People v. Gutman
355 Ill. Dec. 207
Ill.2011Background
- Gutman and Lubenskiy formed Egra Medical Transportation in 1995 to bill Illinois Medicaid; an incorrect service code prompted them to consider manipulating submissions.
- Gutman and Lubenskiy reconstituted the operation as Universal Transportation Company (UPT) with a figurehead owner (Tishel) while Gutman and Lubenskiy ran the company.
- UPT submitted false billings and overbilled for mileage, with state payments deposited into an account controlled by Tishel and his son.
- Funds moved from UPT to Tishel, then to Gutman; Gutman used proceeds to purchase homes and cars and to gift property to her son.
- The State charged Gutman, Lubenskiy, Tishel, and UPT with vendor fraud, theft, and money laundering; Gutman was convicted on all counts and restitution was ordered.
- Appellate court affirmed theft/vendor fraud but reversed money laundering, holding ‘proceeds’ meant ‘profits’; State appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does 'proceeds' in 29B-1(b)(4) mean gross receipts or profits? | Gutman contends 'proceeds' means profits per Santos dissent. | Gutman argues ambiguity allows profits; appellate court favored profits. | Proceeds means gross receipts. |
| If proceeds is ambiguous, is plain-error review available? | State argues plain error applies if error is uncertain. | Gutman contends error was plain or obvious. | Plain-error review unnecessary; statute reads as gross receipts, so error not established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Santos v. United States, 553 U.S. 507 (Supreme Court, 2008) (definitive discussion of 'proceeds' meaning and lingering ambiguity)
- Clark v. Martinez, 543 U.S. 371 (Supreme Court, 2005) (same text cannot have different meanings in like contexts)
- People v. Garcia, 349 Ill. Ne.2d 32 (Illinois Supreme Court, 2011) (statutory construction principles; context matters)
- People v. Miller, 238 Ill.2d 161 (Illinois Supreme Court, 2010) (one-act, one-crime doctrine guidance cited)
- In re Detention of Powell, 217 Ill.2d 123 (Illinois Supreme Court, 2005) (rule of lenity considerations in statute interpretation)