An Indiana man that received a 50-year prison sentence for masterminding a $200 million Ponzi scheme has appealed his sentence, claiming that authorities should not have been permitted to obtain wiretaps of his phone calls with co-conspirators. Tim Durham, along with his co-defendants Jim Cochran and Rick Snow, have filed an appellate brief with the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, arguing in part that a series of wiretapped phone conversations that would later prove to be highly damaging at trial were not properly obtained by authorities. Durham received a 50-year sentence after his trial, while Cochran and Snow received a 25-year and 10-year sentence, respectively.
The Scheme
Durham served as CEO of Fair Finance Company ("Fair Finance"), with Cochran and Snow serving as Chairman and CFO, respectively. Durham and Cochran purchased Fair Finance for $23 million in 2002, representing to investors that they planned to continue the company's highly-successful practice of purchasing finance contracts between businesses and their customers that carried annual interest rates ranging from 18% to 24%. Durham and Fair Finance raised approximately $230 million from the sale of investment certificates to over 5000 investors.
However, instead of continuing Fair Finance's legitimate business, Durham modified the business structure and began using a steadily increasing amount of investor proceeds to make "loans" for a number of unauthorized purposes, including financing Durham and Cochran's unprofitable businesses, paying fictitious interest to investors, and enriching themselves and those close to them. By 2009, these 'loans' totaled more than $200 million and constituted more than 90% of Fair Finance's supposed investments. Essentially looting the company, Durham and Cochran saddled Fair Finance with hundreds of millions of dollars in subordinated debts, while at the same time funneling money out of the company to themselves, to struggling companies they had an ownership interest in, and to pay their daily living expenses and sustain their lavish lifestyles. These living expenses included more than 40 classic and exotic cars worth `over $7 million, a $3 million private jet, and a $6 million yacht in Miami. The scheme collapsed in late 2009 with investors owed more than $200 million.
Durham, Cochran and Snow were indicted in March 2011, and chose to contest the allegations at trial. At trial, prosecutors disclosed that they had obtained a series of incriminating wiretapped phone conversations between the trio in which the men discussed ways to save the business and paint a more optimistic picture of Fair Finance's financial health to investors. At one point, Durham tells Cochran that the current financial uncertainty would make it a "perfect time" to have Fair Finance fail. (Some of the wiretaps are available here.) Based in part on these wiretaps, the men were convicted and received relatively-high sentences for their crimes.
Wiretaps Meet White-Collar Crime
The crux of the trio's argument on appeal is that authorities did not follow the proper procedures required to obtain permission to collect wiretaps, and that the amassed phone calls are inadmissible as a result. Wiretaps, which are quickly becoming a potent weapon in the arsenal of prosecutors investigating white-collar crimes, were historically intended to be a last resort, rather than a first choice, in the prosecution of drug- and gang-related crimes. When Congress passed the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act in 1968, it required that the government must first provide a “full and complete statement as to whether or not other investigative procedures have been tried and failed or why they reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be too dangerous.” The consequences of failing to heeding this admonition were severe – evidence resulting from an improperly obtained wiretap could be prohibited from use at trial. For organized crime and drug-trafficking cases, this standard was often easily overcome or satisfied, as there existed few alternatives in building a case that did not present a real risk of danger to both authorities and the public.
However, the ability to satisfy the conditions for obtaining a wiretap are not as clear cut in white-collar investigations, where the possibility of satisfying the “too dangerous” prerequisite is drastically reduced since violent acts are typically the exception rather than the norm. Thus, a showing would likely be required that other investigative procedures have been tried and failed. In white-collar crime investigations, criminal prosecutions are often aided by a parallel civil investigation that has the ability to utilize a variety of fact-finding techniques. Thus, rushing to obtain a wiretap before exhausting or at least exploring these avenues could potentially result in a later motion to suppress. Additionally, there is the chance that the subject could learn of authorities’ suspicions, since while these investigations are usually not made public, a subject’s acquaintance could receive a subpoena or even the subject himself could be requested to submit sworn testimony themselves.
The government has had enormous success in using wiretaps to prosecute insider-trading, with the successful prosecution of Raj Rajaratnam essentially opening the floodgates for use of the technique. Notably, Rajaratnam was unsuccessful in suppressing the use of wiretaps at his trial, with both a district judge and a federal appeals court rejecting claims that prosecutors had circumvented the required procedures.
Durham's attorneys plan to employ a similar strategy, arguing that the wiretaps must be suppressed as a result of the failure of authorities to first exhaust all investigative techniques before applying to use wiretaps. Authorities will now have 30 days to file an answer brief.
Convicted Ponzi Schemer Challenges Use Of Wiretaps
↧
↧
"The problem with peremptory challenges"
From an editorial in the L.A. Times, leaping off from cases about excluding jurors because of sexual orientation: If lawyers are forbidden to remove prospective jurors based on their race or gender, they shouldn't be able to do so on...
↧
Speaking with Police and Federal Agents: Don’t Do It
A major tool used by police and federal agents to get people to talk with them and, often, incriminate themselves, is intimidation. Police understand that when you are threatened with an arrest, you are scared and confused. Police are trained to intimidate, coerce and even lie to you. The law permits that – up to […]
↧
CA - Sexually Violent Predator Civil Commitment, The Money Pit
Video Description:
Jeff Lowry, San Bernardino County California Public Defender talks about the costly but largely ineffective SVP laws in place in 20 states.
See Also:
All RSOL 2013 Conference Videos
© 2006-2013 | Sex Offender Issues (Facebook)
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit our blog for full links, videos, studies and more! ]]
↧
Lengthy discussion of "Why Scandinavian Prisons Are Superior"
The title of this post is drawn from the headline of this notable lengthy new article at The Atlantic by Doran Larson. The piece carries the subheading "'Open' prisons, in which detainees are allowed to live like regular citizens, should...
↧
↧
Family Court Act § 1034... continued
Petitioner's application for a prepetition ex parte court order is brought under a recently enacted subdivision to Family Court Act § 1034. In 2006, the New York State Legislature amended Family Court Act § 1034 in response to several...
↧
//blawgsearch75.rssing.com/chan-6519914/article4047-live.html
Thus, in one case, which was factually quite similar to this case, the officer saw "a heavy object slide against the material in the right pocket" of defendant's long outer coat. The officer tapped the pocket and "on feeling a hard object, reached into the pocket and removed a .22 calibre six-inch revolver with six rounds of live ammunition." Suppression was directed because defendant "had done nothing wrong" before the officer reached into defendant's pocket and because the officer could not tell "what the heavy object appeared to be by looking at the pocket". Nothing in "defendant's standing behind the pimp, in his nervousness or his slouched stature, or the fact that he had his hands in his coat pockets and removed them very slowly when requested to do so, or that a heavy object slid against the material of defendant's pocket can be said to be reasonably referable to or indicative of the presence of a revolver."
The officer here initially testified that all he wanted was a reasonable answer to his query about the bulky and weighty object in defendant's pocket, and defendant then would have been free to go "on his way without my ever touching his pocket." He later added that to satisfy his own curiosity he probably still would have touched the pocket if defendant had not shown him its contents. Such a touch would have been an unwarranted intrusion. The fact that defendant's “‘pocket was hanging', 'like something heavy was in it' " was held insufficient as a basis for a frisk or search for a revolver in. On the facts here, it is plain there was no lawful predicate for the search.
With no inkling that criminal activity was afoot, there was no articulable reason for the police even to have questioned this defendant about the contents of his pockets. Accordingly, defendant's response of "nothing" was equivalent to his right not to respond at all. Nothing in defendant's response "made permissible any greater level of intrusion". It certainly did not warrant a pat-down of defendant's pocket. Whatever "fear for their safety" the police may have felt as an immediate predicate for their subsequent search for a gun was solely a result of an unwarranted intrusion in the first place.
Each of the observed actions or appearances of the defendant in this case, viewed either separately or together, was plainly susceptible to interpretation as innocent behavior. Furthermore, the combining of such otherwise innocuous actions and behavior in a setting described as a "high gun crime area" does not expand the powers of the police to the detriment of those individuals who happen to live or work in, or are passing peaceably through, such a neighborhood.
As the Court of Appeals stated, "Before a person may be stopped in a public place a police officer must have reasonable suspicion that such person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime (CPL 140.50). Reasonable suspicion is the quantum of knowledge sufficient to induce an ordinarily prudent and cautious man under the circumstances to believe criminal activity is at hand." Nor does the fact that defendant falsely answered "nothing" in response to the officer's inquiry as to the contents of his pocket justify the search. Absent a showing of the existence of one of a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions" to the constitutional proscription on warrantless searches, such action, undertaken without probable cause, will not be upheld. None of these "specifically established and well-delineated exceptions" applies in this case.
It may very well be possible that a random search of all passersby on the street in this particular neighborhood at this time of night would have yielded a lot of contraband. But the individual liberties in our Constitution are not based upon statistical probabilities. The Constitutional protections against unwarranted intrusion by an agent of the State are not to be relaxed when an individual goes for a walk, or engages in otherwise innocent behavior, in a public area statistically known for a high incidence of crime. The Fourth Amendment has never been so amended.
The testifying officer indicated that this was a "medium to high" gun crime area. There was a good deal of testimony and questioning as to this issue. And it was relied upon in the suppression justice's decision. Thus, once again there emerges the danger of an elastic exception to the Fourth Amendment based upon a court's acceptance of a policeman's personal estimate of the level of crime in the neighborhood. The officer named as low crime areas in the City "Staten Island, Queens, parts of Manhattan."
It cannot be doubted that certain locales in the City are appropriately designated high crime areas, based upon the statistical analyses of the law enforcement authority. The validity of the Police Department's use of such designations in the allocation of its limited resources is hardly open to question. However, the designation of a particular area as one with a higher than average incidence of crime does not give the police the right to go around that neighborhood touching the pockets of everyone on the street who appears a little out of the ordinary, simply because it may be obvious that the individual happens to be carrying an unidentified object in his pocket. Our respect for those brave policemen whose duty includes operating in areas known for higher than average criminal activity cannot be permitted to override the Constitutional mandate that the detention of an individual on a public way, and his subsequent search for concealed contraband, must be based on more than "mere whim, caprice, or idle curiosity". In essence what occurred was that in the face of normal, innocuous behavior the officer's response was premised upon a "hunch" or "gut reaction". Such a reaction is an insufficient basis upon which to found a stop and seizure.
As noted, the police action and the suppression justice's determination seem to be premised, at least in part, on the fact that the incident occurred in a "medium to high" crime area. There is no warrant for concluding that the fact that the events occurred in such an area justifies a greater level of intrusion than would be warranted by the same behavior in other areas. Nor, is there any warrant for premising the level of police activity on the fact that the defendant was wearing a "wrinkled up and dirty" and "ragged and old" trench coat. Although the incident occurred in an area not notable for affluence, this should not be the measure of the level of police intrusion. Nor does the fact that the search yielded a gun justify the stop, search and seizure and the arrest. A search illegal at its inception cannot be validated by what it produces.
Accordingly, the court held that the judgment of Supreme Court, New York County, rendered January 27, 1984, convicting defendant on his plea of guilty to criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, is reversed on the law and the facts, and the motion to suppress physical evidence is granted and the indictment dismissed. Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County rendered on January 27, 1984, reversed, on the law, and the facts, and the motion to suppress physical evidence is granted, and the matter is remitted to the trial court for the purpose of entering an order in favor of the accused pursuant to CPL 160.50, not less than 30 days after service of a copy of this Court's order upon the respondent, with leave during this 30 day period to respondent to move and seek any further stay of the implementation of CPL 160.50 as in the interest of justice is required.
To Be Continued......
↧
From the 'Too Little, Too Late Department': Judge Ken Anderson resigns
District Judge Ken Anderson, who as Williamson County District Attorney prosecuted Michael Morton in the 1980s, allegedly withholding exculpatory evidence from the defense, has finally, formally resigned, Brandi Grissom reported at the Texas Tribune. Apparently the move was prompted by his looming trial date next week regarding a "complaint from the State Bar of Texas that could end with Anderson's license to practice law being revoked over the Morton matter. That hearing remains scheduled regardless of Anderson's resignation," reported KXAN-TV.Grits must admit, I thought Judge Anderson would ride this out til the bitter end. He seemed to care little about the disgrace he brought to the office and has never admitted the least culpability in Michael Morton's false conviction. Perhaps his resignation tells us the man isn't completely shameless, or perhaps he was just backed into a corner.
↧
An American Horror Love Story
↧
↧
Aggravated DUI with Child in Car – Arizona DUI
A DUI with a child in the car is referred to as “Aggravated DUI with Kid in Car”. This is a felony charge and carries more severe penalties than a typical misdemeanor DUI charge in Arizona. In this short video, David Cantor explains what an Aggravated DUI with Kids in the Car means: If you are stopped for a DUI...read more →The post Aggravated DUI with Child in Car – Arizona DUI appeared first on Arizona Criminal Law & Defense Blog.
↧
Ninth Circuit Orders New Sentence in Case of Compelled Confession During Sex Offender Treatment – U.S. v. Bahr
One of the most basic constitutional rights invoked in criminal law is the right not to be compelled to testify against oneself. The Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says defendants in criminal cases have the right to “remain silent”; that’s the basis for the Miranda warning police officers read on television. (And, if they’re doing it right, also in real life.) But that right doesn’t just mean the right to stubbornly refuse to answer; it also means the right not to have testimony compelled through other means. In United States v. Bahr, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found that testimony compelled during sex offender treatment violated the rights of Richard Roosevelt Bahr, Jr. Bahr was required to complete sex offender treatment after an arrest for rape in Oregon. During the course of the treatment, he admitted to sexual contact with minors, giving rise to a new conviction and a 20-year prison sentence.
Bahr’s rape conviction came in 2003. After he was released into supervision, he was required to complete sex offender treatment, including a polygraph test requiring him to disclose his entire sexual history. He was required to follow all of the program’s rules as part of his supervised release. During the polygraph, he revealed that he’d had sex with six minors when he himself was a minor, and seven minors after becoming an adult. In a workbook for the program, Bahr said he had sexually abused 18 children. Bahr was later caught in possession of child pornography. As part of the pre-sentencing report, the prosecutors included the admissions made in the sex offender treatment program. Bahr objected to this unsuccessfully. He was sentenced to two 20-year prison sentences, to run concurrently.
Bahr appealed the sentence, and the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. The treatment disclosures were compulsory, the court said. Thus, using them at sentencing violated Bahr’s right not to incriminate himself. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination includes the sentencing phase of trials, as well as separate criminal trials. Bahr didn’t need to invoke his Fifth Amendment rights, the court said; the right should be self-executing. Making the treatment mandatory created a threat of future prosecution. And Bahr was required to complete the program, the court said; because it was part of his supervised release, refusing to answer questions could have landed him back in prison. Thus, his confessions were compelled and inadmissible and the court should not have considered them. The Ninth Circuit vacated the sentence and remanded, with instructions for the district court to consider whether Bahr’s testimony was admissible and whether to alter the pre-sentencing report.
This is an issue that may arise again and again, as defendants charged with serious sex crimes are released and required to complete sex offender classes. Bahr, like anyone who is subject to post-release supervision, truly had limited rights when he took the classes; failure to complete the classes, or lack of cooperation during them, could have sent him back to prison. That’s why I believe the Ninth Circuit was right to make the “testimony” from Bahr’s class inadmissible. Indeed, making sex offender treatment admissible evidence might stymie the psychological treatment that is the ostensible goal of these classes.
↧
Update Rollover Crash Westbound I84 at 42
IDAHO STATE POLICE NEWS RELEASE - generated by our News Release ListServer
DO NOT REPLY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IDAHO STATE POLICE NEWS RELEASE
District 3 Patrol 700 S. Stratford Dr., Meridian 83642
(208) 846-7550
Fax (208) 846-7520
For Immediate Release: September 24, 2013 17:39 pm
Final Update
On September 24, 2013, at approximately 12:37 P.M., Erika Shelly was driving a green Mercury Mountaineer east on Interstate 84 near milepost 42 when she attempted to make a lane change. As she entered that lane, she observed a vehicle already in the lane rapidly approaching her. Shelly steered to the left and lost control of her vehicle. The vehicle then ran off the right shoulder of the road, where it struck a cement Jersey barrier. The vehicle then rolled once and came to a rest on its tires in the lanes of travel. Shelly was transported to St. Alphonsus Regional Medical Center in Boise by ambulance.
Two of the four eastbound lanes of I-84 were blocked for approximately one hour.
**********************************************
For Immediate Release: September 24, 2013 1:145 pm
Please direct questions to the District Office
All lanes are back open.
***********************************************
The Idaho State Police is currently investigating a single-vehicle rollover crash eastbound I84 at milepost 42. The two right lanes and shoulder are blocked. Motorists are advised to avoid this area if possible. More information will be released when it becomes avialable.
-------------
↧
Rules for Carrying a Gun in Utah
There are some basic rules for carrying a gun in Utah that anyone who owns a gun should know about. Places Where It’s Illegal to Carry a Concealed Firearm—Even If You Have a Firearm Permit 1. Any secure area in which firearms are prohibited and notice of the prohibition is posted. 2. A secure area […]
↧
↧
Drug Crimes and Federal Prosecutors in Western Washington, Seattle, and King County
Seattle, King County, Oak Harbor, Island County, Defense Attorney Discusses the Realities of Federal Prosecution of Drug Crimes.
Federal prosecutors and law enforcement dominate the prosecution of drug crimes. Conspiracy to Distribute Controlled Substance Indictments are their magic weapon in the war on drugs. Why? Simple: Mandatory Minimum Sentences. These draconian punishment tools are their stock in trade. Criminal defense attorneys, especially experienced criminal defense attorneys, have been accomplices in this miscarriage of justice, forced to play along with a system that treats due process and equal protection like annoying trifles. Here's how it works.....
You charge everyone from Granny to the family dog as co conspirators, all working together to distribute drugs. Granny relayed that phone message to Junior, a notorious crack dealer? Busted. Lil' Sis brought in that package she found hidden on the front porch? Goin' down. Junior dealing large quantities of cocaine and methamphetamine over time? They all face mandatory minimum sentences of at least ten years. Those Federal Sentencing Guidelines be damned. Better hope a firearm wasn't involved. Not only are they all looking at ten years in prison; they don't even get to have a fair shot at trial since there is a presumption they be held in detention once they are arrested which they must "rebut" or they wind up behind bars from day one. And, best of all, the judges have no choice. Mandatory means what it says.
Thus begins the snitch fest of Safety Valves and Cooperation. You see under certain circumstances the only way out of those mandatory minimums is to tattle on your friends and families, snitching your way to freedom. Of course, it can be dangerous. The drug dealers' favorite phrase is "Snitches get Stitches."
Enter Attorney General Eric Holder, stage definitely left. Make no mistake. I don't like Holder. He has been asleep at the wheel for half a decade as my clients have been run through this nightmare scenario again and again. But now, finally, it's possible that Holder woke up and smelled the jail house disinfectant.
In a series of Memoranda, beginning this past summer, Holder is directing Federal Prosecutors to get their priorities in order, literally. Citing the national priorities for the Department of Justice ["(1) protecting Americans from national security threats; (2) protecting Americans from violent crime; (3) protecting Americans from financial fraud; and (4) protecting the most vulnerable members of our society."] Holder tells prosecutors to think twice before bringing every criminal charge they can, just because they can. There (finally) has to be a good reason. Of course, until now, that good reason has been a desire to ratchet up the snitch game. Now, hopefully, that might change. A bit. Maybe.
In an August 12, 2013 Memo to his people, regarding federal prosecution priorities, Holder directs his lawyers to consider viable alternatives to federal prosecution. They must consider not only whether an important federal interest is being served by bringing these monster indictments. They must also consider whether there are viable alternatives to federal prosecution, meaning prosecution by state courts or perhaps no prosecution at all (oh my!).
Focusing on the dreaded "mando's" he states in a separate memo released that same day: "We must ensure that our most severe mandatory minimum penalties are reserved for serious, high-level, or violent drug traffickers. In some cases, mandatory minimum and recidivist enhancement statutes have resulted in unduly harsh sentences and perceived or actual disparities that do not reflect our Principles of Federal Prosecution. Long sentences for low-level, non-violent drug offenses do not promote public safety, deterrence, and rehabilitation. Moreover, rising prison costs have resulted in reduced spending on criminal justice initiatives, including spending on law enforcement agents, prosecutors, and prevention and intervention programs. These reductions in public safety spending require us to make our public safety expenditures smarter and more productive." Makes you wonder if Holder even knows what his prosecutors have been up to all these years.
What this means for actual charging decisions remains to be seen. Holder is taking away every spoiled Assistant U.S. Attorney's favorite toy. How on earth can they go after the 'bigs' if they can't drag the little guys through the dirt? Notice something else. The unwitting force behind these changes are those members of Congress who foisted the sequester and other budget cuts on the criminal justice system. It is not only public defenders and appointed counsel who are being forced to work for free every Friday. Prosecutors have budget problems too. We spend billions investigating, prosecuting and ultimately housing defendants in prison. The well is running dry. And, hopefully, so it the poison in it, the evil magic weapon called mandatory minimums.
Of particular interest is the impact on Holder's policies of changes in marijuana laws in several states. That is what we will look at next. For now, we can all hope that perhaps Granny and 'Lil Sis won't have to sell out their flesh and blood just to save their own hides. Hope springs eternal.
↧
If the legislature intended separate speedy trial guidelines for individual charges within a complaint, they would have so stated
A Kings Criminal Lawyer said that, this action arises out of the defendant's alleged involvement in the sale of a quantity of marijuana possession to an undercover police officer on November 1, 1983. The defendant was arrested and subsequently arraigned...
↧
York SC Man Charged with Felony DUI After Resulting Death
A 19-year-old man from York, South Carolina, has been charged with one count of Felony DUI resulting in death, two counts of felony DUI resulting in great bodily injury and driving under a suspended license. This is the second DUI for the man this year. Police report that the man swerved from the right side […]The post York SC Man Charged with Felony DUI After Resulting Death appeared first on .
↧
Former Model Gets 7-Year Sentence For $7 Million Ponzi Scheme
A Florida woman was sentenced to serve seven years in federal prison for concocting a $7 million Ponzi scheme masquerading as a construction company. Tina Louise Mangiardi, a former model, received the sentence after previously pleading guilty in in March 2013 to one count of mail fraud and one count of wire fraud in a plea agreement reached with Orlando prosecutors. Mangiardi could have potentially faced up to 40 years in prison if sentenced to the statutory maximum for each count. Mangiardi was also ordered to pay restitution to investors; the exact amount will be determined at a later hearing.
Mangiardi was the principal of two Orlando businesses, T.L.M. Builders & Design, LLC, and Tlm Design and Construction, Inc. Beginning in or around 2008, Mangiardi began pitching potential investors to invest in "bid bonds" for various Orlando-area projects, including restaurant chains, local hospitals, and even Disney. A bid bond, which is not considered investment grade, is used to guarantee the financial viability and amount of a bid given by a construction company, and is typically issued by insurers. In return for this authentication, the contractor would usually must pay a small fee to the insurance company. Mangiardi explained that she could double or triple investors' money within weeks, and lured investors by stressing her strong Christian faith and explaining that her gender would allow her to qualify as a minority in bidding for government contracts. Based on these promises, Mangiardi raised millions of dollars from at least 40 Orlando-area victims. Many of these victims, according to authorities, were male business associates.
However, complaints soon began mounting when scheduled payments fell behind, and at one point the U.S. Secret Service began an investigation. Court records show at lest eight lawsuits against Mangiardi and her companies since 2010, with $1.4 million in judgments obtained to date. This week Mangiardi confirmed those suspicions by admitting that, rather than obtaining lucrative gains by financing bid bonds, Mangiardi was operating a classic Ponzi scheme using funds from new investors to fund payments to older investors. Interestingly, before pleading guilty, Mangiardi had a series of exchanges with The Ledger, a Lakeland, FL area newspaper, in which she maintained her innocence, blasted those who had sought repayment of their loans, and even maintained that she was in possession of agreements that provided that any investor "talking or defaming me and my company causes instant void of payment plans and forfeit of payments."
Shortly after Mangiardi pleaded guilty in March 2013, her name appeared again in news reports - this time as the victim. According to authorities, Mangiardi visited a Longwood, FL gym owned by Adam Pollock, who had invested in her venture. Upon her arrival, Pollock allegedly tried to "get even" with Mangiardi by pulling a knife on her and threatening to cut off her fingers and toes as "collateral." Pollock was subsequently arrested on multiple charges, including felony battery by strangulation, kidnapping/false imprisonment, aggravated assault with a deadly weapon, and battery. Trial is scheduled on the charges for early October, with jury selection set for October 7, 2013. Ironically, if convicted, it is possible that Pollock's sentence could exceed Mangiardi's sentence.
↧
↧
"When Prosecutor Turns Thug": A Debate on Mandatory Minimums
Bill Otis has this post at Crime & Consequences, critiquing Michael Cassidy's argument that prosecutors have an ethical obligation to oppose mandatory minimums. In part: I have from time to time criticized the increasing tendency of liberals to use muscle...
↧
Oregon Hedge Fund Manager Receives 6.5 Year Sentence For $6.4 Million Ponzi Scheme
A Portland hedge fund manager was sentenced to serve 6.5 years in federal prison for a Ponzi scheme that took in at least $37 million from investors. Yusaf Jawed received the sentence after previously pleading guilty to seventeen counts of mail fraud and wire fraud. In an agreement with prosecutors that cited his "substantial assistance to prosecutors," authorities agreed to recommend a 6.5 year sentence - even though a pre-sentencing report recommended a minimum term of at least 8 years. While Jawed has promised to repay victims, he faces an uphill quest; he must pay restitution of $6.4 million in the criminal case, and recently had a $34 million judgment entered against him in a case brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Jawed operated Grifphon Asset Management, LLC ("GAM") and Grifphon Holdings, LLC ("GH"), which served as the advisers to numerous hedge funds created and managed by Jawed, including Gripfhon Alpha Fund, L.P. ("Alpha") and Grifphon Iota Fund, L.P. Investors were told through private placement memoranda that the funds experienced annual returns ranging from 12.8% to 132.5% from 2002-2008 through an investment strategy comprised of holdings in publicly-traded securities, private equities, biotech companies, foreign currencies, and commodities. Investors were supplied with account statements and tax returns that purported to show constant profits in investor accounts, and were assured that their funds would be held at prominent institutions such as Lehman Brothers and UBS. In total, Jawed raised at least $37 million from over 100 investors all over the United States.
However, little, if any, of the claims made to investors were true. According to authorities, Jawed misappropriated millions of dollars in investor funds for his personal use, which included luxury vacations, lavish meals, and the payment of nearly $60,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit. Additionally, Jawed used investor funds as the source of fictitious interest payments designed to lend an aura of legitimacy to the scheme.
When the scheme appeared on the verge of collapse in 2008, Jawed hatched a scheme with the help of Robert Custis, an attorney. The two began telling investors that a third party would soon purchase the funds' assets, and investors would soon be reimbursed for their investment at a healthy profit. This pattern of deception lasted an additional two years with the use of various excuses such as the time zone difference of the banks, "dotting I's and crossing T's," and confidentiality problems. However, this third-party purchaser was none other than an entity created and controlled by Jawed. For his role in the scheme, Custis was also charged by the SEC.
As part of his cooperation with authorities, Jawed agreed to cooperate with a lawsuit brought by investors against Grifphon's former accounting and law firms. At Jawed's sentencing hearing, prosecutors announced that a settlement had been reached in that case, but terms were unavailable. Jawed was previously ruled destitute by the federal court, meaning that the potential recovery against the former accounting and law firms likely represents the sole avenue for compensation for defrauded victims.
↧
CA - Overcoming Reentry Barriers
Video Description:
Jon Cordeiro talks about the challenges for registrants trying to re-integrate into the community after time in prison.
See Also:
All RSOL 2013 Conference Videos
© 2006-2013 | Sex Offender Issues (Facebook)
[[ This is a content summary only. Visit our blog for full links, videos, studies and more! ]]
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
