Opinion ID: 3148929
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Defendant Petersen similarly mounts a sufficiency challenge, arguing that he merely used the weekly data supplied by Westover to prepare the charts he sent to Sencan, who in turn sent them to investors. Nevertheless, there was sufficient evidence to convict Petersen. First, Petersen committed acts that were necessary for the ongoing success of the scheme. He co-owned RAMCO 1, served as its accountant, received monthly account statements, diverted investor funds that were supposed to go to Westover, and generated the account statements sent to investors that falsely reported profits on their investments. Indeed, these false financial statements he prepared were crucial to recruiting investors and keeping them in the dark. See United States v. Bradley, 644 F.3d 1213, 1239 (11th Cir. 2011) (“A 9 Case: 14-12577 Date Filed: 10/23/2015 Page: 10 of 18 misrepresentation is material if it has a natural tendency to influence, or is capable of influencing, the decision maker to whom it is addressed.” (internal quotations omitted)). As to his knowledge that he was facilitating a fraudulent scheme, Petersen was necessarily aware that the account statements he was creating contained false information because there were, in fact, no profits being earned by the victims’ investments. Moreover, he was necessarily aware that instead of being invested, the victims’ funds were either being used to make payments to earlier investors or were being diverted to coconspirators. In fact, he clearly knew that he had received a substantial sum of money skimmed from the investments. The jury therefore could reasonably have concluded that the material misrepresentations found in the financial statements created by Petersen were made knowingly by him. 6 Further, even if Petersen, himself, did not make material misrepresentations to investors, 7 he was convicted of wire and securities fraud under an aiding and abetting theory. “To prove aiding and abetting, the government must demonstrate that a substantive offense was committed, that the defendant associated himself 6 As noted, Petersen invested none of his own money in Westover even though it supposedly promised high returns at low risk. This fact further suggests that he knew the fraudulent nature of the scheme. 7 Although Petersen states that he never directly communicated with investors, there was evidence he communicated with and personally lured at least one investor into the scam. 10 Case: 14-12577 Date Filed: 10/23/2015 Page: 11 of 18 with the criminal venture, and that he committed some act which furthered the crime.” United States v. Hamblin, 911 F.2d 551, 557 (11th Cir. 1990). In short, there was sufficient evidence to allow the jury to conclude that Petersen both furthered the scheme and did so knowingly.