Opinion ID: 52842
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The government presented sufficient evidence to support Myna's convictions

Text: This court reviews a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence de novo. United States v. Brown, 186 F.3d 661, 664 (5th Cir.1999). In resolving a sufficiency of the evidence claim, we must decide whether a rational trier of fact could have found that each element of the charged criminal offense was proven beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Freeman, 434 F.3d 369, 375-76 (5th Cir.2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). Further, the court considers all the evidence in a light most favorable to the government, drawing all inferences and credibility choices in its favor. Id. at 376. We will consider the countervailing evidence as well as the evidence that supports the verdict in assessing sufficiency of the evidence. Brown, 186 F.3d at 664 (internal quotation marks omitted). Finally, [i]f the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution gives equal or nearly equal circumstantial support to a theory of guilt and a theory of innocence, a defendant is entitled to a judgment of acquittal. Id. (internal quotation marks omitted).
Mail and wire fraud are specific intent crimes that require the government to prove that a defendant knew the scheme involved false representations. See United States v. Brown, 459 F.3d 509, 518-19 (5th Cir.2006) (wire fraud); United States v. Rochester, 898 F.2d 971, 976 (5th Cir.1990) (mail fraud). Myna claims that the government failed to provide sufficient evidence on this point. If the government did not show that Myna knew of false representations to support the mail and wire fraud convictions, Myna continues, then the conspiracy and money laundering convictions fail as well because they depend on Myna's involvement in a fraud. Myna also argues that the government did not present sufficient evidence to convict her of the counts relating to the Silvercrest property. Finally, Myna argues that the government provided insufficient evidence to convict her of money laundering. Myna's arguments fail, however, because at trial the government presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate that (1) Myna was aware that the transactions involved at least three false representations, (2) Myna had knowledge of the illegality of the Silvercrest transaction, and (3) Myna had constructive possession of the illegal funds to support the money laundering convictions.
Myna maintains that the government did not produce sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she knew that the straw buyers sought loan amounts for the Fox Hunt and Silvercrest properties that were based on fraudulently inflated appraisals. Instead, she argues that the government's evidence, at best, shows that she knew that the sales price exceeded the market value of the homes, but that a representation of a home's sales price is not necessarily a representation as to its value. Viewing all evidence in the light most favorable to the government, however, a rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that Myna knew that the sales prices and loan amounts for the Fox Hunt and Silvercrest properties stemmed from false appraisals. Sean testified that he agreed to help sell the Fox Hunt home on the condition that, you know, we bump up the appraisal to a higher amount. Myna was not oblivious to the appraisal process, for she knew that an appraiser was coming to the Fox Hunt property and asked Ahn, the seller, to leave a key for the appraiser. This new appraisal nearly doubled the value of the house. Myna then convinced Ahn to raise the sales price from $239,000 to $440,000, a figure that matched exactly the bogus appraisal value. Further, when Sean expressed a concern that Ahn would keep the excess money, Myna assured Sean that she was friends with Ahn and that Ahn would keep only her true equity, not the excess proceeds. Myna accompanied Ahn to the BankOne branch when Ahn withdrew the excess proceeds and wrote cashier's checks for a number of other people. A reasonable jury could conclude that if the price had increased for legitimate market reasons, presumably Ahn would not have written these checks to other people; she would have pocketed the excess value. Given the totality of the evidence, therefore, a jury could conclude that Myna knew Sean relied on false appraisals to increase the sales prices of both properties. Thus, the government presented sufficient evidence regarding these false representations.