In United States v. Annamalai, No. 15-11854 (Sept.
24, 2019) (Jordan, Wilson, Moore (S.D. Ga.)), the Court affirmed in part
and reversed in part the defendant's fraud convictions and sentences.
First, the Court rejected the defendant's argument that the
government improperly joined 34 offenses and the court erred by denying his
motion to sever some of the charges. The
Court reasoned that the charges arose out of the same general fraudulent scheme,
and the defendant could not show prejudice just because the jury convicted him
of several counts despite insufficient evidence.
Second, the Court rejected the defendant's argument that the
prosecution, conviction, and sentencing violated his First Amendment right to
freedom of religion. The government's
case was not an impermissible attack on the defendant's Hindu religion but
rather involved a scheme where the defendant abused his position as a Hindu
priest and engaged in fraud.
Third, the Court reversed the defendant's bankruptcy fraud
convictions because the funds at issue were acquired after the Hindu temple
filed for bankruptcy and after the trustee shut it down. Similarly, a post bankruptcy petition check
did not constitute property of the bankruptcy estate and thus was not
prosecutable. The evidence was therefore
insufficient. And because the conspiracy
and money laundering counts were based on the substantive bankruptcy fraud
counts, the Court reversed those too.
Fourth, the Court reversed the defendant's conviction for
conspiracy to harbor a fugitive. The
Court found insufficient evidence of an agreement to commit an act to help
harbor or conceal a person for whom a warrant was issued. The defendant told his wife to tell the
fugitive to use cash, but that mere provision of advice was insufficient
without providing some sort of material or physical assistance. The wife then gave false statements to agents
about the fugitive and his whereabouts, but that too was insufficient to
constitute harboring or concealing.
Lastly, the fact that the fugitive purchased a plane ticket out of the
US was insufficient to show that the defendant or his wife harbored or concealed
him.
Fifth, the Court found insufficient evidence to support the
loss amount at sentencing. That finding
was based on the speculative assumption that every one of 467 credit card
disputes filed against the Hindu temple involved a fraudulent charge, even
though only 85 of them included records of fraud, from which a government agent
extrapolated. While extrapolation may be
permissible in some scenarios, the methodology here assumed absolute fraud in
every instance and was based on too much speculation: the government assumed
that all 467 disputes involved fraud even without any indication that it did; the
government did not know whether any of the disputes were resolved in favor of
the Hindu temple; and the defense presented evidence that some of the disputes
had been resolved.
