Opinion ID: 4540010
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence bears a “heavy burden,” United States v. Gaskin, 364 F.3d 438, 459 (2d Cir. 2004), as the standard of review is “exceedingly deferential,” United States v. Hassan, 578 F.3d 108, 126 (2d Cir. 2008). Ultimately, “the task of choosing among competing, permissible inferences is for the [jury], not for the reviewing court.” United States v. McDermott, 245 F.3d 133, 137 (2d Cir. 2001). Brennerman argues there was insufficient evidence to convict him of a conspiracy. He argues the jury could not have adduced the existence of an agreement because the record does not contain a single response from Peter Aderinwale, the purported co-conspirator with whom Brennerman corresponded over email. His argument is both factually and legally flawed. First, the record did contain two responsive emails from Aderinwale concerning draft emails to be sent to ICBC as part of the scheme. Second, a response from an alleged co-conspirator following conspiratorial communication is not legally necessary to establish the existence of a conspiracy. We agree with the government that a reasonable jury could infer the requisite intent from emails in which Brennerman solicited Aderinwale’s input on aspects of the fraud scheme and from Brennerman’s transfer of substantial scheme proceeds to Aderinwale. These facts would have supported the inference that Aderinwale was a co-conspirator, even in the absence of any email 2 response from Aderinwale. The jury would have been entitled to infer that Aderinwale’s responses had been conveyed over the phone or in person. “This is so because a conspiracy by its very nature is a secretive operation, and it is a rare case where all aspects of a conspiracy can be laid bare in court with the precision of a surgeon’s scalpel.” United States v. Pitre, 960 F.2d 1112, 1121 (2d Cir. 1992) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Thus, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, we find there was sufficient evidence from which the jury could have reasonably inferred the existence of a conspiracy. Brennerman also argues that there was insufficient evidence that he intended to defraud an institution insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”) as required for bank fraud, because most of the evidence offered at trial showed that he targeted the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China’s London branch (“ICBC”), which is not FDIC-insured. Contrary to Brennerman’s assertions, however, the record did establish that he defrauded Morgan Stanley, an FDIC-insured institution, as part of his broader scheme by, among other things, inducing it to issue him a credit card based on false representations about his citizenship, assets, and the nature and worth of his company. Indeed, the government argued just this theory on summation, asserting that Brennerman was guilty of bank fraud because “he engaged in a scheme to defraud Morgan Stanley” through lies told to a Morgan Stanley employee, which were “all part of an attempt to defraud an FDIC-insured institution.” App’x at 1709-10. Defense counsel in summation also emphasized that Morgan Stanley was the sole FDIC-insured institution involved. And the district court instructed the jury on the proper elements of bank fraud, including the FDIC-insured institution element. Brennerman’s challenge, therefore, is foreclosed by “the law’s general assumption that juries follow the instructions they are given,” which applied here would indicate that the jury properly accounted for the evidence related to Morgan Stanley when convicting Brennerman of the bank fraud count. United States v. Agrawal, 726 F.3d 235, 258 (2d Cir. 2013). As to the wire fraud count, Brennerman argues there was insufficient evidence to establish a domestic violation of the statute. “[W]ire fraud involves sufficient domestic conduct when (1) the defendant used domestic mail or wires in furtherance of a scheme to defraud, and (2) the use of the mail or wires was a core component of the scheme to defraud.” Bascuñán v. Elsaca, 927 F.3d 108, 122 (2d Cir. 2019). We conclude that the evidence here was sufficient. The record at trial established that Brennerman used domestic wires to carry out the fraudulent scheme. Indeed, he concedes that he used telephone lines and email in the United States to make fraudulent representations in furtherance of the scheme. In addition, the account to which ICBC wired the loan money was a Citibank account within the United States, and Brennerman subsequently moved that money to domestic accounts. This is precisely the kind of use of domestic wires that we have held sufficient under the wire fraud statute. See, e.g., United States v. Kim, 246 F.3d 186, 190 (2d Cir. 2001).