Archive
Two Extradited from Singapore in Connection with Plot to Illegally Export Military Antennas
Two foreign nationals, Hia Soo Gan Benson (Benson Hia) and Lim Kow Seng (Eric Lim), have been extradited from Singapore to stand trial in the District of Columbia in connection with an alleged fraud conspiracy involving the unlawful export of military antennas from the United States to Singapore and Hong Kong. The indictment, originally filed on June 23, 2010, also alleges that the ultimate object of a second conspiracy was to conceal from the U.S. Government that the true destination of another set of antennas was Iran.
According to the indictment both Benson and Seng are charged with 6 criminal counts. Two of the counts are distinct conspiracy charges. The first conspiracy relates to the defendants’ roles in procuring antennas from the United States that were eventually shipped to Iran through Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand. The second conspiracy relates to the defendants’ roles in procuring a different kind of antenna from the United States without first applying for a license from the State Department’s Directorate of Defense Trade Control (DDTC).
In relation to the above-mentioned conspiracies, the defendants have also been charged with one count of false statements (18 U.S.C. 1001) in connection with license applications filed with the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS), one count of false statements (18 U.S.C. 1001) in connection with statements made to Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in the second conspiracy, one count of smuggling (18 U.S.C. 554) in connection with the second conspiracy, and one count of illegally exporting controlled products with DDTC licenses (22 U.S.C. 2778) in violation of the Arms Export Control Act (AECA).
With regards to the defendants’ specific cases, it may be important for defense counsel to explore whether the two distinct counts of conspiracy are superfluous, especially given the similar conduct and goals involved with both conspiracies. If a review of discovery actually unveils the two conspiracies to in fact be one large conspiracy, defense counsel may decide to move the court to dismiss one of the conspiracy counts.
More telling however, is the U.S. Government’s continued focus on prosecuting export related crimes. This is also consistent with what many people in this field have been dicussing. For example, in 2008 the Department of Justice formed the Export and Anti-proliferation Global Law Enforcement (EAGLE) Task Force. The goal of this task force was to bring together the different federal agencies focused on counter-proliferation work and allow them to share resources and knowledge in this complex area, as well as increase the number of prosecutions in this area.
This level of coordination of resources and increased focus by the federal government requires defense counsel to be even more vigilant. Protecting a defendant’s Constitutional rights becomes even more important because many of the federal agencies working together in this task force may not be familiar with rights afforded criminal defendants because they are civil administrative bodies, and not law enforcement agencies. Moreover, many foreign nationals may not be familiar with the rights afforded to defendants in the U.S. criminal justice system. As such, advising foreign clients to assert their Fifth Amendment rights at various stages of an investigation (including extradition) becomes even more critical in this new era of federal coordination in export control cases.
The author of this blog is Erich Ferrari, an attorney specializing in Federal Criminal Defense matters. If you have any questions please contact him at 202-280-6370 or ferrari@ferrariassociatespc.com.
Two Virginia Brothers Charged with Conspiracy and 16 Counts of Interference with Commerce by Robbery
On June 20, 2012, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia indicted Laquan Draper and Angelo Draper for their alleged participation in an eight-week robbery spree in July of 2011, spanning Norfolk to Roanoke, VA.
As alleged in the indictment, the brothers, concealing their identities with shirts tied around their faces, entered 7-11 convenience stores with either firearms or replica firearms, jumped over the counter and took money from store employees. The men are also alleged to have robbed employees of two McDonald’s, a Wendy’s, an ABC Store, and a Fast Auto Loans location. In addition, at Got It Video in Norfolk, the Drapers entered with a third person, shattering the locked front glass door by shooting out the bottom half. They then held customers and employees at gun-point and took money from the store registers.
The brothers were arrested in Chesapeake on August 25, 2011 after they crashed the stolen Saturn Vue they were driving into a police vehicle. A .22 caliber hand-gun was found in the passenger floor board of the stolen vehicle when the men were removed. Additional evidence recovered from the car was linked forensically to several of the crime scenes.
The Draper brothers were charged with conspiracy to commit robbery, 16 counts of interference with commerce by robbery, and three firearm charges. Laquan Draper has also been charged with possession of a firearm by a felon. If convicted, they face a maximum of 20 years in prison for each of the robbery and conspiracy charges, and a total of 60 mandatory years on the firearm charges.
The government’s decision to charge the brothers with conspiracy places the defendants at a serious disadvantage. Most importantly, that the government can prosecute the brothers together in a single trial. This is especially important if one of the brothers was only a minor participant because now the jury will see all of the evidence at trial, not just the evidence pertaining to the minor participant’s role in the conspiracy.
Conspiracy also allows the government to introduce hearsay evidence against the brothers under the co-conspirator hearsay exception. This means that statements made by one brother in furtherance of the conspiracy can be used against the other brother.
Perhaps the most important disadvantage facing the brothers is that each may be responsible for the substantive crimes committed by the other during the course of the conspiracy. This concept is known as vicarious liability and was upheld by the Supreme Court in Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640 (1946). Not only can the brothers face jail time for the crimes they personally committed, they can be convicted for the offenses committed by the other brother if they were committed during the term of the conspiracy.
Managing both the scope of the conspiracy and the flow of admissible evidence by the government will be very important for the defense. Also important will be communicating to the prosecutor if one brother was in fact only a minor participant in the conspiracy (e.g., one brother coerced the other, less capable brother, to participate in the conspiracy).
The author of this blog is Erich Ferrari, an attorney specializing in Federal Criminal Defense matters. If you have any questions please contact him at 202-280-6370 or ferrari@ferrari-legal.com.
Check Cashers in Brooklyn, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles Charged for Allegedly Evading Anti-Money Laundering Laws
On June 14, 2012 seven individuals and four check cashing businesses were charged in the Eastern District of New York and the Central District of California for their alleged roles in separate schemes to violate the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”). The defendants allegedly failed to follow reporting and anti-money laundering requirements for transactions totalling more than $50 million. A total of four indictments were filed.
Two of the indictments were returned in Los Angeles and named three individuals and two check cashing businesses. The other two indictments were returned in Brooklyn and named four individuals and two check cashing businesses. All seven individual defendants were arrested or surrendered to authorities. Those named in the indictments include Belair Payroll Services, Bargain Island, G&A Check Cashing, and AAA Cash Advance, all check cashing businesses. The individuals names in the indictments include Craig Panzera, Lasha Goletiani, Zhan Petrosyants, George Gonchar, Karen Gasparian, Humberto Sanchez, and Diana Brigitt.
The four indictments charge the defendants with failure to file currency transaction reports (“CTRs”) or falsely filing CTRs, as well as failure to have an effective anti-money laundering program, all violations under the BSA.
The BSA is a set of laws and regulations enacted by Congress to address an increase in criminal money laundering through financial institutions, which include check cashing businesses. Check cashers enable people to cash checks without having to go to a bank account or maintain a bank account. A check casher will typically charge a fee for this service.
Under the BSA, financial institutions, including check cashers, are required to file a CTR with the Department of Treasury for any transaction involving more than $10,000 in currency. As part of the CTR, the check casher is required to verify and accurately record the name and address of the individual who conducted the currency transaction, the individual on whose behalf the transaction was conducted, as well as the amount and date of the transaction. CTRs are important law enforcement tools for uncovering criminal activity.
The BSA also requires financial institutions, including check cashing businesses, to maintain an effective anti-money laundering (AML) program. The purpose of an AML program is to effectively detect and prevent attempts to facilitate money laundering. Check-cashing businesses are therefore required to have written policies and procedures regarding CTR filings, records maintenance and responses to law enforcement.
According to the indictments, despite these regulations, check-cashing businesses are a common venue for individuals who want to anonymously cash large numbers of checks to facilitate fraud and money laundering schemes. According to the indictments, the use of check cashers to launder money is particularly prevalent in the area of health care fraud, where fraudulent health care businesses commonly convert the proceeds of their fraud into cash by presenting checks to check cashers who they know will not ask for proof of the payee’s identity and will either not file CTRs or file false CTRs.
The BSA is intended to assist both the private sector and the government in its detection and prevention of criminal money laundering. By implementing these regulations, financial institutions provide law enforcement agencies from around the world with valuable insight into the banking and financial activities of people from all walks of life. Although the specific conduct of those named in the indictments may not in any way be connected to the criminal activity they’re designed to detect, the allegations of noncompliance with CTRs and anti-money laundering programs are in and of themselves considered criminal conduct.
The author of this blog is Erich Ferrari, an attorney specializing in Federal Criminal Defense matters. If you have any questions please contact him at 202-280-6370 or ferrari@ferrari-legal.com.
Former Virginia Man Sentenced for Bank Fraud and Identity Theft Scheme Targeting Young Navy Sailors
On June 6, 2012 the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia announced that Lionel Jason Haynes was sentenced to seven years and three months in prison for bank fraud (18 U.S.C. 1344) and aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. 1028A(c)). He was also ordered to pay $181,960 in restitution.
According to court documents and proceedings, Haynes, a former Navy sailor, executed a scheme to defraud Navy Federal Credit Union (NFCU) by victimizing young, impressionable sailors. Posing as a Chief Petty Officer, Navy SEAL or as a representative of the Navy’s Fleet and Family Services Center, Haynes would approach a sailor on Navy Base Norfolk and offer assistance to help him purchase a car.
He would ask for their personal identifying information and bank account information under the pretense of needing it to determine pre-approval for an auto loan. Once he received this information, he accessed their NFCU bank account, requested an auto loan, and changed the mailing address to an address to which he had access. He received the check, wrote down the fraudulent vehicle information, forged their name, and had an associate (the purported seller) cash the check. He victimized 14 different sailors in this manner.
In its sentencing memorandum the government requested 60 months’ imprisonment for bank fraud, plus 24 months for identity related fraud. Although the defense moved for a downward departure, it is apparent that no such departure was granted by the sentencing judge. Mr. Haynes was sentenced to exactly what was requested by the government and prescribed in the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Unfortunately for Mr. Haynes his request to have his identity theft conviction run concurrently was denied, probably because the statute specifically prescribes the sentence to run consecutively. As such, instead of serving 5 years and 3 months in prison, he will serve 7 years and three months.
Not all was lost however. According to sentencing documents the judge did grant Mr. Hayne’s request to be placed in a prison near his family in New York and ordered him to continue his education while in prison. Court documents made it clear that Mr. Haynes was in college during the sentencing phase of the case.
This case was investigated by the Navy Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) and prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Eastern District of Virginia.
The author of this blog is Erich Ferrari, an attorney specializing in Federal Criminal Defense matters. If you have any questions please contact him at 202-280-6370 or ferrari@ferrari-legal.com.
Accused Member of Foreign Terrorist Organization Extradited to United States on Hostage Taking Charges
The Department of Justice announced on March 12, 2012 that Alexander Beltran Herrera, a/k/a Jhon Beltrain Herrera, a/k/a Rodrigo Pirinolo, an accused member of the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (“FARC”), has been extradited from Colombia to face hostage taking and terrorism charges in the United States.
The indictment alleges that the FARC is an armed and violent organization in the Republic of Colombia. The indictment further alleges that the FARC is a “highly structured criminal organization” divided into seven geographic “blocks” — the Caribbean block, the Northwestern block, the Middle Magdalena block, the Central block, the Eastern block, the Western block, and the Southern block — which are each further subdivided into a number of Fronts and named Mobile Columns. The indictment specifically alleges that Mr. Herrera was a member of the 27th Front in the FARC’s Southern block and committed various crimes against the United States as a member of FARC.
For example, according to the indictment, in 2004 the 27th Front allegedly held three Americans for nearly two years. The indictment also alleges that Mr. Herrera was one of the FARC “jailers” who used “choke harnesses, chains, padlocks, and wires to bind the necks and wrists” of American hostages. In addition to these alleged acts, Mr. Herrera was charged with the following specific offenses: 18 U.S.C. 1203(a) (Conspiracy to Commit Hostage Taking); 18 U.S.C. 1203(a),(2) (Hostage Taking; Aiding and Abetting and Causing an Act to be Done); 18 U.S.C. 924(c),(2) (Using and Carrying a Firearm During a Crime of Violence; Aiding and Abetting and Causing an Act to be Done); 18 U.S.C. 2339A (Conspiracy to Provide Material Support to Terrorists); 18 U.S.C. 2339B (Conspiracy to Provide Material Support or Resources to a Designated Foreign Terrorist Organization).
When an individual located in a foreign country has been indicted by a federal grand jury the United States will attempt to compel the government of that country to turn that individual over into the custody of the United States. This request will usually be pursuant to an extradition treaty between the United States and that foreign country. The extradition request is formally made with the foreign government’s embassy in the United States. Additionally, this formal request is made by the U.S. Department of State, not Justice. The U.S. will likely accompany this formal request with a copy of the indictment, arrest warrant, relevant statutes, a photograph of the accused, and the affidavit of an investigating officer on the case.
When this request is made, the terms of the treaty dictate whether the foreign government will agree to turn over the individual into the custody of the United States. Accordingly, most extradition treaties must satisfy a legal concept known as dual criminality. Dual criminality means that the offenses being charged by the requesting country must also be considered punishable offenses in the other country. This very requirement exists in Article 2(1)(a) of the extradition treaty between the United States and Colombia.
The author of this blog is Erich Ferrari, an attorney specializing in Federal Criminal Defense matters. If you have any questions please contact him at 202-280-6370 or ferrari@ferrari-legal.com.
Home Builder Indicted in $14.7 Million Construction Investment Scheme
On March 1, 2012 a federal grand jury indicted Patrick J. Belzner, a/k/a “Patrick McCloskey,” of Glen Arm, Maryland fo conspiring to commit wire fraud arising from an investment fraud scheme.
The indictment alleges that in order to gain their victims’ confidence, Belzner and his co-conspirators caused victim investors and borrowers to enter into escrow agreements which stated that no person other than the victims had the ability to remove the escrowed funds without the victims’ permission. Belzner told the victims that a co-conspirator had to be the attorney assigned as the escrow agent.
The indictment alleges that Belzner and his co-conspirator fraudulently withdrew approximately $14,730,780 from the escrow accounts and used these stolen funds to satisfy their business and personal debts. To conceal their scheme, Belzner and his co-conspirators allegedly: emailed fabricated bank statements to victims that misrepresented the escrow account balance and the date by when the investors’ money would be returned. Belzner and his co-conspirators also used funds fraudulently obtained from some victim investors to repay money owed to previous victim investors, or to other individuals to whom the conspirators owed debts.
Belzner faces a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and fine of $250,000 or twice the value of the gain or loss. The indictment further seeks forfeiture of at least $14,730,780, the amount of money stolen from victim investors.
Belzner’s alleged co-conspirators are not named in the indictment. According to the indictment Bezner’s co-conspirators included a home builder from Baltimore, Maryland, an attorney licensed to practice in Maryland, a senior underwriter from Newport Beach, California, and an attorney licensed to practice in California. The government may still be building its case against the other co-conspirators, offering the defendant the opportunity to cooperate with investigators. However, since the indictment was recently unsealed, there is a good chance that the other co-conspirators were actually involved in the investigation into Belzner.
Co-conspirators make for interesting government witnesses. These “insider” witnesses provide the government with invaluable insight into the inner workings of the alleged crime. However, due to a co-conspirator’s own precarious position as a criminally liable person, defense counsel is afforded the opportunity to seriously call into question the reliability, veracity, and character of such witnesses.
The author of this blog is Erich Ferrari, an attorney specializing in Federal Criminal Defense matters. If you have any questions please contact him at 202-280-6370 or ferrari@ferrari-legal.com.
Humboldt County Marijuana Grower Indicted for Murder by Feds
It was announced on March 1, 2012 that a federal grand jury in San Francisco indicted Mikal Xylon Wilde, of Humboldt County, with murder during a narcotics offense, conspiracy to manufacture and distribute 1000 or more marijuana plants, use of a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense and crime of violence, use of a firearm causing death in the form of a murder, and possession of ammunition by a convicted felon.
These federal offenses are being charged separately and in addition to California’s own charges against Wilde. As such, the defendant is currently in custody in Humbodlt County on state murder charges arising from the incident. An unfortunate, yet common, trend in drug related offenses are concurrent state and federal investigations and prosecutions for the exact same conduct. In essence, the defendant can lawfully be tried twice for the same conduct. The doctrine of double jeopardy does not apply in instances of concurrent federal and state prosecutions because both the federal government and state government are distinct sovereigns. This concept, known as dual sovereignty, permits any number of sovereign entities to separately prosecute a person if the person’s action violates the laws of each sovereign entity.
Wilde pleaded not guilty to state charges back in September 2011 and his case is ongoing. However, in line with the concept of dual sovereignty, Wilde was indicted for federal offenses in March 2012. Murder is generally considered an offense best handled by state governments. But since Wilde’s offense involves large scale narcotics trafficking, the federal government probably thought it would be prudent to pursue the case as well. The defendant will make his initial appearance in federal court in Eureka before U.S. Magistrate Judge Nandor J. Vadas.
The author of this blog is Erich Ferrari, an attorney specializing in Federal Criminal Defense matters. If you have any questions please contact him at 202-280-6370 or ferrari@ferrari-legal.com.
The Fourth Circuit Upholds Defendant’s Sentence; Rejects the Applicability of the ‘Safety Valve’ Sentencing Departure
On February 29, 2012, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision to deny Frank Aidoo, the defendant, the benefit in sentencing espoused in 18 U.S.C. 3553(f). Commonly referred to as the “safety valve,” section 3553(f) allows a judge to sentence a defendant to a term of imprisonment below a statute’s mandatory minimum. For example, Mr. Aidoo pleaded guilty to one count of 21 U.S.C. 952 after he was caught trying to import nearly one kilogram of heroin into the United States. The mandatory minimum sentence for the importation of heroin is 60 months. However, if one qualifies for the safety valve, a judge can sentence a term of imprisonment below the minimum.
To qualify for this reduced sentence a defendant must (1) “not have more than 1 criminal history point, as determined under the sentencing guidelines,” (2) must not have used “violence or credible threats of violence or possess a firearm or other dangerous weapon . . . in connection with the offense,” (3) the offense must not have resulted in the “death or serious bodily injury to any person,” (4) the defendant must not have been the “organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor of others in the offense,” and (5) the defendant “must have truthfully provided to the Government all information and evidence the defendant has concerning the offense or offenses that were part of the same course of conduct or of a common scheme or plan.”
The burden of proving whether the safety valve applies in a particular case belongs to the defendant. According to the court’s analysis, a defendant must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that he has satisfied all five elements of the safety valve. At issue in this case was whether Mr. Aidoo satisfactorily met this burden with respect to the fifth element of section 3553(f). Unfortunately, the judge in the trial court did not think so and on appeal the Fourth Circuit agreed with the trial judge.
Mr. Aidoo claimed that because he provided a story to the Government that on its face satisfied the fifth element, that the burden then shifted to the Government to disprove the truth of this story. The Fourth Circuit rejected this argument. It opined that the court may use its own reasoned assessment of the defendant’s statements and credibility before it requires the Government to furnish independent rebuttal evidence. In essence, the court has stated that a sentencing judge can reasonably determine the veracity of defendant’s statement made to satisfy the fifth element without requiring any further evidence from the Government to disprove the defendant’s statement. The Fourth Circuit also mentioned that if they had held the opposite ruling in this matter, the burden of proving the fifth element would effectively be turned on its head. This is because the government would then be burdened with disproving any story furnished by the defendant, no matter how implausible that story may be.
The key takeaway from this case for defendants is that defense counsel should furnish to the sentencing judge as much evidence as is available that demonstrates the truthfulness of the defendant’s information. As such, defense counsel should request from the court sufficient time to gather such evidence. If defense counsel requires more time to gather evidence than is allotted by the court, then counsel should make his or her objection known on the record. By making this objection on the record counsel will preserve this issue for appeal in the event of an unfavorable ruling.
The author of this blog is Erich Ferrari, an attorney specializing in Federal Criminal Defense matters. If you have any questions please contact him at 202-280-6370 or ferrari@ferrari-legal.com.
Former Executive at Gourmet Foods Company Sentenced to 30 Months in Prison for Embezzling Over $1 million from Her Employer
In the Central District of California, a woman was sentenced on February 13, 2012 for embezzling more than $1 million from her employer, a Santa Barbara-based gourmet food company. Lisa Sackie, 48, was sentenced by United States District Judge George H. Wu, who also ordered the defendant to pay $1.1 million in restitution to Future Food Brands, the parent company of Santa Barbara Bay Foods.
Sackie pleaded guilty to two counts of mail fraud in August of 2011, admitting that she wrote company checks to herself and to pay for personal expenses. Sackie pleaded to an information, and subsequently waived her right to a grand jury indictment. Sackie’s decision to plead to an information and waive her right to an indictment likely benefited her in sentencing because she admitted guilt early in the process and saved government resources. In fact, according to her sentencing memorandum and the sentencing guidelines, Sackie was facing a sentencing range of 33 to 41 months. Accordingly, Sackie was sentenced to 33 months in prison, the very bottom of her recommended sentencing range. Although her attorneys’ request for a variance of 33 months of probation was denied, Sackie benefited from cooperating, as reflected in the judge’s determination to sentence her at the bottom of the applicable range.
According to the plea agreement the government agreed to bring no additional charges against the defendant based upon her scheme to defraud her employer. Thus, instead of facing a multitude of fraud counts, Sackie only faced the maximum penalty of two fraud counts. Had Sackie not agreed to a plea agreement early on, the government would have likely convened a grand jury and charged her with a multitude of fraud counts dating as far back as 2004, which is when the government alleges Sackie’s scheme to defraud had begun. Depending on the full extent of the circumstances a defendant faces, it may be prudent to plea early, much like Sackie, and not put the government to its constitutional burden of proving a case.
The author of this blog is Erich Ferrari, an attorney specializing in Federal Criminal Defense matters. If you have any questions please contact him at 202-280-6370 or ferrari@ferrari-legal.com.
Switzerland’s Oldest Bank Indicted on U.S. Tax Charges
The US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York recently announced the first ever indictment of a Swiss bank. The indictment, returned by the grand jury and unsealed on February 2, 2012, alleges that Wegelin & Co. conspired with US taxpayers and others to hide from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) more than $1.2 billion in secret assets and the income these accounts generated.
Concurrent with this indictment, the US government seized more than $16 million from Wegelin’s correspondent bank account in the United States, in accordance with a civil forfeiture complaint and seizure warrant. Wegelin is charged in a superseding indictment with Michael Berlinka, Urs Frei and Roger Keller, three client advisers at the bank who were previously charged with the same conspiracy.
The government alleges that the defendant’s conspiracy in this case corresponds with Swiss banking giant UBS’ announcement on or about July 17, 2008 that it was closing its US cross-border banking business. UBS thereafter began notifying clients that they could continue to maintain undeclared accounts at Wegelin and certain other Swiss private banks. It was at this time that Wegelin’s executive committee, including its managing partners affirmatively decided to capture the illegal US cross-border banking business lost by UBS by opening new undeclared accounts for US taxpayer clients fleeing UBS.
The defendants in this case are currently only charged with conspiracy. However, their alleged conduct in the indictment could open them up to various other offenses. For example, the indictment alleges the transmission of a long list of checks and wire transfers from Wegelin to US taxpayers for the purpose of repatriating funds from these undeclared accounts. This list of transactions shows that most of the amounts transferred were under the $10,000 reporting requirement and sent to the same recipient over relatively short periods of time. Such behavior, if proven to have been undertaken to evade reporting requirements, is known as structuring, or “smurfing,” and is prohibited under the anti-structuring statute. The indictment also alleges that Wegelin instructed clients to carry cash and to avoid taking more than $10,000 with them on international flights, all to allegedly avoid reporting requirements. According to the statute, each such transaction can be charged as a separate and distinct offense. Therefore, defense counsel will have to take into consideration the possibility of a multi-count superseding indictment against the defendants when negotiating with prosecutors.
Another interesting observation for defense counsel to consider is the fact that the US taxpayer clients are identified as co-conspirators but have not yet been named as defendants themselves. These unindicted co-conspirators might have provided the US government with information about Wegelin’s alleged wrongdoing in exchange for proffer letters or non-prosecution agreements. Alternatively, the government may have merely agreed to delay the return of any such indictments to see how cooperative or useful these co-conspirators prove to be against Wegelin. When weighing the multitude of factors impacting the defendants’ decisions to accept plea agreements, defense counsel should recognize that all such witnesses will be particularly susceptible to cross-examination should this case go to trial.
The author of this blog is Erich Ferrari, an attorney specializing in Federal Criminal Defense matters. If you have any questions please contact him at 202-280-6370 or ferrari@ferrari-legal.com.
