, employees, agents, or stockholders “acting on behalf of an issuer” can be prosecuted under the FCPA.
“Domestic Concerns”
A “domestic concern” is any citizen, national, or resident of the U.S., or any corporation, partnership, association, business, sole propriety, or other unincorporated organization that is established and organized under American laws, or the laws of its any U.S. territory, possession, or commonwealth. Any entity that has its principal place of business within the U.S. can be considered a domestic concern.
Accounting Provisions – the “books and records” provision of the FCPA demands that issuers keep honest, accurate, and detailed records of all assets, accounts, and financial transactions. The FCPA also mandates that companies set up systems of oversight to ensure their assets are used appropriately. This is known as the “internal controls” provision.
Books and Records: This provision requires publicly traded companies to keep accurate records—records that indicate the nature of the transaction. Filing a bribery payment as some other expense with a more innocuous name (like “consulting fee”) would be an example of a violation of the books and records provision. Other examples of books and records violations might include writing off a bribe as “travel expenses” or “petty cash.”
Typically, in order to establish a violation of the FCPA, certain “elements” must be established. Common factors present in a FCPA violation are as follows:
“Corruptly” – In an FCPA violation, it must be proven that the payment, offer, or promise to pay was made “corruptly,” or clearly “intended to induce the recipient to misuse his official position.”
“Willfully” – U.S. courts have established that criminal liability under the FCPA requires a showing that he or she acted “willfully,” or had explicit knowledge that his or her actions were a violation of the law.
“Anything of value” – For the purpose of the FCPA, a bribe is any corrupt “offer, payment, promise to pay, or authorization of the giving of anything of value.” That can mean cash, gifts, travel, entertainment, or even charitable contributions.
“Foreign Official” – A payment between two private enterprises isn’t a bride; payment must be made to a “foreign official” in order for it to invoke the provisions of the FCPA. The FCPA defines a foreign official as “any officer or employee of a foreign government or any department, agency, or instrumentality thereof, or of a public international organization, or any person acting in an official capacity for or on behalf of any such government or department, agency, or instrumentality, or for or on behalf of any such public international organization.”
Payments to Third Parties – The FCPA also imputes liability on companies for the actions of third parties. Common scenarios are where companies doing business in a foreign country retain a local individual or company to help them conduct business. Thus, the FCPA covers payments made to “any person, while knowing that all of a portion of such money or thing of value will be offered, given, or promised, directly or indirectly” to a foreign official.
FCPA Violation Penalties
Civil penalties include a fine of up to $10,000 plus an additional fine not to exceed the greater of the gross amount of pecuniary gain or a specified dollar limitation ranging from $5,000 to $500,000, depending on the egregiousness of the violation. Furthermore, a person or business found to be in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act may be barred from conducting business with the federal government.
Defenses to FCPA Violation Allegations
The FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions contain two affirmative defenses: (1) payment made was lawful under the written laws of the foreign country, aka “the local law defense,” and (2) money was spent as part of demonstrating a product or performing a contractual obligation aka the “reasonable and bona fide business expenditure” defense.
Additionally, when a payment is made to further “routine governmental action” that involves non-discretionary acts, a narrow exception to the FCPA’s bribery prohibition may exists for “facilitating or expediting payments made in furtherance of routine government action.
Hiring Quality Legal Defense
A federal criminal charge is a serious and potentially life changing matter. Calvin A. Edwards, Jr. is an aggressive federal defense attorney who is experienced in defending against white collar charges. Whether that means negotiating a plea agreement or fighting the charges at trial, Calvin A. Edwards, Jr. can help you determine the best course of action given your specific situation.
Past Case Results Sample (based upon the specific and unique facts of each individual case)
Financial Transaction/Fraud Offenses
State vs. BATTLE, M.
VIOLATION OF GEORGIA RICO
Max Sentence of 20 years in prison
Dismissed after Court granted Attorney Calvin A. Edwards, Jr.’s motion challenging statute of limitation violation.
State vs. TILMAN, D.
RESIDENTIAL MORTGAE FRAUD, 5 counts
Max Sentence of 50 years in state prison
Dismissed after Court granted Attorney Calvin A. Edwards, Jr.’s motion for Discharge and Acquittal Pursuant to the 6th Amendment (Right to a Speedy Trial violation).
State vs. HERRINGTON, T.
FINANCIAL TRANSACTION FRAUD, 2 counts
Max Sentence of 20 years in state prison
Dismissed prior to trial based upon successful negotiation between Attorney Calvin A. Edwards, Jr. and the district attorney’s office.
State vs. WATSON, S.
1ST DEGREE FORGERY, 2 counts; 2ND DEGREE FORGERY (4 counts); FINANCIAL TRANSACTION FRAUD (4 counts); IDENTITY FRAUD (2 counts).
Max Sentence of 40 years in state prison
Dismissed prior to trial based upon successful negotiation between Attorney Calvin A. Edwards, Jr. and the district attorney’s office. Defendant required to complete a pre-trial intervention program.
State vs. WHITFIELD, L.
DEPOSIT ACCOUNT FRAUD, 2 counts
Dismissed prior to trial based upon successful negotiations between Attorney Calvin A. Edwards, Jr. and the District Attorney’s office.
State vs. BALLARD, T.
THEFT BY DECEPTION, AUTOMOBILE
Max Sentence of 10 years in state prison
State vs. BLACK, P.
1ST DEGREE FORGERY (4 counts)
Dismissed prior to trial based upon successful negotiations between Attorney Calvin A. Edwards, Jr. and the District Attorney’s office. Defendant required to complete pre-trial intervention program.
State vs. BRAINARD, C.
2nd DEGREE FORGERY; FORGERY OF FINANCIAL TRANSACTION
Max Sentence of 15 years in state prison
2 year suspended sentence negotiated between Attorney Calvin A. Edwards, Jr. and the District Attorney’s office.
USA v. SMITH, J. NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
Counts: Possession of firearm by convicted felon, PWID Cocaine, Possession of firearm in furtherance of a crime
District Judge: Steve C. Jones
Mandatory Minimum Sentence: 15 years (indicted as an "Armed Career Criminal")
Result: Case Dismissed after the Court granted the defendant's motion to suppress evidence. Mr. Smith was released from custody on the same day the dismissal was filed with the court.
Facts: At the conclusion of a lawful traffic stop, two experienced DeKalb County police officers stated that they smelled marijuana and further detained Mr. Smith. A search of Mr. Smith's vehicle followed and a gun, ammunition, cocaine, and marijuana was found in the vehicle. Mr. Smith was arrested and charged.
Attorney Calvin A. Edwards, Jr. filed a motion to suppress and focused only on the officers' credibility (knowing that if the judge believed the officers smelled marijuana the motion would be denied and Mr. Smith sentenced to 15 years in federal prison).
After exposing the officers numerous inconsistencies with their testimonies, as well as their grave deviations from normal and expected police procedures, the judge agreed with attorney Calvin A. Edwards, Jr. and issued a 35 page report and recommendation that the evidence be suppressed based upon neither officer being found credible in their testimony that they smelled an odor of raw marijuana. Thus, no lawful justification existed for the continued detention of Mr. Smith.
USA v. SMITH, S. NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
Counts: Conspiracy (two counts); Counterfeiting in federal reserve notes (two counts); Dealing in counterfeit federal reserve notes
District Judge: Charles A. Pannell, Jr.
Guideline Sentence: 12 Years Federal Prison
Case Result: Well below guideline sentence of 3 years while other organizer/leader co-defendant received a 12-year sentence.
Attorney Calvin A. Edwards, Jr. submitted an extensive sentencing memorandum and conducted interviews and research in preparation for the multi-day sentencing of Mr. Smith, which was, in part, premised upon an "acceptance of responsibility" by Mr. Smith.
At sentencing, Attorney Calvin A. Edwards, Jr. had to overcome Mr. Smith being considered an organizer/leader of the multimillion-dollar counterfeiting ring with multiple levels of street distributors working under Mr. Smith. Attorney Calvin A. Edwards, Jr. focused on the federal sentencing principal that a sentence should be "no greater than necessary" and cited to scores of federal cases throughout the nation and in the end, a very tough Judge Pannell sentenced Mr. Smith well below his sentencing guideline range and imposed a sentence of 36 months. Mr. Smith's organizer/leader co-defendant was sentenced within his guideline range and received a 12 year sentence in federal prison.
USA v. PERRY, V. EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS
Counts: Conspiracy to possess more than a 1000 kilograms of marijuana with intent to distribute
District Judge: Chief Judge Leon Holmes
Mandatory minimum: 10 Years Federal Prison
Case Result: Plea of guilty to the offense of misprision of felony, 3 years on probation. Dismissal of the conspiracy indictment; Ms. Perry never spent a day in jail while each of her 6 co-defendants each received a minimum of 10 years in federal prison.
Attorney Calvin A. Edwards, Jr. put forth a vigorous defense of Ms. Perry and challenged the government to prove that his client's actions amounted to conspiracy. At no point did Ms. Perry cooperate and a plea deal was reached only after the government was faced with the proposition of a trial. A plea to the low level offense of misprision of felony and a 3 year probation sentence could not be refused, as it was a guarantee that Ms. Perry would return home to her family.
USA v. BRYANT, C. DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Counts: Possession of cocaine with intent to distribute, one kilogram
District Judge: Henry M. Herlong
Minimum Sentence: 5 years federal prison
Case Result: Dismissed after filing motion to suppress. Attorney Calvin A. Edwards, Jr. challenged the search of Ms. Bryant's vehicle whereby a kilogram of cocaine was found in the vehicle's right front bumper. After extensive pre-trial discussions with the Assistant U.S. Attorney on the issue, the government moved for the dismissal of the indictment based on the grounds of the best interest justice warranted the dismissal.