Monday, October 13, 2008

The Boyle Case & RICO Enterprises

Although the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act (RICO), enacted in 1970, was focused on organized crime, its use in the white collar sphere is common. One finds RICO charges in many corruption and fraud prosecutions. The United States Supreme Court recently accepted on certiorari a RICO case that will hopefully resolve one of the nagging issues that pervades this area of the law. The Court, in the case of Boyle v. United States, will look at the issue: "does proof of an association-in-fact enterprise under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Act, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1962 (c) - (d), require at least some showing of an ascertainable structure beyond that inherent in the pattern of racketeering activity in which it engages?"

The federal circuits have been all across the board on what is required for a 1961(4) enterprise. If it is a legal structure, person, or corporation, the process is easy. In this regard prosecutors have used an Office of a Governor, Prosecutor’s Office and other entities as the enterprise for a RICO prosecution.

Less clear is when the prosecution is premised upon "any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity."

The Second Circuit has permitted prosecutions that have an "association-in-fact" form of enterprise that merely uses the predicate acts. Other circuits have required some "ascertainable structure." In some cases they require that the ascertainable structure be "distinct from the pattern of racketeering," with other cases looking at whether it is "an on-going structure."

Hopefully, the Supreme Court will offer some guidance on how to interpret this aspect of the RICO statute.

Question Presented - here

See Scotus Blog for Petition for Certiorari here


October 13, 2008 in RICO | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Sunday, October 12, 2008

The New SEC Enforcement Manual

As previously posted, here is the new SEC Enforcement Manual. Check out this webpage at Gibson, Dunn, and Crutcher, LLP that provides highlights from this new manual.



October 12, 2008 in SEC | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

The Ring Case

Guest Blogger - Stephanie Martz, Senior Director, White Collar Crime Policy, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers -

Here’s an evergreen issue that was just brought to my attention – United States v. Kevin A. Ring, 1:08-cr-00274, assigned to D.C. District Court Judge Ellen Huvelle as part of the Jack Abramoff series of defendants:  an obstruction charge based on Ring’s alleged lying to private counsel retained to conduct an internal investigation.  (By the way:  Ring has moved for Huvelle to recuse herself on the grounds that having taking 13 guilty pleas in this case and presided over it for five years has compromised her ability to remain impartial.)

Ring was, among other things, a Greenberg Traurig lobbyist along with Abramoff and seems to have been the point person in the lobbying team’s contact with several Hill offices, including that of former Rep. Istook of Oklahoma (through his now ex-chief of staff, John Albaugh, who faces a stiff prison sentence thanks to a guilty plea). 

Ring was indicted on charges that he conspired to bribe public officials (18 USC 201, 18 USC 371), committed honest services wire fraud, and violated both 18 USC 1512(b)(3) and (c)(2).  The first two sets of charges are alleged through a series of emails which purport to show  Ring promising and delivering tickets to everything from Tim McGraw to the Redskins to the Wiggles (this appears to have been changed to a horse event, but anyway) in exchange for various nods to clients in transportation appropriations bills. 

The obstruction charges are very interesting, especially for those who have followed the Computer Associates indictments (U.S. v. Kumar, U.S. v. Richards) and the El Paso Gas indictment (U.S. v. Singleton).  In those previous three cases, the defendants were all charged with violating 1512(c)(2), which forbids corruptly obstructing, influencing, or impeding any official proceeding, or attempting to do so.  In Kumar and Richards, the government alleged that the defendants had all but real knowledge that their (false) statements would be turned over to the government by the lawyers who had been hired to conduct CA’s internal investigation, thus suggesting  but not stating outright that the private lawyers were mere conduits for information to the government.  In Singleton, the nexus between the lawyers conducting El Paso’s investigation and the government – and therefore the conduit of information—was more tenuous; there was no reference in the indictment to any agreement by the company that statements and information would be turned over to the government as part of a formal or informal cooperation agreement, and the suggestion was that Singleton should have assumed as much. 

Here are some very interesting observations, in light of this, about the Ring indictment:  First, there is the most specific and clear allegation that I have seen so far that paints a real nexus between a private firm and the government.  According to the indictment, Ring was SPECIFICALLY told that his statements would likely be turned over to DOJ and/or the U.S. Senate Committee that was investigating the matter. If this is true, kudos to the lawyers who were ethical enough to admit outright this development in the culture of internal investigations, and to inform employees accordingly.  As a result, my guess is that this indictment will send fewer chills through the corporate bar than Singleton, in particular.

Second, the Kumar, Richards, and Singleton indictments did not employ 1512(b)(3), which is the only obstruction provision that specifically criminalizes using an intermediary to commit obstruction, and does not require an existing proceeding.  Georgetown Law Professor Julie O’Sullivan observed that this may be because (c)(2) carries with it a massive 20 year maximum, and was therefore a bigger hammer. 

O’Sullivan also observed, though, that in bringing indictments like these, DOJ risks killing the goose that laid the golden egg.  DOJ is happy to reap the benefits of a culture of cooperation in which enforcement agents and the private corporate bar are partners in crime-fighting, but these benefits will diminish over time as indictments are brought that turn the private bar into de facto government agents.   The use of 1512(b)(3) in addition to (c)(2) might make a difference – or it might have the same chilling effect. 

Ring Indictment - Download ring_indictment.pdf


October 12, 2008 in Obstruction, Prosecutions | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

New Scholarly Articles

Wendy Gerwick Couture, White Collar Crime's Gray Area: The Anomaly of Criminalizing Conduct Not Civilly Actionable, available at SSRN here

Adam J. Kolber, The Comparative Nature of Punishment, available at SSRN here

Geraldine Szott Moohr, Another Limitation on Honest Services Fraud?, available at SSRN here

October 12, 2008 in Scholarship | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Friday, October 10, 2008

In the News and Blogosphere

Mike Scarcella, BLT Blog, Williams & Connolly Wants to Put Lawyer on Witness Stand in Senator Ted Stevens trial.  It raises an interesting question as to whether an attorney can testify on a legal issue and/or whether in this particular situation the testimony relates to relevant matters.

Matt Apuzzo, Chicago Tribune (AP),  Alaska legislative panel finds Palin abused her power in seeking the firing of ex-relative; CNN, Panel: Palin abused power in trooper case; Serge F. Kovaleski, N.Y. Times, Alaska Inquiry Concludes Palin Abused Powers


October 10, 2008 in News | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

The New SEC Enforcement Manual

The cite to the new SEC Enforcement Manual is here.  Commentary down the road. 

(esp)(w/ a hat tip to Stephanie Martz and Tiffany M. Joslyn of NACDL)

October 10, 2008 in Securities | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

In the News and Blogosphere

Atlanta Jrl Constitution (AP), Man pleads guilty to selling fake Coke

Debra Cassens Weiss, ABA Law Journal News Now, Prosecutors Seek 230-Year Sentence for Ex-Gen Re Lawyer

Noeleen G. Walder, NY Law Jrl,,  Criminal Prosecutions Predicted to Surge Over Financial Crisis

October 10, 2008 in News | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

In the News and Blogosphere

Martha Neil, ABA Journal, Law News Now, Top Alaska Court Allows Sarah Palin Probe to Proceed; Report Expected Tomorrow

Sue Reisinger (posted by Brian Zabcik Am Law Daily), Corporate Counsel,  Former Gen Re Lawyer Could Face Life in Prison (AP), Petters ordered held; whistleblower identified (background - DOJ, Press Release, Thomas Petters arrested  (charges are mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, and obstruction of justice)); DOJ Press Release, Three Plead Guilty to Money Laundering, Mail Fraud in connection with Petters Company Fraud


October 10, 2008 in News | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Thursday, October 9, 2008

The Stevens Case - The Government Has Problems

It sounds like the government has several issues in its prosecution of Senator Ted Stevens.

  • For one there has been the question of whether the prosecution has provided all exculpatory material to the defense. It is mandatory that all exculpatory material be turned over to the defense.  In addition to this being a requirement of law, it is also in the rules of professional conduct that regulate many attorneys.   Rule 3.8 of the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct provide -

The Prosecutor in a criminal case shall: ...(d) make timely disclosure to the defense of all evidence or information known to the prosecutor that tends to negate the guilt of the accused or mitigates the offense.....except when the prosecutor is relieved of this responsibility by a protective order of the tribunal.

The court allowed the case to proceed, but the judge's comments to the jury could hurt their credibility with the jury. Del Quentin Wilber, Washington Post, Judge Assails Evidence in Stevens Trial -Jurors to Be Told to Ignore Two Pieces From Scolded Prosecution

  • Cooperating witnesses are always subject to scrutiny.  But when the cooperating witness has benefitted enormously by cooperating with the government, the testimony becomes suspect.  What was the benefit here and will if effect the credibility of the witness? see here.
  • And is the evidence sufficient here to sustain a conviction - the ultimate question that the jury will be resolving.
  • Having the defense bring in a Democrat senator as a character witness is powerful to say the least.  See Del Quentin Wilber, Washington Post, Inouye Praises Steven's Integrity


October 9, 2008 in Prosecutions | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Wednesday, October 8, 2008

In the News and Blogosphere

Washington Post, Grand Jury Indicts Alleged Palin Hacker  (charged under 18 U.S.C. 1030 - the computer fraud statute)

DOJ Press Release, Former Department of Defense Contractor Pleads Guilty to Participating in Scheme to Steal $39.6 Million Worth of Fuel from U.S. Army in Iraq

Robert G. Morvillo and Robert J. Anello, Calculating Loss Under the Guidelines (w/ a hat tip to Bil Olis)

David B. Caruso (AP)., Former UBS General Counsel Settles Insider Trading Rap

Lynne Marek, National Law Journal,, Milberg Kickback Defendant Gets Three-Month Term

October 8, 2008 in News | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Task Force Reports - What Is Missing?

So where's the task force to deal with the current financial situation? 

The President's Corporate Fraud Task Force was created several years ago to prosecute corporate frauds. (see here)  It's 2008 Report attempts to demonstrate the successes achieved by this task force.  But as noted here, the Report failed to provide the "not guilty" verdicts and reversals received from appellate courts. As noted here, it was a Report that failed to provide a full assessment of what actually had transpired. But at least there was a task force to handle the alleged frauds.

Just this past week, DOJ issued a Press Release concerning its Katrina Hurricane Task Force and noting the large number of prosecutions and highlighting some of the major ones. Again, no acknowledgment of any unsuccessful prosecutions.  But again, there was a task force to handle the alleged frauds.

If there was illegality in this recent mess as some at a recent debate insinuated, and if the harm was caused by such illegality, shouldn't there be a task force to investigate it? (see here) The FBI has one, where is DOJ's?


October 8, 2008 in Think Tank Reports | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

ABA White Collar Crime Conference

Hold the Date - National Institute on White Collar Crime - see here

Date: March 4-6, 2009
Format: National Institute
Location:Westin St. Francis, San Francisco, CA

October 8, 2008 in Conferences | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (1)

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

The Importance of the Attorney-Client Privilege

John Wagner of the Washington Post has an article titled, Ethics Counsel Testimony Is Sought in Currie Probe. It is an important investigative piece as it reports on a subpoena that was served on the Maryland legislature's ethics counsel.  The federal investigation appears to involve Senator Ulysses Currie and the feds seem to want attorney-client privileged material of the ethics counsel.  It is hard to imagine that federal prosecutors would not realize the ramifications of such a move.  Once you start subpoenaing testimony from an ethics counsel, individuals will stop seeking the advice of that counsel.  The net result will be less compliance with the law. 

(esp) (hat tip to Neal R. Sonnett)

October 7, 2008 in Privileges | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

In the News & Blogosphere

Mike Stanton & W. Zachary Malinowski,, Split Verdict in Roger Williams Corruption Case

Carrie Johnson, Washington Post, Court Won't Force Testimony On Firings of U.S. Attorneys -Issue Left to Next Congress In Victory for White House

Del Quintin Wilber, Washington Post, Jurors Hear Stevens Talk Of Possible Punishment - FBI Enlisted Benefactor And Taped Phone Calls

Mark Hamblett, N.Y. Law Journal,  Three Plead Guilty in Multimillion-Dollar Subprime Scheme

Opinion, Perverted Justice - Politics Drove Firing of U.S. Attorneys

Aaron Seigel, Investment News, Lehman's Fuld roasted at House hearing

William "Billy" Wilkins, Former Chief Judge, joins Nexsen Pruet. He was "Ronald Reagan’s first selection to the federal bench in the nation and the former Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit." As a partner at Nexsen Pruet, "he will lead the firm’s White-Collar Crime, Appellate Advocacy, and Corporate Compliance/Crisis Management practice groups and actively participate in the firm’s Business Litigation Group. Judge Wilkins will be based in the firm’s Greenville, S.C., office."

Susan Craig, WSJ, Lawmakers Lay Into Lehman CEO -Fuld Testifies That He Didn't Deceive Investors Ahead of Firm's Bankruptcy Filing


October 7, 2008 in News | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBack (0)

Monday, October 6, 2008

White Collar Sentencing Decision

How many times should a person be sentenced and at what point does the continued uncertainty constitute part of the punishment.  Although the First Circuit does not cover this aspect in its recent decision in the United States v. Thurston case, it does state:

"This, the third review of William Thurston's sentence, was necessitated by the Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Gall, 128 S. Ct. 586 (2007). We affirm the sentence. . . . To say that the journey of this case has been arduous for the parties involved would be an understatement."

The defendant was convicted of "conspiring to defraud the Medicare program of more than five million dollars."  The district court sentence, given deference by this court, was for 3 months incarceration and 24 months supervised release.

Opinion - Download Thurston.pdf

(esp) (w/ a hat tip to Paul Kamenar)

October 6, 2008 in Judicial Opinions, Sentencing | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Internal Investigation Costs as Restitution

In United States v. Amato, the Second Circuit held that restitution could be ordered under the mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996 for victim's expenses of attorney fees and auditing costs that were a "direct and foreseeable result of the offense."  The court stated:

"Defendants perpetrated a complicated fraud against a large corporation and a number of its clients, as well as the states to which those clients were required to turn over escheated funds. That this fraud would force the corporation to expend large sums of money on its own internal investigation as well as its participation in the government's investigation and prosecution of defendants' offenses is not surprising. There is no doubt that EDS's attorney fees and auditing costs were a direct and foreseeable result of defendants' offenses."

See also Daniel M. Gitner & Brian Jacobs, New York Law Journal, Seeking Restitution for the Costs of Internal Investigation


October 6, 2008 in Judicial Opinions, Sentencing | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (0)

Some Highlights from the Third Annual ABA Securities Fraud Conference

Talk about a hot topic - there were no available seats in the room for the session titled The Sub-Prime Meltdown: Reactions and Action at the SEC and DOJ, and people were standing in the back and on one side of the room. Moderating the panel, Philip Hilder, introduced the topic by saying that we are likely to be headed for some serious investigations. Craig Margolis focused on subprime basics. When you have defaults and "perceptions of default" problems arise. The ripple effect and downgrades will likely lead to investigations and prosecutions.

Gil Soffer, from the Office of the Deputy Attorney General, after giving the DOJ disclaimer for anything said, noted that U.S. Attorneys offices were prosecuting in the districts and there were also quite a number of task forces that might include players such as DOJ, SEC, and others.

Everyone on the panel seemed to be talking about the complexity of securities cases - the same complexity that seemed to be pervasive in the Enron investigation.

But some matters may prove to be simple. Lisa Monaco, Deputy Chief of Staff to the Director of the FBI, noted a caseload that had more than doubled - from 700 to 1400 cases -- cases involving everything from misrepresentation on loan applications to property flipping. And Andy Calamari, Associate Regional Director of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission talked about coordinating on a policy level.

The luncheon address was given by Deputy Attorney General Mark Filip.  His talk can be found here. Some might say that it sounded like a plea not to be subject to a statute like the Attorney-Client Privilege Protection Act. And although the new guidelines are a step in the right direction, as guidelines they are not enforceable at law absent a court using its supervisory powers.

Finally,  the last panel I had the opportunity to see was the one I participated on - Monitors: When, Why and How? Is Congressional Oversight Inevitable. Joshua Hochberg, the moderator, asked some thoughtful questions following my brief overview of the proposed Accountability in Deferred Prosecution Act.  Panelists, Jonathan (Jon) Barr, Paul Pelletier (DOJ), Cheryl Scarboro (SEC) and Amy Walsh looked at questions such as the role of a monitor, the selection of a monitor, the cost of paying a monitor, and some of the controversies related to the appointment of a monitor.

I did not have the chance to hear some wonderful panels that included many top individuals and was sorry to miss the talks of others from the academy - Professors John Coffee and Sara Sun Beale. From the little I did see, I would rank the Third Annual Securities Fraud conference as the best yet. For more information on this conference see here.


October 6, 2008 in Conferences, SEC | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (3)

Acquittal in Backdating Case

Former General Counsel at McAfee was acquitted in a case of alleged backdating. Dan Levine has a wonderful piece describing the "intent" issue faced by the jury in this case. See Dan Levine, The Recorder, No Charges Stick to Former McAfee General Counsel in DOJ Case  Mens Rea is typically the most crucial element in a white collar crime case.  This case sends a message to the government that they need to think twice about bringing backdating prosecutions.

See also LA Times (AP) Former McAfee lawyer is acquitted in stock options backdating trial

October 6, 2008 | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)

Sunday, October 5, 2008

In the News and Blogosphere

Symposium -- "White Collar Crime: Issues in Tax Fraud"

Symposium -- "White Collar Crime: Issues in Tax Fraud"

October 14, 2008, 3:30 p.m. to 7 p.m.

University of Houston Law Center

Houston, Texas

Stuart Green, Professor of Law and Justice Nathan L. Jacobs Scholar, Rutgers School of Law – Newark is the lead speaker.

Tax specialists Jack Townsend, Esq., of Townsend & Jones, L.L.P., and Robert Davis, Esq. of K & L Gates, L.L.P., will provide commentary on enforcement issues raised by the criminal tax laws.

These three presentations will be followed by a roundtable discussion with panelists Professor Linda Fentiman, Pace University School of Law and Visiting Professor of Law, University of Houston Law Center, Larry Finder, Esq., Haynes & Boone, L.L.P., and Larry Campagna, Esq., Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Williams & Martin, L.L.P.Gerry Szott Moohr, Alumnae Professor of Law, University of Houston Law Center, will moderate.

Transcripts and related articles will be published in the Houston Business and Tax Law Journal, and a podcast will be available at

The symposium is sponsored by the Houston Business and Tax Law Journal and the Criminal Justice Institute of the University of Houston Law Center.

For more information, contact J.P.Singh, Editor-in-Chief, Houston Business and Tax Law Journal, at or Kacie Bevers, Symposium Editor, at

(w/ a hat tip to Gerry Moohr)

October 5, 2008 in Conferences | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBack (3)