Opinion ID: 3013848
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: two of which were monitored; attended

Text: 15-20 meetings; and wore a body wire for From October 1998 to April 1999, the FBI during a meeting. After the FBI Jones embezzled $236,626 in retirement decided not to pursue a criminal funds from Arthur and Selma Braid, an investigation of IRL in August 2000, Jones elderly couple for whom Jones worked as remained in contact with the SEC an accountant and financial advisor. Jones regarding IRL until November 2000. accomplished this crime by forging Mr. Jones alleges that he provided substantial Braid’s signature on checks from Fidelity assistance, even purchasing a copy Investments, where the Braids maintained machine from his own funds to copy their retirement funds, and depositing the thousands of pages of relevant documents checks into his own account. Also, during to present to the SEC, traveled to the this period Jones advised the couple to Philippines to investigate IRL abroad, and invest $10,000 and Jones himself invested provided three to four hours of testimony his own funds and M r. Braid’s stolen under oath “as part of the investigation of retirement funds in International Recovery, this company,” which he believed had Limited (IRL) for what turned out to be a “broken some laws and would be subject fruitless venture. Mr. Braid later sued to some kind of p[ro]secution for that.” Fidelity, but recouped less than half of the App. at 31a-32a, 45a-46a. Jones concedes, embezzled funds. 1 however, that he undertook many of these efforts without having been instructed to do so by the Government. Jones contends 1 that IRL stopped soliciting investors and Fidelity paid Mr. Braid $125,000, went out of business, in part, because of and was reimbursed by its insurance his actions. An SEC representative company. The Braids’ losses exceeded the informed the Government that it “never amount of the embezzled funds as they acted on the defendant’s statements incurred legal expenses in seeking to because they could not be corroborated.” recoup the loss and were required to pay Supp. App. at 3. back taxes, penalties and interest, because Jones failed to file their Pennsylvania tax The Government indicted Jones for returns for six or seven years. 2 bank fraud pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1344 Section 5K2.0 motion for a downward and he pled guilty on October 24, 2002. departure, stating: Jones moved for a downward departure based on, inter alia,2 his cooperation with [D]istrict courts have no the SEC and FBI in reporting IRL’s authority to grant substantial activities, unco vering its financial departures under 5K2.0 in “inaccuracies and misappropriations,” and the absence of a exposing “undercover embezzling” by Government motion under officers of the corporation. App. at 102a- 5K1.1. And in this case, 04a. Jones also argued that Mr. Braid there has been no motion received a settlement from Fidelity, based under 5K1.1. in part on his assistance and willingness to testify, which provided additional grounds Additionally, there is no for a downward departure. claim of unconstitutional motive or discrimination or Critically, Jones moved for this bad faith on the part of the downward departure pursuant to U.S. Government. Sentencing Guideline Section 5K2.0. Section 5K2.0 permits departures for I think to the extent “mitigating circumstance[s] . . . not that the defendant has adequately taken into consideration by the cooperated, that should be Sentencing Commission”; it does not taken care of and the require a supporting motion from the defendant should be credited Government, as is required for a motion with in the senten cin g for substantial assistance under Section guid elines for his 5K1.1. The Government opposed Jones’ cooperation with the SEC motion, arguing that he was not eligible and all the other efforts that for a Section 5K2.0 departure because he have been outlined here. had not alleged unconstitutional motive or bad faith acts by the Government. And finally, I find that the combination of all The District Court denied Jones’ of those factors do not warrant a departure under Koon versus the United 2 States. And, again, I Jones also argued that a departure recognize that I have the was warranted because of his post-offense power to depart as a result rehabilitation (alcoholism recovery) and of a combination of these his ability to make restitution to his victims factors, but I find that this is if he were not jailed. These grounds are a case which does not not at issue on appeal. 3 warrant or justify it States v. Dominguez, 296 F.3d 192, 195 and it’s not an (3d Cir. 2002) (holding that district court appropriate case for had authority to grant Section 5K2.0 the exercise of that downward departure despite Government’s discretion. opposition); see also United States v. Vitale, 159 F.3d 810, 813 (3d Cir. 1998) App. at 74a-75a. (noting that district court granted defendant’s § 5K2.0 departure, without The District Court sentenced Jones mention of Government support or to imprisonment for 18 months and opposition thereto). required him to make restitution to the Braids. Jones timely appealed.3 The more difficult question raised by this case is whether a defendant’s