Opinion ID: 217641
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Count One: Conspiracy to Commit Mail and/or Wire Fraud

Text: We begin with the question of whether there was sufficient evidence to support the jury's guilty verdict as to count one, conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud. First, a conspiracy to commit wire and/or mail fraud does not require proof of an overt act. See Whitfield v. United States, 543 U.S. 209, 125 S.Ct. 687, 160 L.Ed.2d 611 (2005) (holding that criminal conspiracies modeled after the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, rather than 18 U.S.C. § 371, do not require proof of an overt act to obtain conviction). Accordingly, to prove such a conspiracy, the government must demonstrate that (1) two or more persons agreed to violate the law, (2) the defendant knew the essential objectives of the conspiracy, (3) the defendant knowingly and voluntarily participated in the conspiracy, and (4) the alleged coconspirators were interdependent. United States v. Baldridge, 559 F.3d 1126, 1136 (10th Cir.) (further quotation omitted), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 2170, 173 L.Ed.2d 1165 (2009). Turning to the substantive crime, [t]o convict a defendant of wire fraud, the government must prove three elements: (1) the defendant participated in a scheme to defraud; (2) the defendant intended to defraud; and (3) a use of an interstate wire in furtherance of the fraudulent scheme. United States v. Caldwell, 560 F.3d 1214, 1218 (10th Cir.2009) (further quotation omitted). [7] Mr. Fishman argues [t]he evidence failed to show that Mr. Fishman shared a common goal with the alleged co-conspirators, since the proof did not establish that Mr. Fishman was aware of the objects of the alleged mail and wire fraud conspiracy. Opening Br. of Appellant at 53. He claims he made no false statements to any of the Caribou investors, that he believed the bonds were valuable, that he was merely a messenger between the investors and the other members of the conspiracy, and that he made no money from the sale of bonds to the Caribou investors. In short, he claims he acted in good faith, merely trying to help people get rich quickly. We have carefully reviewed the lengthy record in this case. There is an abundance of evidence establishing that Mr. Fishman was deeply involved in the entire fraudulent conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, and that he was, as the government characterized it, the neural glue of the conspiracy. Answer Br. of the United States at 41. Interdependence was clearly proven, as was Mr. Fishman's awareness of all aspects of the fraudulent plan. It simply defies belief that a reasonable juror would conclude that Mr. Fishman could be so integrally involved in every aspect of the Caribou program and watch as months went by with no investors receiving their promised extravagant returns, and yet have no idea that the entire program was a fraudulent scheme. Most telling, however, is Mr. Fishman's admission in his testimony before the grand jury that, by early 2000, he knew that the bonds had no real value and that the program was bogus. R. Addendum Vol. 13 at 5021, 5038. Yet, the record is replete with evidence of his continuing efforts to pacify increasingly angry investors with further misrepresentations and misleading statements, and to solicit new investors. In sum, there was ample evidence supporting the jury's guilty verdict as to count one, particularly in view of the deference we give to the jury's verdict. [A]ny rational trier of fact could have found [Mr. Fishman] guilty of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. United States v. Wood, 207 F.3d 1222, 1228 (10th Cir.2000).