Opinion ID: 2804139
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Relevance of Conversations Regarding

Text: Overseas Bank Accounts The final evidentiary challenge Kolodesh advances is to the relevance and prejudicial effect of extensive recorded conversations that referred to his opening a Swiss bank account. Kolodesh argues that evidence of foreign investments is “generally inadmissible” because of the negative perception in the public’s mind linking such accounts to criminal activity. (Opening Br. at 47.) Yet the case Kolodesh cites for that proposition does not support it. Rather, the case simply applied the standard rules relating to relevance and unfair prejudice, with the result being the approval of admission of evidence of a secret Swiss bank account. United States v. Friedland, 660 F.2d 919, 929 (3d Cir. 1981); cf. United States v. Udeozor, 515 F.3d 260, 26465 (4th Cir. 2008) (“Rule 403 is a rule of inclusion, generally 21 favoring admissibility … .” (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted)). Here, Pugman testified that he, Ganetsky, and Kolodesh discussed the possibility of moving money overseas “to protect our money … from the government,” after they had received a letter from Cahaba requiring Home Care Hospice to repay over $2.6 million in reimbursements that had exceeded the per-patient cap for the 2006-2007 fiscal year. (App. at 1280.) Although Cahaba retracted the letter and at trial the government conceded that the letter was prompted by “a bookkeeping error” (App. at 4399), which Home Care Hospice corrected, the government argued – and the testimony supports – that the letter prompted Kolodesh and his co-conspirators to discharge several patients and discuss the possibility of moving money overseas because they were aware of fraudulent activity that would be detected if Cahaba continued to scrutinize Home Care Hospice. In one of the recorded conversations, Kolodesh indicated that he wanted to put money in a Swiss bank account, but he wanted to avoid one particular bank because “[it] reports everything to the American government.” (App. at 1284.) The recorded conversations were thus relevant as circumstantial evidence of Kolodesh’s knowledge that his actions were fraudulent and that he risked losing his money as a result. They were also relevant as circumstantial evidence of knowledge regarding the money laundering charges. Although the discussions about possibly putting money into Swiss accounts was not part of those charged offenses, the conversations provided evidence of Kolodesh’s intent to maintain access to criminally derived property and conceal such transactions from the government. The mere possibility of a negative inference regarding Swiss bank accounts did not 22 substantially outweigh the probative value of the recordings. Thus, the District Court did not plainly err in admitting them.