Opinion ID: 2792928
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Preliminary Proceedings, Criminal Trial, and

Text: Dismissal Angela and her husband Enrique Faustino Aguilar Noriega (“Enrique Sr.”) were stockholders of and controlled Grupo, a Panamanian corporation. In December 2008, as part of a long-term Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (“FCPA”) investigation, the government seized approximately $2.4 million held at one time in Grupo’s name in a brokerage account. The government believed that illegal payments to Mexican officials had been funneled through Grupo’s account. In June 2009, the government, Angela, and Enrique Sr. entered into a stipulation to delay the filing of a civil forfeiture complaint against the seized funds pending the outcome of the criminal investigation. In August 2010, agents arrested Angela while she was traveling in Texas for business. An initial indictment was filed, with a superseding indictment returned shortly thereafter. It charged Angela with one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering and one count of money laundering.2 It also charged two individuals and their American company with conspiracy to violate the FCPA and five substantive FCPA violations. All charges concerned the whether “an FBI investigative report” was a proper subject of judicial notice because it “would not change the result in this case”). 2 The superseding indictment also charged Enrique Sr. with various related crimes (including conspiracy to violate the FCPA and launder funds), but he remained a fugitive during the relevant time period. UNITED STATES V. AGUILAR 5 alleged bribes to Mexican officials that the American firm funneled through Grupo. Before and during trial, the defendants repeatedly moved to dismiss the superseding indictment for prosecutorial misconduct. Shortly before jury deliberations began, two of Angela’s co-defendants again moved to dismiss the superseding indictment for prosecutorial misconduct (Angela did not join this motion). On May 10, 2011, the jury found Angela and her co-defendants guilty.3 On June 3, 2011, Angela and the government agreed, among other things, that she would not contest any civil or criminal forfeiture proceedings, and would take the steps necessary to pass clear title for the Grupo brokerage account to the United States. She also agreed that the funds in the brokerage account could be forfeited. In exchange for these concessions, the government agreed to recommend a sentence of time served and three years of supervised release. The district court accepted the agreement, and Angela returned to Mexico. Despite the guilty verdict, the co-defendants’ misconduct motion remained pending. After an extensive hearing and significant briefing, the district court concluded in a lengthy order on December 1, 2011 that the government had engaged in significant misconduct, ranging from permitting an agent to testify falsely before the grand jury to “recklessly fail[ing] to comply with its discovery obligations.” The district court vacated the co-defendants’ convictions and dismissed the superseding indictment. The government filed a notice of appeal, but ultimately declined to challenge the December 1 3 The district court granted Angela’s Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 motion as to the substantive money laundering count. 6 UNITED STATES V. AGUILAR order. The district court granted Angela’s subsequent unopposed motion to vacate her conviction.