Opinion ID: 2735150
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Lombardo’s Appeal

Text: Lombardo argues that the evidence is not sufficient to support his conviction on count 1 because it did not show that he had an agreement with Barkus and Helfgott to commit wire and mail fraud, that he had knowledge and intent to join the conspiracy, or that he committed an overt act toward that end. He further argues that there was not sufficient proof to support a conviction on count 6 because nothing in the evidence suggested a purpose by any of them to evade taxes and because the government did not offer independent proof that Helfgott intended to assist Lombardo in evading taxes. The government proved that Lombardo conspired with Barkus and Helfgott to defraud the United States. Helfgott testified that most of the distributions from his IOLTA went to benefit Lombardo and Barkus. Helfgott specifically identified wiring instructions leading to Lombardo’s bank account. He also testified that he knew that the use of the IOLTA would have - 12 - Case Nos. 12-4056; 4060 United States v. Lombardo and Barkus prevented the IRS from collecting from Lombardo because it would not have known about the account. Esposito sent letters to the defendants’ investors in November 2006 promising repayment and specifically naming Lombardo as his client. These letters were sent within weeks of when IRS Special Agent Dever interviewed the defendants, which serves as circumstantial evidence that Lombardo and Barkus were participating in a common plan to defraud the United States. The government proved that Lombardo committed an overt act. He was directly involved in soliciting Rothgarn’s investment and instructed him to characterize his investment as a loan. Rothgarn’s last investment was made via wire, fulfilling the underlying crime of wire fraud.