Opinion ID: 2620501
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Fraud and Conspiracy Counts

Text: The Joneses deny that they defrauded Stillwater. They claim that all of the disputed payments covered legitimate firm expenses: the sporting tickets secured business from prospective clients, and the various personal expenses constituted permissible “draws” from firm income to which Mikel Jones was entitled as the firm’s owner. Dona Jones argues that her “role was very limited and clearly in the category of a supportive wife.” Appellants’ Br. at 74. The government presented ample evidence to the contrary. The 2006 line of credit agreement limited use of the funds to “working capital,” which included neither personal expenses, nor hundreds of thousands of dollars in sporting tickets. Brian Spira, an agent of Stillwater who arranged and monitored the deal, confirmed that understanding. Mikel Jones’ own efforts to obscure the intended use of the funds corroborated it: Jones 4 documented the payments as advertising expenses in the 2008 budget, directed his employees to prepare false invoices, and concealed his control of Strata-Tech. The government also demonstrated that Dona Jones knew the borrowed funds were only intended to cover the law firm’s operating expenses: Spira testified that he told her so, and that he expressed his concern that the money was being misspent. Nonetheless, Dona Jones instructed Dubin’s staff to mail Strata-Tech checks to the Joneses’ Florida home and used the proceeds to pay her personal credit card bills. The Joneses point to evidence that, contrary to Spira’s testimony, Stillwater in fact expected its funds to be used to purchase sporting tickets: in his 2006 loan application to Stillwater, Mikel Jones attached a copy of his firm’s 2005 budget, which included two line items for “Philadelphia Eagles” and “Philadelphia 76ers” under “annual promotional expenses.” A1262. Whatever inference the jury could have drawn from that document regarding the events it was considering that took place three years later, and under a different budget, is not for us to say. We are required only to decide, under the standard of review set forth above, whether the evidence sufficiently supports a conclusion of guilt. It surely does. The jury could reasonably have concluded that Mikel Jones misrepresented the intended use of the funds in order to induce approvals to disburse those funds to him, and that Dona Jones was aware of, benefited from, and actively participated in the scheme with Mikel.