Opinion ID: 4024287
Heading Depth: 6
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Foreseeeability

Text: The d district cou urt erred b by failing to o considerr whether iit was able to Kriistofor thatt calls wou foreseea uld be mad de to prosp pective ED DNY investtors. Kristofo or participated in thee BSMI ina augural strrategy meeeting wherre Bill stateed that cap pital would d be raised d ʺ[b]y selliing stock tto investorrsʺ and thaat ʺeverybo ody in the co ompanyʺ w was asked to solicit iinvestors. Trial Tr. aat 1482, 29777. Call lissts king points were circculated to the email account sh and talk hared by K Kristofor an nd Bill. Tw wo of thosee circulated d calls listss contained d names w with EDNY Y addressees. Kristofo or was task ked with a and actuallly made saales calls, p participateed in pre‐caall ‐27‐ and post‐call strategy meetings, and sat in on calls made by Bill. He also attended meetings where BSMI employees discussed strategies for soliciting investment over the phone, and specifically discussed the need to conceal Billʹs involvement by having him pose as ʺKris Langeʺ on calls. A reasonable jury could conclude that it was foreseeable to Kristofor that calls would be made to investors in the EDNY to solicit investment. The district court also erred by concluding that the Government was required ʺto present evidence at trial of [Kristoforʹs] involvement in creating the newsletter or otherwise disseminating materially false information in this districtʺ to establish venue through the EDNY email correspondence. Sp. App. at 17. It was foreseeable to Kristofor that investor solicitations would be followed up with electronic correspondence containing newsletters, private placement memoranda, or other solicitation materials to convince a potential target to invest with BSMI. Joseph Pascua sent a sample follow‐up email to be used to solicit investments to Kristofor and other BSMI employees. Kristofor received multiple versions of these solicitation materials at his work email account, which he shared with his father. ‐28‐ Similarly, both the cold calls to potential investors within the EDNY and the email correspondence to Inspector Lucente were foreseeable to Russell. Testimony at trial established that Russell was responsible for scrubbing the call lists and distributing the culled lists to employees with instructions to solicit potential investors. He was therefore aware that investors within the EDNY were on the list, and were likely to be called as part of BSMIʹs strategy to solicit investment. At BSMI, Russell assisted with the preparation of materially false promotional materials, such as drafts of the business plan, business plan summary, and placement memoranda to be emailed to potential investors. He reduced the electronic file size of the business plan and business plan summary to ʺhelp when sending the file via email.ʺ Govʹt App. at 935. Similarly, Russell reviewed a draft of the quarterly newsletter drafted by Pascua. In light of Russellʹs involvement in both the cold calls and the preparation of promotional materials to be sent to potential investors, it was clearly foreseeable to Russell that cold calls would be made to investors within the EDNY and that promotional materials, such as the newsletter, would be emailed into the district. ‐29‐