Source: http://openjurist.org/225/f3d/955/united-states-of-america-v-stephen-michael-green
Timestamp: 2015-05-30 03:00:20
Document Index: 672734274

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 371', '§ 1343', '§ 2', '§ 1956', '§ 982', '§ 1291']

225 F3d 955 United States of America v. Stephen Michael Green | OpenJurist
225 F. 3d 955 - United States of America v. Stephen Michael Green	Home225 f3d 955 united states of america v. stephen michael green
225 F3d 955 United States of America v. Stephen Michael Green 225 F.3d 955 (8th Cir. 2000)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,v.STEPHEN MICHAEL GREEN, APPELLANTUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, APPELLEE,v.THOMAS ARTHUR GREEN, SR., APPELLANT
No. 99-1788, 99-1973
Submitted: February 15, 2000Filed: September 13, 2000
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District No. 99-1973 of Minnesota.
Before Beam and John R. Gibson, Circuit Judges, and PRATT,1 District Judge.
Pratt, District Judge
As a result of their participation in a telemarketing fraud, appellants were charged by grand jury indictment with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, fifteen counts of devising and carrying out a scheme to defraud utilizing the wires in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 and 18 U.S.C. § 2, and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h). A jury found appellants guilty on all counts and found $830,000 subject to forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(2)(A). In this consolidated appeal, appellants raise multiple challenges to their convictions and sentences. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We affirm the judgment of the District Court2 in all respects.
From 1991 to 1994, Thomas Green, Sr. and his nephew Stephen Green3 ran a large-scale telemarketing scheme that ultimately defrauded more than 480 small business owners of over two million dollars. The scheme was simple. Around this time, major car manufacturers were not building many convertibles. The Greens incorporated a company that purported to be the largest manufacturer of convertible conversion kits in the world. Such kits are used to turn hard-top automobiles into convertibles. The Greens then contacted auto body repair shops throughout the United States, and for a $40 fee, sent out a promotional video and confidential business plan they had produced. The video and plan represented that the company: manufactured and sold convertible conversion kits; was the largest manufacturer of such kits in the world; manufactured over 70 different kits; manufactured kits that were "original equipment manufacturer" quality; had received factory approvals from major manufacturers to install the kits; and would provide exclusive territories to qualified distributors. None of these representations were true.
After a shop owner received the video and plan, the Greens or other company telemarketers called to encourage the owner to send in an application to become a distributor, along with a $150 fee. After the Greens "approved" the application and deposited the fee, owners were called again and encouraged to wire transfer money to the company to secure their territory and to serve as a down payment toward the purchase of conversion kits. During these follow-up telephone calls, the Greens or other company telemarketers said: the company had conversion customers waiting in the area of the proposed distributorship; money had to be wired immediately or the territory would be sold to someone else; and the territory was exclusive. Again, these statements were not true. The Greens used multiple false names in these telephone conversations and on company documents. The name of the company itself was changed at least four times.
More than 480 auto body shop owners eventually became distributors at a cost ranging from $3,500 to $18,000 each, depending on the number of kits requested. The Greens received over two million dollars, but the company's inventory consisted of only some rusting frames and a few fabric tops. No usable kits were ever shipped. The Greens sold overlapping territories in many states, and no useful customer referrals were made. When owners attempted to contact the company to complain, inquire about a refund, or even simply to request information, they were told further lies.
During the life of this fraudulent telemarketing s