Opinion ID: 4539372
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: The defendants contend that the government’s evidence was insufficient to support their conspiracy convictions. We review the sufficiency of the evidence de novo. See United States v. Hasson, 333 F.3d 1264, 1270 (11th Cir. 2003). “The record is viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, drawing all reasonable inferences and resolving all questions of credibility in favor of the government. Viewed in such a light, the verdict will be affirmed if a reasonable juror could conclude that the evidence establishes guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.
To convict a defendant of conspiracy to commit mail or wire fraud, the government must prove “(1) a conspiracy to commit [mail or wire fraud]; (2) knowledge of the conspiracy; and (3) that [the defendant] knowingly and voluntarily joined the conspiracy.” United States v. Feldman, 931 F.3d 1245, 1257 (11th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted), cert. denied, 2020 WL 1668565 (U.S. Apr. 6, 2020).
Ellis does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence showing the existence of the conspiracy. Instead, Ellis argues that she was duped by other members of the 8 Case: 17-14716 Date Filed: 06/05/2020 Page: 9 of 27 conspiracy and was an unwitting participant in the fraudulent schemes. Ellis contends that while she “may have incidentally participated in the schemes to defraud, no competent evidence existed to suggest that she intentionally participated in the frauds.” Initial Brief of Ellis at 29-30. We disagree. The government presented overwhelming evidence in the form of testimony, emails, and text messages showing Ellis’s direct and substantial involvement in the conspiracy. She was in constant contact with Amadi through email, text, and phone calls. She was directly involved in the creation and deployment of the counterfeit cashier’s checks and used her daughter to print the checks. Ellis and Cortese recruited Mullins to open new bank accounts to be used to receive and distribute proceeds from the conspiracy’s schemes. Mullins opened the accounts, received wire transfers directed into the accounts by Ellis, and transferred the funds out of the account as instructed by Cortese and by Ellis. Mullins removed cash from the accounts and distributed it at the defendants’ direction. On one occasion, Mullins followed instructions and withdrew cash, which she gave directly to Cortese and Ellis who were waiting at nearby Sam’s Club. Millions of dollars of fraud proceeds flowed through the bank account of Vicken International Traders, a company Ellis controlled that conducted no apparent legitimate business. When she was arrested, Ellis told the agents that Vicken’s bank account had been frozen four times because of suspicious activities. 9 Case: 17-14716 Date Filed: 06/05/2020 Page: 10 of 27 The evidence described above does not paint the picture of a mere victim who unwittingly opened her bank accounts to fraudsters. Instead, the evidence was more than sufficient to permit a reasonable juror to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Ellis was a knowing, active participant in the conspiracy.
Cortese also contends that the evidence was insufficient to show that he knowingly joined the conspiracy. He contends he served as Ellis’s lawyer but had no knowledge that she was involved in fraudulent schemes. Although Cortese’s involvement in the conspiracy was not as extensive as Ellis’s, the evidence nonetheless showed that it was significant. If a bank froze an account being used by a co-conspirator, Amadi connected the co-conspirator to Cortese for help in regaining access to the account. For example, when one of Naji’s recruits (his girlfriend) had an account frozen, Naji initiated a conference call between his girlfriend, Amadi, Ellis, and Cortese to discuss the account, and Cortese touted his success in unfreezing accounts. And when Naji was arrested in 2015 on the charges in this case, Amadi directed Cortese to call Naji. When they talked, Cortese wanted information so Amadi could access an account controlled by Naji, because a $1.5 million transfer has just been made to that account. And, as discussed above, proceeds from various scams involving counterfeit checks created at Ellis’s direction were transferred into Cortese’s trust account; Cortese was directly involved 10 Case: 17-14716 Date Filed: 06/05/2020 Page: 11 of 27 (along with Ellis) in bringing Mullins, his paralegal, into the scheme and directing the use of the accounts she opened; and Cortese, at Ellis’s direction, flew to Utah to collect cash from a victim. Cortese may not have known all of the members of the conspiracy, and he may not have profited from the conspiracy as much as other members, but those points are largely irrelevant to our inquiry on appeal. See, e.g., United States v. Perez-Tosta, 36 F.3d 1552, 1557 (11th Cir. 1994) (“Guilt [on a conspiracy charge] may exist even when the defendant plays only a minor role and does not know all the details of the conspiracy.”). In our view, the evidence recounted above was plainly sufficient to support the jury’s verdict. See United States v. Knowles, 66 F.3d 1146, 1154 (11th Cir. 1995) (“For sufficiency purposes, the evidence need not exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence; rather, the question is whether a reasonable trier of fact, when choosing among reasonable constructions of the evidence, could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”) (footnotes and internal quotation marks omitted); Perez-Tosta, 36 F.3d at 1557 (“Participation in a criminal conspiracy need not be proved by direct evidence; a common purpose and plan may be inferred from a development and collocation of circumstances.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).
11 Case: 17-14716 Date Filed: 06/05/2020 Page: 12 of 27 To convict Ellis and Cortese under 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h), “the Government needed to prove two elements . . . : (1) an agreement between two or more persons to commit a money-laundering offense; and (2) knowing and voluntary participation in that agreement by the defendant.” United States v. Feldman, 936 F.3d 1288, 1307 (11th Cir. 2019) (internal quotation marks omitted). “An essential element of money laundering conspiracy is that the defendant knew that the funds involved in the transactions represented the proceeds of unlawful activity.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). In this case, the government alleged two moneylaundering offenses as the objects of the conspiracy: money laundering to promote the carrying-on of the conspiracy, see 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i), and moneylaundering to conceal the source of the funds, see id. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i). The defendants do not argue that the evidence was insufficient to establish the existence of a money-laundering conspiracy, but again argue that they did not knowingly participate in the conspiracy. We disagree. As discussed above, the government’s evidence showed that Ellis was involved in the creation of the counterfeit checks and in directing the accounts through which the fraudulent proceeds would flow. She recruited Mullins to open accounts and instructed her to open them as business accounts, which would draw less scrutiny from the banks. Ellis provided other co-conspirators with documents (created by Amadi) purporting to show a legitimate purpose for the wire transfers 12 Case: 17-14716 Date Filed: 06/05/2020 Page: 13 of 27 into Mullins’s account. Ellis knew that bank accounts used by the conspiracy were being closed for fraud, and she worked with Cortese to try to regain access to these accounts. We have no difficulty finding this evidence sufficient to show Ellis’s knowledge of the fraudulent origins of the funds and her knowing participation in the money-laundering conspiracy. The evidence was likewise sufficient to support Cortese’s conviction. Like Ellis, Cortese knew that banks were recalling wire transfers and rejecting counterfeit checks, and he intervened to try to unfreeze accounts being used by the conspiracy. Amadi connected Cortese with other conspirators when bank accounts were frozen for fraudulent activity. Cortese received fraudulent proceeds into his trust account, and he transferred the funds out as directed, sometimes to overseas accounts. Cortese worked with Ellis to bring Mullins into the scheme and pushed her to open more accounts than she was willing to do. He informed Mullins when wire transfers would appear in her accounts, and he gave her instructions on how the funds should be transferred out of the account. Cortese also advised Mullins on how to interact with the banks so as not to raise questions. From this evidence, a reasonable juror could easily conclude that Cortese knew that the funds were the proceeds of fraudulent activity and that he knowingly participated in the money-laundering conspiracy.