Opinion ID: 1085312
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Relationships

Text: Mr. Rufai had a longer history with Mr. Ohaka than Mr. Adegboye. Mr. Rufai introduced Mr. Adegboye to Mr. Ohaka. He had other business dealings with Mr. Ohaka and spent time at Mr. Ohaka’s home. One example of their multiple business relationships was evidence that when Mr. Ohaka’s company, Med-Links, acted as guarantor for First Century’s rent, Mr. Rufai acted as the authorized official for MedLinks by signing the guaranty on its behalf. The Government argues that, based on their business dealings and the time that Mr. Rufai and Mr. Ohaka spent together, a reasonable jury could have inferred that Mr. Rufai had knowledge of the health care fraud scheme. The Government attempts to push the evidence too far. In the conspiracy context, we “have warned that courts must be careful to guard against guilt by association.” United States v. Fleming, 667 F.3d 1098, 1105 (10th Cir. 2011) (quotations omitted). Similarly, in the aiding and abetting context, we have held that “[t]he government must prove . . . more than mere presence at the scene of the crime even if coupled with knowledge that the crime is being committed.” Jones, 44 F.3d at 869. The Government has failed to demonstrate that Mr. Rufai was exposed to any criminal activity during his interactions with Mr. Ohaka, much less that he knew illegal activity was taking place at First Century. Although his association with someone who is unquestionably guilty might suggest that Mr. Rufai knew of the fraudulent scheme, that evidence alone would not be sufficient. See United States v. Austin, 786 F.2d 986, 988 (10th Cir. 1986) (“evidence that only places the defendant in a climate of activity that -32- reeks of something foul” is insufficient to demonstrate criminal knowledge (quotations omitted)).