Opinion ID: 2769575
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Odoni next argues there was insufficient evidence to prove he knowingly or intentionally participated in the schemes to defraud underlying his convictions. Odoni claims the evidence showed only that he was an oblivious pawn in those 4 None of the other language in the treaty to which Odoni points reflects an affirmative agreement between the United States and the Dominican Republic that the extradition treaty would be the sole mechanism for procuring individuals for prosecution. 8 Case: 13-13528 Date Filed: 01/13/2015 Page: 9 of 27 schemes. We review sufficiency of the evidence claims “in the light most favorable to the government and draw all reasonable inferences and make all credibility determinations in support of the jury’s verdict.” United States v. Thomas, 987 F.2d 697, 701 (11th Cir. 1993) (internal quotations omitted). We will reverse a conviction only if no “rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S. Ct. 2781, 2789 (1979). The evidence that Odoni knowingly and intentionally engaged in the schemes to defraud was more than sufficient; it was overwhelming. The Government presented direct evidence of Odoni’s knowledge through the trial testimony of Richard Pope and Michael Geraud. Richard Pope, who was an old friend and business associate of Odoni’s, testified he talked to Odoni about the schemes and “Odoni knew full well what was going on and he was quite happy to take the proceeds.” Michael Geraud testified he guided Odoni through the Hartford Management Group office, the main Barcelona location for the Forex scheme, and “[p]retty much walked him through [the operation from] A to Z.” A jury could find this testimony credible. See United States v. Prince, 883 F.2d 953, 959 n.3 (11th Cir. 1989) (“Weighing the credibility of witnesses . . . is within the province of the jury, and the jury is free to believe or disbelieve any part or all of the testimony of a witness.”). 9 Case: 13-13528 Date Filed: 01/13/2015 Page: 10 of 27 The Government also presented ample circumstantial evidence of Odoni’s knowledge. For example, the Government established that Odoni managed the sales floor at Bishop and Parkes, where advisors were pitching stocks in valueless shell companies to unwitting investors under Odoni’s supervision. A jury could infer Odoni knew the fraudulent nature of the operation because he was a central part of it, even helping write some of the fraudulent scripts. A jury could also infer Odoni knew the stocks he sold were worthless because he was the CEO of Nanoforce, a fictitious shell company similar to the ones being pitched on his sales floor. As the CEO of Nanoforce, Odoni knew the company did not conduct any legitimate business. Odoni nonetheless distributed a false press release about Nanoforce’s purported activities, helped set up a website to make the business look more legitimate, and signed board resolutions authorizing Nanoforce stock issuances. A jury could readily conclude Odoni took these steps because he was a knowing participant in the fraudulent schemes. Given the totality of the record, the evidence was sufficient to sustain Odoni’s convictions.