Opinion ID: 783949
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether venue was proper in the Southern District of New York

Text: 38 Questions of jurisdiction and venue are questions of law, and this Court reviews them de novo. See United States v. Kim, 246 F.3d 186, 188 (2d Cir.2001) (citing United States v. White, 237 F.3d 170, 172 (2d Cir.2001)). 39 A criminal defendant has the right to be tried in the district wherein the crime shall have been committed[.] U.S. Const. amend. VI; see Fed.R.Crim.P. 18. [W]here the acts constituting the crime and the nature of the crime charged implicate more than one location, the constitution does not command a single exclusive venue. United States v. Reed, 773 F.2d 477, 480 (2d Cir.1985). Rather, venue is proper in any district in which such offense was begun, continued, or completed. 18 U.S.C. § 3237(a). 40 Where a federal statute defining an offense does not explicitly indicate where a criminal act is deemed to have been committed, the site of a charged offense `must be determined from the nature of the crime alleged and the location of the act or acts constituting it....' United States v. Cabrales, 524 U.S. 1, 5, 118 S.Ct. 1772, 141 L.Ed.2d 1 (1998) (quoting United States v. Cabrales, 109 F.3d 471, 472 (8th Cir.1997) (quoting United States v. Anderson, 328 U.S. 699, 703 (1946))). This Court has therefore held that, [i]n a conspiracy prosecution, `venue is proper in any district in which an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy was committed by any of the coconspirators.' United States v. Smith, 198 F.3d 377, 382 (2d Cir.1999) (quoting United States v. Naranjo, 14 F.3d 145, 147 (2d Cir.1994) (quotation and citation omitted)). With respect to the individual securities and tender offer fraud counts, the venue provision of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the '34 Act) provides that [a]ny criminal proceeding may be brought in the district wherein any act or transaction constituting the violation occurred. 15 U.S.C. § 78aa. 41 Robles likens the instant case to United States v. Bezmalinovic, 962 F.Supp. 435 (S.D.N.Y.1997), in which the court held that purely ministerial functions that are unintended and unforeseeable to a defendant are insufficient to establish venue. See id. at 441 (venue in bank fraud prosecution improper in the Southern District of New York where the defendant committed all relevant acts at banks in the Eastern District of New York and the only contact with the Southern District was the banks' cashing and payment of checks through their clearing houses in Manhattan). Robles argues that he neither intended nor could he have reasonably foreseen that the trades in question would be executed on the NYSE or AMEX. 42 The Government, on the other hand, relies on United States v. Kim, in which this Court held that knowingly causing an act in furtherance of the charged offense to occur in the district in question is sufficient to establish venue. See Kim, 246 F.3d at 192 (venue proper where the defendant approved fraudulent invoices knowing that the victim paid its vendors from a bank located in the Southern District of New York). 43 Taken together, Kim and Bezmalinovic indicate that venue is proper in a district where (1) the defendant intentionally or knowingly causes an act in furtherance of the charged offense to occur in the district of venue or (2) it is foreseeable that such an act would occur in the district of venue. See Kim, 246 F.3d at 192 (finding venue proper where the defendant caused communications to be transmitted into and out of the Southern District when he approved fraudulent invoices knowing that [the victim] paid its vendors from New York banks); Bezmalinovic, 962 F.Supp. at 438 (finding venue improper because the defendant neither intended nor could have foreseen the acts that occurred in the district of venue). 44 In the instant case, there is nothing in the record to indicate that Robles intended the trades in question to be executed on either NYSE or AMEX. However, the fact that Robles was a savvy investor means that he could reasonably foresee that his trades would likely be executed on either NYSE or AMEX. More importantly, however, Robles had actual notice that his trades were being executed on NYSE and AMEX; the Government introduced individual trade confirmations from Robles' broker, Charles Schwab, reflecting that eight of the transactions in question were executed on NYSE or AMEX. See A. 109-116. Accordingly, unlike Bezmalinovic, there is evidence suggesting that Robles either knew, or could reasonably foresee, that his trades would be executed in the Southern District of New York. At a minimum, as soon as Robles received the first trade confirmation, it became foreseeable that his trades could be executed in the Southern District. This case is thus more analogous to Kim, as Robles ordered trades knowing that they would be executed in the Southern District. 12 45 For the foregoing reasons, we find that the execution of trades on the New York Stock Exchange and American Stock Exchange is sufficient to establish venue in the Southern District of New York. 13