Opinion ID: 6111839
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence Proving Saini’s Intent to Defraud

Text: The evidence of Saini’s intent to defraud—to deprive his victims of money or property by deception—was overwhelming. There was abundant evidence that Saini had control of or possessed the encoder and stolen account information found inside the car. 8 And it was uncontested that the stolen information had been used to make purchases, 8 Saini was sitting in the driver’s seat of the car. Schaiy testified that Saini’s belongings were being stored in the car at the time of their arrests. And extensive evidence tied Saini to the items in the car: he admitted the encoder was his; credit cards found inside the laptop bag were imprinted with Saini’s name and his mother’s name; and a card found inside the duffel bag had been reencoded with the name Siddiqi, matching the name on the stolen driver’s license found in Saini’s pocket. UNITED STATES V. SAINI 19 causing about $13,000 in losses to banks and merchants. This was strong evidence proving Saini’s intent to defraud. See United States v. Rogers, 321 F.3d 1226, 1230 (9th Cir. 2003) (“It is settled law that intent to defraud may be established by circumstantial evidence.”). Saini’s intent to defraud could also be inferred from his lie to the detective about why he possessed the encoder. See Rogers, 321 F.3d at 1230 (inferring intent to defraud from inconsistent statements and misrepresentations). Schaiy’s testimony also showed that Saini intended to defraud his victims. Schaiy testified that she and Saini had engaged in a scheme in which they had used stolen credit card information to pay for hotel rooms and then resold those hotel rooms to people for cash at discounted rates. What’s more, Saini’s own testimony corroborated his participation in the scheme, as he admitted that he had resold a hotel room to a person at a discounted price for cash. The scheme itself—using other people’s money to pay for rooms—was strong evidence of Saini’s intent to defraud. See United States v. Sullivan, 522 F.3d 967, 974 (9th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (“[T]he scheme itself may be probative circumstantial evidence of an intent to defraud.”). Given the overwhelming evidence establishing Saini’s intent to cheat, the jury verdict would have been the same absent the instructional error. Our conclusion is also supported by the jury’s verdict, viewed in light of the record. In convicting Saini, the jury found that Saini either had an intent to deceive or cheat. Given the record, it is inconceivable that the jury could have found that Saini had an intent to deceive but not cheat. 9 This 9 Saini has not argued that the jury could have found he had the intent to cheat but not deceive. Even if he had, that argument would have failed 20 UNITED STATES V. SAINI is so because the government’s evidence showed that the two elements went hand in hand—the only objective of the scheme was to deprive victims of money through deception. Moreover, Saini advanced no theory on which the jury could have found that he had an intent to deceive but not cheat. In fact, his entire defense was that he was simply innocent and none of the items in the car were his, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. 10 The jury rejected the defense that none of the items in the car were his when it found him guilty. And the jury could not have found that he had the intent to deceive and that the items in the car were his, without also finding that he had the intent to cheat. 11 In sum, the district court’s instruction on the intent to defraud element was erroneous, as an intent to defraud under § 1029(a)(3) and (4) requires an intent to deceive and cheat. But the error was harmless because, given the overwhelming evidence proving Saini’s intent to defraud, we are confident for the same reason it is inconceivable that the jury could have found he had an intent to deceive but not cheat—the elements went hand in hand based on the evidence. 10 Among the items in the car that Saini claimed weren’t his was the laptop bag containing the credit cards imprinted with his own name and his mother’s name, the prepaid debit cards, and the blank white cards with magnetic strips. 11 We acknowledge Saini’s argument that, because he possessed Siddiqi’s driver’s license and didn’t admit to using the license to obtain anything of value, the jury could have found he had only an intent to deceive. This argument, however, is implausible based on the record. Saini never presented this argument to the jury. Further, his argument ignores the overwhelming evidence showing his intent to cheat, and the fact that the jury, having rejected his defense, was left with only one reasonable conclusion to draw from such evidence—that Saini possessed the stolen mail, encoder, “profiles,” and various cards, including ones that had been reencoded, to cheat his victims. UNITED STATES V. SAINI 21 beyond a reasonable doubt that the jury verdict would have been the same absent the error.