Opinion ID: 612373
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Acting on behalf of a charitable organization

Text: The Government argues that the District Court erred in failing to apply a 2-level enhancement for Fumo‟s misrepresentation that he was acting on behalf of Citizens Alliance, a charitable organization. The Sentencing Guidelines state: “If the offense involved (A) a misrepresentation that the defendant was acting on behalf of a charitable, educational, religious, or political organization, or a government agency . . . increase by 2 levels.” U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(8)(A). The application notes make it clear that this guideline applies where an individual purports to be raising funds for a charity while intending to divert some or all the funds for another purpose. Subsection (b)(8)(A) applies in any case in which the defendant represented that the defendant was acting to obtain a benefit on behalf of a charitable educational, religious, or political organization, or a government agency 10 Judge Garth disagrees that the District Court did not err. He would hold that the cost of the Gazela painting ($150,000), and the prints should be included in the loss calculation. 44 (regardless of whether the defendant actually was associated with the organization or government agency) when, in fact, the defendant intended to divert all or part of that benefit (e.g., for the defendant's personal gain). Subsection (b)(8)(A) applies, for example, to the following: .... (iii) A defendant, chief of a local fire department, who conducted a public fundraiser representing that the purpose of the fundraiser was to procure sufficient funds for a new fire engine when, in fact, the defendant intended to divert some of the funds for the defendant's personal benefit. U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1, Application Note 7(B). The Government contends that Fumo‟s behavior fits squarely into this guideline because Fumo acquired funds from PECO for Citizens Alliance while intending to divert those funds for his own use. Fumo argued and the District Court agreed that the Government had not shown Fumo‟s intent to divert the funds at the time he obtained them from PECO. However, the Government points out that Fumo acquired a substantial portion—$10 million—of the PECO funds in 2002, well after he began using Citizens Alliance‟s funds for his own personal political benefits. Indeed, it strains all credulity to believe that Fumo repeatedly used Citizens Alliance funds for personal and political purposes, then withdrew his intent to do so at the time he obtained the $10 million from PECO, then regained that intent shortly thereafter as he continued to use Citizens Alliance funds for his own benefit. This evidence of Fumo‟s intent to divert the funds was overwhelming, and the District Court‟s refusal to apply a 2-level enhancement was an abuse of discretion.