Opinion ID: 204040
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: commingling instruction

Text: The district court instructed that, [b]ecause the [H]ealth [P]lan fund[s] [were] not ... [U]nion property, they should not as a general matter have been commingled with other [U]nion funds. It went on to say: [t]he mere fact that funds may have been transferred from other accounts or commingled with other [U]nion funds is not enough to create criminal liability. Such co[m]mingling could have occurred for a number of reasons, such as bad advice from accountants, bad management practices on the part of some officer or officers, or because of mistakes or other innocent reasons. But when the diversion is knowingly and willfully made into other [U]nion accounts, unrelated to the [H]ealth [P]lan, with intent to embezzle or with intent to resupply [Union money], then we [have] conduct that may constitute a federal offense under 18 U.S.Code, Section 669. [A]t the risk of repetition, the court further stated: remember that the commingling of funds standing alone, without proof of criminal intent proven beyond a reasonable doubt, cannot ... give rise to criminal liability. Precisely and for this reason, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt, by either direct or... circumstantial evidence[,] that the commingling of funds was part of the criminal plan to embezzle [P]lan funds, monies or assets. Proof beyond a reasonable doubt of each and every element of the offense charged is required for the government to establish that [the] charged conduct is criminal in nature[,] and that of course is for you to decide. The Defendants contend that the district court improperly instructed the jury that commingling is illegal per se. [38] But the plain terms of the charge did not provide such an instruction. The district court did not instruct the jury that commingling is per se illegal. Instead, as shown above, the district court repeatedly emphasized that [t]he mere fact that funds may have been transferred from other accounts or commingled with other [U]nion funds is not enough to create criminal liability.  (Emphasis added). We thus reject the Defendants' claim.