Opinion ID: 4458470
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Willful Breach

Text: The evidence similarly suffices to prove Kanodia's willful breach of his duty to Basu. For Kanodia's convictions to stand, there must be enough evidence to permit a rational jury to infer that Kanodia acted willfully. 15 U.S.C. § 78ff(a); United States v. O'Hagan, 521 U.S. 642, 665-66 (1997). [I]n order to establish a willful violation of a statute, the Government must prove that the defendant acted with knowledge that his conduct was unlawful. Bryan v. United States, 524 U.S. 184, 191-92 (1998) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135, 137 (1994)). Because willfulness is a mental state, only rarely is it proven by direct evidence. United States v. Bank of New Eng., N.A., 821 F.2d 844, 854 (1st Cir. 1987). Here, the jury heard strong circumstantial evidence showing that Kanodia acted with knowledge that his scheme violated - 13 - the law. In addition to the evidence described above, Kanodia's methods of carrying out his scheme betray a consciousness of wrongdoing. See United States v. Zanghi, 189 F.3d 71, 81 (1st Cir. 1999) (holding that evidence of conduct tending to mislead or conceal permits a jury to infer willfully unlawful conduct). According to Watson, Kanodia attempted to conceal his communications with Watson by avoiding written messages and speaking in vague terms over the telephone. Watson also testified that Kanodia told him that he could not trade himself. And, significantly, Kanodia disguised the kickbacks that he received from Ahmed and Watson as purported charitable donations to LCF.