Opinion ID: 1236530
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Ross argues on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for bank fraud. When considering such an argument this Court does not weigh the evidence presented, consider the credibility of witnesses, or substitute [its] judgment for that of the jury. United States v. M/G Trans. Servs., Inc., 173 F.3d 584, 588-89 (6th Cir.1999). Our task is to determine whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, and after giving the government the benefit of all inferences that could reasonably be drawn from the testimony, any rational trier of fact could find the elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 589 (citing Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979)) (emphasis in original). Thus, Ross bears a very heavy burden in his sufficiency of the evidence challenge. United States v. Davis, 397 F.3d 340, 344 (6th Cir.2005) (internal citations omitted). In order to prove a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344, the government must prove three elements: (1) that the defendant knowingly executed or attempt to execute a scheme to defraud a financial institution; (2) that the defendant did so with the intent to defraud; and (3) that the financial institution was insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Davis, 397 F.3d at 344. At issue is whether the government adequately proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Ross had the requisite knowledge required to be convicted of bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344. In other words, Ross must have knowingly participated in a scheme to defraud FirstMerit and National City Bank. Ross argues that there is no evidence he knew the $90,000 check was counterfeit. He also argues that he believed the $700,000 deposited to his account was via wire transfer and not by check, and thus he had no knowledge a check was even used, let alone a counterfeit check. As is often the case, direct evidence of knowledge and intent is hard to come by, and thus must be proven by circumstantial evidence. This Circuit has stated that circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction, and such evidence need not remove every reasonable hypothesis except that of guilt. United States v. Winkle, 477 F.3d 407, 413 (6th Cir.2007) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In the present case, the government offered evidence that over the course of two years Ross passed a counterfeit $90,000 check, received a suspicious and counterfeit $346,000 check in the mail, and deposited a counterfeit $5,000 check. Additionally, during that same period a counterfeit $700,000 Treasury check was mailed to his bank with instructions to be deposited in his account. The jury also considered more than forty emails between Ross and the Nigerians and listened to Ross's own testimony from the witness stand. Ross presented evidence that he was in contact with investors from overseas and that he believed those investors were legitimate. He also presented evidence that after he received the first three counterfeit checks he became very upset with the overseas investors and required all future transactions be done by wire transfer between United States banks. The evidence also appears to show that he believed the $700,000 that was deposited in his account was a wire transfer and not a Treasury check. Additionally, Ross did not run and hide from the alleged fraud. Instead, Ross attempted to work out a payback program with the bank. While this case presents a close evidentiary call, we do not believe Ross has met his very heavy burden of showing the evidence was insufficient. The jury chose not to believe Ross's testimony and found that there was enough circumstantial evidence to prove Ross knowingly intended to defraud a bank. The government offered evidence of Ross's motive to commit bank fraud. Ross was in dire financial straits. Ross had filed for personal bankruptcy. Ross needed money to pay his debts and keep his businesses afloat. The government also called into question Ross's meeting with Duke. The Secret Service Agent could find no evidence of a Didi Duke attending the Realtors' conference in Washington, D.C. Ross also admitted to researching Nigerian scams on the internet and that he believed this proposed deal was likely a scam. He even stated that his greed had got the better of him. And ultimately, Ross did receive four counterfeit checks and deposited three of them. This circumstantial evidence calls into doubt Ross's story that he was simply the victim of an elaborate Nigerian counterfeit check scam. Thus it cannot be said that no rational trier of fact could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Ross knowingly participated in bank fraud.