Opinion ID: 51003
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Conspiracy to Commit Bank and Mail Fraud

Text: To sustain a conviction for conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. section 371, the government must prove (1) the existence of an agreement to achieve an unlawful objective; (2) the defendant’s knowing and voluntary participation in the agreement; and (3) the commission of an act in furtherance of the agreement. United States v. Cure, 804 F.2d 625, 628-30 (11th Cir. 1986). Suarez argues that 8 the government failed to prove that he knowingly entered into a conspiracy to commit bank and mail fraud. Because the essential nature of a conspiracy is secrecy, the existence of the agreement may be proved based on circumstantial evidence. United States v. Browning, 723 F.3d 1544, 1556 (11th Cir. 1984). The evidence need establish only that the defendant knew the essential objective of the conspiracy; it matters not that he was ignorant of its details or played only a minor role in the overall scheme. United States v. Walker, 720 F.2d 1527, 1528 (11 th Cir. 1983). The government need provide evidence only that a defendant conspired to commit a single object of the conspiracy. See Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46, 112 S. Ct. 466 (1991). There is sufficient circumstantial evidence to sustain the conspiracy conviction. Katja Fort testified that Aaron and Suarez argued about the appraisal values, and the government produced faxes Aaron sent to Suarez instructing him to put certain values in the appraisals. Suarez contends the government never proved he received those faxes, but Suarez does not dispute that he had a one-year business relationship with Aaron. The jury was entitled to find that Aaron knew how to get faxes to Suarez and that Saurez received the faxes. Although Suarez contends that his arguments over the phone with Aaron establish he had not entered into any kind of agreement with Aaron, the jury was entitled to find that 9 these disagreements reflected mutual participation in a larger plan to which the disagreements related. If Aaron had repeatedly, by phone and fax, asked Suarez to participate in an illegal scheme, and Suarez had declined, it is unlikely Suarez would have needed to justify, by argument, his desire not to participate.