United States v. Amanat
21-2229
| 2d Cir. | Mar 19, 2024Background
- Omar Amanat and Irfan Amanat were convicted of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, conspiracy to commit securities fraud, aiding and abetting investment-adviser fraud, and wire fraud in the Southern District of New York.
- The convictions stem from a scheme to defraud investors by sending false financial statements and concealing the poor financial performance of their investment entities, notably Maiden Capital and Enable.
- On appeal, the Amanats challenged the admission of expert testimony by FBI Special Agent Joel DeCapua, the sufficiency of the evidence for wire fraud, the jury instructions regarding the right-to-control theory, and the appropriateness of venue for the wire fraud convictions.
- Omar Amanat separately challenged the sufficiency of evidence for his market manipulation conviction concerning KIT Digital stock, while Irfan Amanat raised issues with the sufficiency of evidence for his convictions, good faith, and alleged constructive amendment of the indictment.
- The Second Circuit reviewed the case and affirmed the judgments against both Defendants, finding no reversible error in the proceedings below.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of FBI Agent DeCapua's expert testimony | Should be admitted; agent qualified | Qualifications/training lacking; improperly admitted | Properly admitted; district court did not abuse discretion |
| Wire fraud evidence and right-to-control | Evidence showed intent to defraud investors of money/property | Government failed to prove object was to obtain money/property; right-to-control instruction was invalid | Sufficient evidence of intent to deprive of money/property; Ciminelli not violated |
| Venue for wire fraud count | Sufficient circumstantial evidence tied scheme to venue | No direct evidence communications were sent to/from Southern District of New York | Circumstantial evidence sufficient for venue |
| Omar Amanat’s market manipulation conviction | Conspiracy proven via stock transaction evidence | Insufficient proof of conspiracy | Evidence sufficient to affirm conviction |
| Irfan Amanat’s separate sufficiency and amendment claims | Convictions supported by evidence; no amendment | Insufficient evidence; government constructively amended indictment | Arguments meritless; no error found |
Key Cases Cited
- McCullock v. H.B. Fuller Co., 61 F.3d 1038 (2d Cir. 1995) (expert qualification objections go to weight, not admissibility)
- Fountain v. United States, 357 F.3d 250 (2d Cir. 2004) (wire fraud elements clarified)
- Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298 (1957) (jury verdict legal error with dual invalid/valid theories)
- United States v. Potamitis, 739 F.2d 784 (2d Cir. 1984) (venue can be proven circumstantially)
- United States v. Anderson, 747 F.3d 51 (2d Cir. 2014) (tacit agreement sufficient for conspiracy)