Factual and Procedural Setting

It is reported that the defendant was indicted on one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and two counts of wire fraud. The charges stemmed from a scheme to obtain fraudulent titles for stolen vehicles using forged documents submitted to state authorities. The government alleged that the defendant worked with others to exploit vehicle registration systems in order to claim ownership over stolen automobiles. The defendant entered a plea of not guilty, and the case proceeded to trial.

Allegedly, during trial, the defendant testified in his own defense and denied knowingly participating in any fraud. The jury ultimately acquitted him on the conspiracy count but convicted him on both substantive counts of wire fraud. The probation office prepared a presentence investigation report recommending sentencing enhancements, including a two-level increase under U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1(b)(4) for being in the business of receiving and selling stolen property and another two-level increase under § 3C1.1 for obstruction of justice.

It is reported that the obstruction enhancement was based on the trial court’s finding that the defendant testified falsely during trial. Although the defendant did not file timely written objections to the report, he raised oral objections at sentencing. The district court ruled that the objections were untimely under Rule 32(f)(1) but went on to overrule them on the merits as well. The court sentenced the defendant to 51 months in prison, followed by a three-year term of supervised release. The defendant appealed.

Analysis of Sentencing Enhancements

On appeal, the defendant challenged both the trial court’s handling of a jury instruction request and the sentencing enhancements. The court rejected the challenge to the jury instructions, finding that the defendant had explicitly agreed to the trial court’s response during deliberations. Under the invited error doctrine, a party cannot challenge on appeal a decision they actively supported during trial.

As for the sentencing, the court ruled that the district court did not commit plain error by applying the enhancements. Because the defendant failed to appeal the court’s ruling that his objections were untimely, he waived that issue and was required to meet the high bar of plain error review. The court held that even if the district court’s findings on obstruction were brief, they were sufficient under the applicable precedent. The record supported the conclusion that the defendant had testified falsely and that the testimony was both material and willful.

With regard to the enhancement for receiving and selling stolen property, the court found ample support in the sentencing record. It is reported that the defendant was involved in multiple fraudulent vehicle title transfers, had used stolen cars for personal use, and had a criminal history involving similar conduct. These facts were sufficient to support the enhancement under § 2B1.1(b)(4).

Accordingly, the court affirmed the defendant’s conviction and sentence in full.

Speak with an Experienced Tampa Fraud Crime Defense Attorney

Fraud charges in federal court can lead to lengthy prison sentences, especially when the court imposes sentencing enhancements based on obstruction of justice or repeated criminal conduct. If you are accused of fraud, it is in your best interest to talk to an attorney as soon as possible. At Hanlon Law, our Tampa fraud crime defense attorneys possess the skills and experience needed to help you seek a just outcome, and if you hire us, we will advocate aggressively on your behalf.  To schedule a confidential consultation, contact our office at 813-435-6200 or complete our online form.

The post Florida Court Examines Sentencing Enhancements in Fraud Case appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

History of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was charged in a superseding indictment with nine counts of wire fraud and five counts of aggravated identity theft. The government alleged that the defendant engaged in a scheme to defraud the Small Business Administration and lenders administering the Paycheck Protection Program and Economic Injury Disaster Loan Program by submitting false and fraudulent loan applications on behalf of three entities. The defendant also allegedly forged signatures on documents supporting these applications.

It is reported that the defendant proceeded to a jury trial on all fourteen counts, and the jury returned a verdict of guilty on six counts: four counts of wire fraud and two counts of aggravated identity theft. The jury acquitted the defendant on the remaining eight counts. Subsequently, the defendant filed a motion for judgment of acquittal and a motion for a new trial, challenging the guilty verdicts on the grounds of insufficient evidence and legal errors.

Grounds for Vacating an Identify Theft Conviction

Upon review, the court granted the defendant’s motion in part and denied it in part. The court agreed with the defendant’s assertion that the basis of his conviction for aggravated identity theft was not a misrepresentation of the alleged victim’s identity. Instead, the crux of the offense was a misrepresentation of the nature of his businesses and whether they could obtain the relief in question. As such, the court found that there was insufficient evidence to sustain the defendant’s issue as to those counts and ruled in the defendant’s favor as to that issue.

Conversely, however, the court discussed the defendant’s argument for acquittal on the wire fraud counts, namely that he did not need to demonstrate that the banks from which he obtained the loans suffered actual harm. The court upheld his conviction on those counts on other grounds, though, namely that banks can be victims, without resolving his arguments.

The court also denied the defendant’s motion for a new trial and partially granted the provisional motion for release pending appeal, which authorized the defendant to self-surrender to the Bureau of Prisons at the time of sentencing.

Meet with a Seasoned Tampa Criminal Defense Lawyer

People charged with theft crimes often worry that the odds are stacked against them, but in many instances, the prosecution lacks the evidence needed to sustain a conviction. If you are accused of unlawfully diverting someone else’s property, it is advisable to meet with an attorney as soon as possible. The seasoned Tampa theft crime defense lawyers at Hanlon Law can assess your case and help you determine what defenses you may be able to set forth. You can reach out to Hanlon Law using our online form or by calling 813-228-7095 to set up a meeting.

The post Florida Court Discusses Grounds for Vacating an Identify Theft Conviction appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Procedural History of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was indicted by a federal jury for aiding and abetting bank fraud and aiding and abetting identity theft. He subsequently pleaded guilty to the identity theft offense via a plea agreement; as part of the agreement, he waived the right to appeal his sentence. The defendant was sentenced to 24 months in prison. Over two years later, he filed a motion to vacate his conviction and sentence.

Timeliness of Post-Conviction Motions

The court ultimately denied the defendant’s motion as untimely. The court explained that pursuant to the AEDPA (the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act), a person serving a sentence in a federal prison can move to correct, vacate, or set aside their sentence within a one-year period.

The period begins to run on: the date that the judgment of the conviction becomes final; the date when the right asserted was first recognized by the Supreme Court if it is a newly recognized right; the date on which any governmental action that created a barrier to filing a motion was removed; or, the date when the facts in support of the claim could have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence, whichever is later.

In most instances, the triggering date is the date when the judgment of conviction is final. In other words, the other statutory trigger dates are often the exception instead of the norm. When the statute of limitations begins to run is assessed on a case-by-case basis.

In the subject case, the court found that as the defendant filed his motion more than two years after his sentence and conviction were final, and he did not allege facts showing that any of the alternative statutory trigger dates should apply or that the statute of limitations should be equitably tolled, it was untimely. Thus, the court denied the motion.

Meet with a Trusted Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney

Although white collar crimes do not typically harm people, they are nonetheless serious offenses that come with substantial penalties. If you are charged with identity theft or any other white collar offense, it is advisable to meet with an attorney. The trusted Tampa lawyers of Hanlon Law can advise you of your potential defenses and help you to seek the best legal outcome possible under the facts of your case. You can reach Hanlon Law via the form online or at 813-228-7095 to set up a meeting.

The post Florida Court Discusses Timeliness of Post-Conviction Motions appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

History of the Case

Reportedly, the defendant pleaded guilty to multiple counts of mail fraud and aggravated identity theft for the fraudulent liquidation of numerous pre-paid college accounts that were owned by other people. She agreed to pay restitution in excess of $40,000 as well. The defendant’s presentence investigation report (PSI) recommended, in part, that upon her release, she be required to make payments towards any unpaid restitution in the amount of $150 per month.

Allegedly, at the defendant’s sentencing hearing, she requested that the court reduce the amount of the monthly restitution payment. The district court denied her request but verbally advised her it would reassess the monthly amounts owed at a later date if needed. It issued an order requiring her to pay restitution in the amount of $42,500. The written judgment required her to pay slightly more. The government moved to correct the written judgment to state that the restitution amount was due immediately. The defendant opposed the motion, which the court granted. The defendant appealed.

Restitution Orders in White-Collar Crime Cases

The federal rules permit a district court to correct clerical errors in orders and judgments that arise from oversights and omissions. If an oral sentence is vague, then the court may consider any extrinsic evidence demonstrating the judge’s intent or the defendant’s understanding of what the sentence was to determine the district court’s intent at the time it imposed the sentence.

In the subject case, the court found that the PSI expressly stated that the monthly amounts paid after the defendant’s release would be to reduce any unpaid restitution, thereby implying that the restitution she owed was due immediately after her sentence. Further, the court noted that restitution is typically due right after sentencing, and the defendant’s attorney was aware of this general practice. As such, the court found that the correction did not modify the terms of the original sentence and affirmed the district court ruling.

Confer with a Capable Criminal Defense Lawyer in Tampa

People convicted of white-collar crimes often not only have to serve lengthy prison sentences, but they also have to make restitution for the losses they caused. If you are charged with a white-collar crime, it is smart to confer with an attorney as soon as possible. The capable Tampa criminal defense attorneys of Hanlon Law can advise you of your options and help you to seek the best result available under the facts of your case. You can reach Hanlon Law via the form online or at 813-228-7095 to set up a meeting.

The post Florida Court Discusses Restitution in White-Collar Crime Cases appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Recently, a Florida appellate court ruled that a defendant could be charged with money laundering and unlawfully engaging in money services business based on transactions involving cryptocurrency If you live in Tampa and are charged with a criminal offense arising out of transactions involving cryptocurrency you should speak with a trusted Tampa criminal defense attorney to determine how to defend against the charges you face.

The Defendant’s Bitcoin Transactions

Allegedly, an undercover detective contacted the defendant regarding the sale of Bitcoins. Bitcoins are a type of cryptocurrency with no backing by the government. The defendant and the undercover detective engaged in several transactions in which the defendant sold the detective Bitcoins in exchange for cash. The defendant was not registered under either the state or federal databases as a “money services business.”

It is reported that during the first transaction the detective indicated that he was involved in illicit activity and wished to remain anonymous, but did not expressly state that he was involved in illegal activity. At the second transaction, the detective advised the defendant that he needed Bitcoins to pay for stolen credit card numbers. At the final transaction, the detective purchased $30,000 worth of Bitcoin which he advised the defendant would be used to purchase additional stolen credit card numbers. The defendant was subsequently arrested and charged with unlawfully engaging in the business of transmitting money while not being registered as a transmitter, and money laundering. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss the information charging him with the alleged crimes, arguing that Bitcoins were not money and the transfer of Bitcoins did not constitute money transmitting. The court granted the defendant’s motion, after which the State appealed.

Laws Pertaining to Cryptocurrency

On appeal, the court declined to adopt the defendant’s argument that he was not unlawfully engaged in the business of transmitting money because Bitcoins did not constitute money. The court stated that although Bitcoins did not fall under the express definition of “currency” in the applicable statute, they did fall under the definition of a “payment instrument,” which is defined as a medium of exchange that may or may not be redeemable in currency. The court ultimately ruled that Bitcoins were a medium of exchange and that the defendant’s business of exchanging Bitcoins for cash required him to register as a money transmitter and payment instrument seller. Regarding the money laundering charges against the defendant, the court found that an issue of fact existed as to whether the defendant possessed the necessary intent. Based on the foregoing, the court held that the trial court erred in dismissing the information against the defendant, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

Schedule a Meeting with a Knowledgeable Tampa Criminal Defense Attorney

The law is not always well-defined when it comes to technological advances. If you are a Tampa resident facing criminal charges, you should retain a knowledgeable criminal defense attorney who will aggressively advocate on your behalf.  William Hanlon of Hanlon Law is a skilled Tampa criminal defense attorney who will work diligently to help you retain your liberties.  You can reach Mr. Hanlon at 813-228-7095 or through the online form to schedule a meeting.

More Blog Posts:      

Man Charged under Florida Computer Crime Law for Allegedly Destroying Company Information After Being Fired, November 1, 2017, Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog

The post Florida Court Rules Criminal Charges Can Arise out of Cryptocurrency Transactions appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

A federal court in 2009 overturned Defendant’s conviction on the scheme to defraud offense. The court held that writing a check that’s unsupported by sufficient funds doesn’t qualify as a fraudulent representation to a bank without proof of intent. So Defendant also went back to state court and asked a judge to scrap his plea deal and give Defendant back the restitution money he had paid for the scheme to defraud conviction. The trial court declined that request in 2009. Some eight years later, Defendant filed a “motion for damages” seeking the return of the restitution money. A judge said that this filing wasn’t timely.

Affirming the decision on appeal, the Fourth District said a state law allowing for the compensation of a person wrongfully convicted of a crime requires the person to file a motion for that compensation within 90 days.

Defendant cited a 2017 U.S. Supreme Court decision in which the justices said a state can’t retain funds paid to it by a defendant pursuant to invalidated convictions. The Supreme Court in Nelson v. Colorado also said a state may not require a defendant to prove his or her actual innocence in order to secure return of property.

But the Fourth District said that ruling shouldn’t be applied retroactively to Defendant’s case. It also said the decision didn’t bar filing time limits.

“First, Nelson is not the type of change in law which should be applied retroactively,” the court said. “Second, Nelson did not invalidate procedural measures required to assert a compensation claim, and the time limitation is a procedural measure.”

As a result, the Fourth District affirmed the decision denying Defendant’s request for the return of the restitution money.

If you or a loved one has been charged with a white collar or other crime in Florida, it is essential that you seek the advice and counsel of an experienced attorney. Tampa criminal defense lawyer Will Hanlon is a seasoned attorney who fights aggressively on behalf of clients charged with a wide range of offenses. Call our offices at (813) 228-7095 or contact us online to speak with Mr. Hanlon about your case.

More Posts:

Mandatory Minimum Sentences in Florida Criminal Cases

Constructive Possession in Florida Gun Crime Cases

When Can Cops Stop You on the Street in Florida?

The post Florida Court Limits Compensation for Wrongful Convictions appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.

Florida criminal law addresses the destruction or hacking of computers, computer systems, computer networks, and electronic devices to help protect companies from the actions of bad actors. The Tampa Bay Times reported on 11/1/2017 that a company’s former employee was arrested for allegedly destroying his former employer’s computer data after he was fired. The alleged costs to the company were substantial.

Florida Statutes Section 815.06 criminalizes offenses against users of computers, computer systems, computer networks, and electronic devices. The various crimes range from a first-degree misdemeanor to first-degree felonies. An example of a third-degree felony under this statute is destroying a computer network or electronic device with the specific intent to do so. An example of a first-degree felony under this statute is to disrupt a computer network associated with medical equipment or the direct administration of medical care.

The news report specified that the accused allegedly cost his former employer $277,000 in lost profits and data recovery expenses. This information suggests the availability of the second-degree felony charge of knowingly damaging a computer network when the damage or loss is at least $5,000 (Section 815.06(b)(1)).

This is not the first time that an offense against a computer network and unauthorized access has made the news. In 2015, an eighth-grader was arrested by the Pasco County Sheriff’s Office for hacking into the school network without permission. The student then changed the background image on a teacher’s computer.

As more business is conducted online, the laws criminalizing what one might do with information stored on a computer or a computer network will likely continue to evolve. As the two reports above indicate, Florida law enforcement are already seeking to prosecute individuals for computer-related crimes, ranging from misdemeanors to first-degree felonies.

In the Tampa Bay area, if you have been questioned about any type of impropriety related to your employment or financial activities, you should immediately call the offices of Hanlon Law. White collar cases and computer crimes often necessitate a lengthy investigation. It is important to have the advice and counsel of an experienced white collar crime attorney, such as Will Hanlon at Hanlon Law. Call us as soon as possible or reach out to us via our online form.

More Blog Posts:

Florida Appeals Court Affirms Aggravated Battery Conviction but Overturns Conspiracy to Deliver Cannabis Conviction, Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog, October 10, 2017

Tampa Woman Guns Down Teen who Carjacked her Son, Raising Stand Your Ground and Felony Murder Issues, Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog, October 17, 2017

Florida Trial Court Committed a Reversible Error By Not Properly Instructing Jury as to Self-Defense Claim, Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog, October 10, 2017

Photo Credit: TheDigitalArtist, [CC0 License], via Pixabay 

The post Man Charged under Florida Computer Crime Law for Allegedly Destroying Company Information After Being Fired appeared first on Tampa Criminal Lawyer Blog.