Opinion ID: 2800048
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The NHL

Text: Beckman was found guilty as charged in Counts 16 and 17, committing or aiding and abetting the commission of mail fraud, regarding two applications Beckman submitted in his effort to purchase an interest in the Minnesota Wild. The first application asked, “Have you ever been a party to any litigation, including litigation alleging harassment or discrimination? . . . If yes, attach Schedule G setting forth [additional information].” Beckman answered “yes” and attached Schedule G, but he did not include the fact that his mother sued him with regard to his handling of his grandfather’s estate, his employer sued him for refusing to pay back a promissory note, and two convictions for drunk driving. Beckman claims he acted under the advice of counsel and the errors were immaterial. Beckman’s counsel, Berman, did not corroborate Beckman’s claim that she advised him to omit the incidents. As to the deficiencies in Beckman’s financial disclosures, Beckman’s evidence fails to “refute” the strong evidence of his intent to defraud. Barth testified at trial to substantially the same facts averred in his affidavit, outlining the serious 12 SEC accountant Hlavacek testified in detail how Beckman misappropriated the proceeds from the viatical sales of two separate insurance policies, each for $1.975 million, as alleged in Counts 14 and 15. -23- fabrications Beckman provided as purported evidence of his self-worth. A reasonable jury could believe Berman and Barth, rather than Beckman, and find Beckman’s omissions both intentional and material. See United States v. Gaona-Lopez, 408 F.3d 500, 505 (8th Cir. 2005) (finding credibility questions are the province of the jury).