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.
Texas Man Accused of Falsely Billing Medicare and Medicaid is Arrested
Lawrence T. Taylor, the Defendant, has been indicted on charges of health care fraud and conspiracy to commit health care fraud. The indictment, returned on Wednesday December 12, 2012 in the Southern District of Texas, formally charged the Defendant with the following nine counts:
Count (1) – 18 U.S.C. 371 – Conspiracy to commit health care fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1347; and Conspiracy to violate the Anti-Kickback statute in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7b(b)(2)(A); and
Counts (2)-(9) – 18 U.S.C. 1347 – Health care fraud.
Like in most federal indictments, the Defendant is charged with a combination of substantive offenses (8 counts of actual health care fraud) and the inchoate offense of conspiracy (for entering into an agreement to commit health care fraud and violate the Anti-Kickback statute).
By charging the Defendant with conspiracy the Government is able to thoroughly describe the background story leading up to the substantive fraud offenses. This is because the “overt acts” of a conspiracy can be as benign as incorporating a business or leasing office space, if those acts were indeed undertaken to further the criminal goal of the conspiracy. In this case the Government lists the Defendant’s formation of 1866ICPAYDAY.COM LLC, his leasing of office space, and his registration of a d/b/a all as overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, effectively casting the Defendant’s otherwise normal business activities as criminal acts.
Additionally, by charging the defendant with conspiracy, the Government can also significantly increase the loss amount of the alleged fraud. Unlike specific instances of fraud, a conspiracy can last for many years and encompass all of the acts of a defendant, criminal or otherwise. In essence, it gives the Government broad discretion to use as many of the Defendant’s own actions against him. As such, the Government is able to increase the loss amount to $1,238,823.85 when the 8 specific counts of fraud in the indictment only add up to $24,065.60.
If the Defendant is eventually convicted of an offense, defense counsel should argue for a lesser loss amount at sentencing, especially if some of the Defendant’s claims to Medicare and Medicaid were in fact legitimate. Pushing back against the Government’s asserted loss amount is critically important at sentencing because an increased loss amount correlates directly with an increased sentence according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s Guidelines Manual.
Depending on how much of the Defendant’s business activities are eventually proven to be fraudulent, defense counsel may also have the opportunity to argue against the “willfulness” element of the fraud counts. Isolated instances of medically unnecessary claims to Medicare or Medicaid can be cast as legitimate mistakes, instead of criminal acts. To determine whether the Government’s allegations are broader than what is reflected in reality requires defense counsel to thoroughly review the Defendant’s business and patient records. Upon this review, defense counsel will be able to effectively compare the Defendant’s version of the facts against the Government’s allegations.
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.
Grand Jury Returns Indictment Against Virginian for Conspiracy and Tax-Related Offenses
On July 10, 2011 the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia announced that a federal grand jury has indicted Jeffrey Charles, of Mathews County, Va., for conspiring with his daughter and son-in-law to defraud the United States. The docket also indicates that a warrant has been issued in this matter.
According to the indictment, Charles conspired with his daughter and son-in-law to impair and impede the IRS in ascertaining, computing, assessing and collecting federal income taxes. The government charged this count under the general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. 371. General conspiracy makes it a crime for two or more persons to agree to work together to commit any federal crime, so long as the participants in the conspiracy undertake any act, commonly referred to as an overt act, to further the underlying criminal activity. This overt act itself does not have to be a criminal act or illegal. Accordingly, in its indictment, the government alleges no less than 21 overt acts in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy to defraud the United States of tax revenue.
The indictment also alleges that Charles aided and assisted in the preparation of three false tax returns in his daughter’s name for tax years 2000, 2001, and 2005, and attached false documents to each tax return. The statute, 26 U.S.C. 7206(2), makes it a criminal offense for anyone to assist in the filing of a false return. The statute specifically disregards whether or not the fraudulent information or falsity was included with the knowledge or consent of the person authorized or required to present the documents to the IRS. Therefore, tax preparers can be liable for this offense even if the taxpayer himself intentionally produced false or fraudulent information. In such a scenario the tax preparer would have to demonstrate that they could not have reasonably known the information presented to them was false.
As alleged in the indictment, Charles also filed a false tax return in his own name for tax year 2006 in which he allegedly falsely reported earning $0.00 income. Since this count is with regards to Charles’ own tax return, the count is charged as 26 U.S.C. 7206(1), which targets the actual taxpayer or the person obligated to file, not the preparer.
An interesting note about this case is that according to the indictment Charles was affiliated with an organization known as the American Rights Litigators (ARL) (a.k.a. the Guiding Light of God Ministries). The organization is a tax protest group located in Lake County, Florida. As alleged in the indictment, Charles utilized materials provided by this organization to fulfill his alleged criminal endeavors.
However, it may be constitutionally improper for the government to use Charles’ affiliation with this group against him at trial. Using someone’s political affiliations against them in the court of law gets dangerously close to offending the First Amendment. Therefore, defense counsel in this matter should probably attempt to limit its usage in court and look into whether the investigation into Charles was originally initiated due to his association with this protest group.
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.
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.
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.
Patient Recruiter Pleads Guilty in Louisiana Health Care Fraud Scheme
On July 15, 2010 a federal grand jury in the Middle District of Louisiana named Fred Belcher, among others, in a five-count indictment. The indictment specifically charged Mr. Belcher with (1) Conspiracy to Commit Health Care Fraud and (2) Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and to Receive and Pay Health Care Kickbacks. On January 31, 2012 Mr. Belcher pled guilty to one count of Conspiracy to Commit Health Care Fraud, effectively dropping one of the conspiracy charges against him in return for his plea.
Mr. Belcher’s plea admitted to the court that he worked as a recruiter for Healthcare 1 LLC, Medical 1 Patient Services LLC, and Lifeline Healthcare Services Inc., Louisiana-based companies that fraudulently billed durable medical equipment (DME) to the Medicare program from 2004 to 2009. He and other recruiters were hired to obtain prescriptions for DME such as leg braces, arm braces, power wheel chairs, and wheel chair accessories. Specifically, Belcher recruited Medicare beneficiaries to attend “health fairs” that he organized at churches and other locations in the beneficiaries’ communities. At these fairs, he obtained information from the beneficiaries and paid a doctor to prescribe medically unnecessary DME for the beneficiaries. Belcher then sold these prescriptions to the three Louisiana companies listed above to bill Medicare.
Unlike traditional criminal cases, defendants involved in criminal activity related to government health care programs (i.e. Medicare, Medicaid, etc.) must be conscious of potential enforcement actions by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services (HHS) in addition to any criminal consequences. OIG’s mission is to protect the integrity of HHS programs as well as health and welfare beneficiaries. The OIG accomplishes this primarily by conducting audits, investigations, and evaluations. Perhaps most importantly, OIG has the power to exclude persons from participating in or providing services for or on behalf of HHS programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. In essence, to be excluded by the OIG means being black-listed from the medical industry.
Exclusions are a serious and potentially devestating consequence of pleading guilty to criminal activity involving HHS programs. A quick search of OIG’s database on January 31, 2012 shows that Mr. Belcher has yet to be excluded from the Medicare program. This however, does not mean that he won’t eventually be excluded. OIG exclusions tend to happen subsequent to a guilty plea or criminal investigation and in addition to any imprisonment, forfeiture, or fines levied in the criminal case. In many ways, exclusion by the OIG can be worse for the defendant than many criminal consequences because it denies the defendant the ability to earn a livelihood in the only industry the defendant is familiar with.
Therefore, defense counsel should immediately engage in a dialogue with OIG on behalf of a client facing health care fraud charges to dicuss whether a potential exclusion is being considered. Exclusions are regularly for a term of years, thus there would seem to be room to negotiate more favorable terms for one’s client if an exclusion is inevitable. Moreover, defense counsel should be conscious of an individual client’s exposure to exclusion whenever a corporate entity in the medical field is being investigated or enters into a non-prosecution agreement. Even in instances where a particular client is not charged with criminal conduct, OIG may unilaterally move to have that person excluded from the Medicare program depending on the scope of the entity’s admissions about the client. Nonetheless, defendants in such cases must be made aware of the potential for exclusion so that they can make an informed decision about accepting a plea agreement or going 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.
Former CIA Officer John Kiriakou Charged for Disclosing Classified Information to Journalists, False Statements, and Revealing the Identity of a Covert Officer
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia recently announced that it has charged John Kiriakou with repeatedly disclosing classified information to journalists, including the name of a covert CIA officer and information revealing the role of another CIA employee in classified activities. Specifically, Kiriakou has been charged with one count of violating the Intelligence Identities Protection Act and two counts of violating the Espionage Act. Kiriakou was also charged with one count of making false statements for allegedly lying to the Publications Review Board of the CIA in an unsuccessful attempt to trick the CIA into allowing him to include classified information in a book he was seeking to publish.
Upon conviction, the count charging illegal disclosure of a covert officer’s identity to a person not authorized to receive classified information carries a maximum penalty of five years in prison, which must be imposed consecutively to any other prison term; the two counts charging violations of the Espionage Act each carry a maximum term of 10 years in prison; and making false statements carries a maximum prison term of five years. Each count carries a maximum fine of $250,000.
Being that the allegations against Kiriakou are in the form of a criminal complaint, the government’s next step will be to initiate and conduct a grand jury investigation, if they have not already done so. Since grand jury investigations are secret, the government could have already begun such an investigation and interviewed various witnesses involved in the offenses above. The grand jury investigation will determine whether there is probable cause to indict Kiriakou before arraigning him and is generally required in the federal criminal justice system, unless waived by the defendant. If Kiriakou waives his right to a grand jury investigation the prosecution can alternatively proceed by filing an information.
There are several reasons why a defendant would agree to waive his right to a federal grand jury investigation and its determination of probable cause. Since grand jury investigation are ex parte proceedings (held only by the prosecution) they tend to conclude with a finding of probable cause. Additionally, if the defendant has previously spoken to prosecutors he may have already negotiated a favorable plea agreement that would only be available to him at these early stages of the prosecution. The defendant may also want to reduce the risk of uncovering additional offenses that would necessarily be uncovered if a grand jury investigation was commenced. Whatever the reason, the steps moving forward are highly personal and will be ultimately determined by the defendant after close consultation with and advice from defense counsel.
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.
U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York Announces Extradition of Four Israeli Defendants Charged in Multi-Million Dollar Fraud Scheme
The US Attorney for the Southern District of New York recently announced that four defendants have been extradited from Israel on charges relating to their participation in multiple lottery telemarketing fraud schemes. Many of those charged in two indictments in 2008 and 2009 have already been arrested and have either plead guilty to conspiracy and/or fraud charges or been found guilty by bench trial.
The four recently extradited include Avi Ayache, Yaron Bar, and Ian Kaye, all of whom were arrested in Israel back in July of 2009 awaiting extradition to the United States. The fourth man, Shai Kadosh, who was indicted back in September 2008 was a fugitive until he was arrested in Israel in December of 2011.
The four men and their co-conspirators allegedly operated phony “lottery prize” schemes out of numerous boiler rooms in Israel. The schemes targeted hundreds of victims, mostly elderly, throughout the United States. To identify potential victims, the defendants purchased from list brokers the names and contact information of U.S. residents who subscribed to sweepstakes lotteries. They then contacted the victims and solicited information about their finances by falsely telling them they had won a substantial cash prize that they would receive as soon as they paid the necessary fees and taxes. In reality, there was no lottery prize. Collectively, the American victims in these lottery fraud schemes lost approximately $25 million.
Ayache, Bar, Kaye, and Kadosh are each charged with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and mail fraud through telemarketing, which carries a maximum penalty of 30 years in prison. In addition, Ayache, Bar, and Kadosh are each charged with two substantive counts of wire fraud through telemarketing, each of which carry a maximum potential penalty of 30 years in prison. Ayache and Bar are also charged with conspiracy to commit money laundering, which carries a maximum potential penalty of 20 years in prison. The enhanced fraud penalties are a result of the telemarketing scheme employed by the defendants. According to 18 U.S.C. 2326 there is up to a 10 year penalty enhancement when the fraud is carried out by telemarketing and targets at least 10 elderly people over the age of 55.
The government will also seek forfeiture and mandatory restitution of up to $25 million in substitute assets to recover the defendants’ ill-gotten gains.
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.
