Michael Amos v. State of Indiana
83 N.E.3d 1221
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In June 2016 the State charged Michael Amos with multiple Class C felony counts for securities fraud, offer/sale of unregistered securities, and acting as an unregistered broker-dealer, alleging offenses occurring 2006–2009 (and broker-dealer activity through the present).
- The information and probable-cause affidavit alleged Amos ran promissory note and real-estate investment schemes (Ponzi-like), receiving millions from investors and using funds for personal expenses.
- The State alleged Amos began sending approximately monthly email "updates" to investors beginning about March 2009 through at least September 2015, assuring recovery plans and requesting patience after missed payments.
- Amos moved to dismiss, arguing the securities charges were time-barred by the five-year statute of limitations and that the State failed to allege positive acts of concealment; he also argued the fraud counts were deficiently pled.
- The trial court found the State alleged facts sufficient to toll the limitations period to at least June 2011 (when a consumer complaint was filed) and denied the motion to dismiss.
- On interlocutory appeal the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the State sufficiently pleaded the concealment exception based on Amos’s recurring communications that could be viewed as positive acts calculated to delay discovery.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the statute of limitations is tolled by defendant's concealment so charges filed in 2016 are timely | State: Amos’s structuring of delayed‑maturity securities and repeated investor updates were positive acts calculated to conceal the crimes and delayed discovery until 2011 | Amos: No positive acts to conceal; maturities and registration status were ascertainable from documents; emails to investors did not prevent authorities from discovering offenses | Court: Affirmed denial of dismissal — State pleaded sufficient facts that Amos’s repeated assurances/updates could constitute positive acts of concealment tolling the limitations period; timeliness for broker‑dealer count satisfied by alleged continuing conduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Study v. State, 24 N.E.3d 947 (Ind. 2015) (concrete positive acts calculated to conceal a crime are required to toll statute of limitations)
- Kifer v. State, 740 N.E.2d 586 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (disposing or altering evidence can be a positive act but does not toll if police already knew a crime occurred)
- Chrzan v. State, 693 N.E.2d 566 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (manipulating records and deceptive acts can constitute positive acts of concealment)
- Dvorak v. State, 78 N.E.3d 25 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017) (structuring delayed‑maturity securities and omissions are not necessarily positive acts sufficient to toll)
- Woods v. State, 980 N.E.2d 439 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (for interlocutory dismissal, State need only plead sufficient allegations that the offense falls within the statute of limitations)