Opinion ID: 608147
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The District Court's Order and Rulings

Text: 15 The jury found the Government's evidence sufficiently persuasive to convict the defendants, acquitting Macko of only one false-statement charge. After hearing additional arguments following the verdicts, however, the district court concluded that the evidence against Macko and Van Ameringen was insufficient as to all counts. 16 In its published order explaining the judgment of acquittal, the district court describes the Government's evidence as primarily a paper case, made up of letters, faxes, shipping invoices, and other documents. United States v. Ortiz de Zevallos, 748 F.Supp. 1569, 1572 (S.D.Fla.1990). This paper trail, the court states, has too many twists and turns and dead ends to establish more than a tenuous inference that [Macko and Van Ameringen] acted with the requisite intention to violate either the TWEA or the EAA. Id. The district court recognizes that circumstantial evidence may establish specific intent to violate a statute or regulation. Id. at 1575. Nevertheless, the court observes that the circumstantial evidence against Macko and Van Ameringen is susceptible to more than one interpretation. Id. The jury could reasonably infer that the defendants knew that their conduct was generally unlawful, the court says, but such a general awareness of illegality is not sufficient to establish guilt of a specific intent crime. Id. Only by mere speculation could a jury conclude that Macko and Van Ameringen actually knew of the regulations promulgated pursuant to the TWEA and the EAA. Id. The court states that [m]ere conjecture or speculation cannot sustain a determination of guilt. Id. 17 The district court also holds that the Government charged Macko and Van Ameringen under the wrong subsection of the Cuban Assets Control Regulations. Id. at 1579. Section 515.201 of the regulations provides, in pertinent part: 18 (b) All of the following transactions are prohibited, except as specifically authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury (or any person, agency, or instrumentality designated by him) by means of regulations, rulings, instructions, licenses, or otherwise, if such transactions involve property in which any foreign country designated under this part, or any national thereof, has at any time on or since the effective date of this section had any interest of any nature whatsoever, direct or indirect: 19 (1) All dealings in, including, without limitation, transfers, withdrawals, or exportations of, any property or evidences of indebtedness or evidences of ownership of property by any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States .... 20 .... 21 (c) Any transaction for the purpose or which has the effect of evading or avoiding any of the prohibitions set forth in paragraph ... (b) of this section is hereby prohibited. 22 (d) For the purposes of this part, the term foreign country designated under this part and the term designated foreign country mean Cuba and the term effective date and the term effective date of this section mean with respect to Cuba, or any national thereof, 12:01 a.m., e.s.t., July 8, 1963. 23 31 C.F.R. § 515.201(b)-(d). 24 The indictment charged the defendants with violating the prohibition in § 515.201(b)(1) against transactions with Cuba or Cuban nationals. The court, however, states that the defendants dealt only with Ortiz de Zevallos and plainly did not trade with Cuba, Cuban nationals, or Cuban agents. Ortiz de Zevallos, 748 F.Supp. at 1579. If any part of the regulation proscribes the defendants' conduct, it is the evasion language of subsection (c) rather than subsection (b)(1), the court concludes. Id. The indictment did not charge a violation of subsection (c). 25 Turning to the false-statement conviction, the district court sees insufficient evidence that Macko provided incorrect information for the shipper's export declaration. Id. at 1580. Macko and Ortiz de Zevallos told the freight forwarder that the goods were to be shipped to Panama in transit. Id. This indicated that the goods would subsequently be forwarded from Panama to another country. Thus, the district court reasons, although Macko may have failed to reveal the entire truth concerning the destination of the shipment, he made no false statement. Id. 26 During the course of the trial, after denying Macko's renewed motions for a severance, the district court instructed the jury that the post-arrest statements of Ortiz de Zevallos and Van Ameringen were not to be considered as evidence against Macko. In addressing Macko's objections, the court concluded that Van Ameringen's redacted statement did not clearly refer to Macko.