United States v. Bodouva
684 F. App'x 5
| 2d Cir. | 2017Background
- Christine Bodouva, former officer of a company, was convicted by a jury of embezzling funds from her company’s 401(k) plan in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 664.
- The case was tried in the Southern District of New York; Bodouva appealed the conviction and certain evidentiary and instructional rulings.
- Key contested trial rulings: (1) jury instructions on mens rea and reference to ERISA fiduciary duties; (2) exclusion under Fed. R. Evid. 403 of evidence showing sources of funds that Bodouva and her family used to support the company; (3) exclusion of evidence that Bodouva repaid most embezzled funds in 2016.
- Bodouva preserved some objections to the jury charge (reviewed for harmless error) but did not preserve the ERISA-specific objection (reviewed for plain error).
- The district court also entered a forfeiture award; the Second Circuit affirmed the conviction and non-forfeiture portions here and addressed forfeiture separately in a precedential opinion.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury instruction failed to connect mens rea and actus reus under § 664 | Government argued instructions adequately stated elements including that embezzlement must be "knowingly and willfully" committed | Bodouva argued the charge did not properly tie intent to the specific wrongful acts | Court affirmed: overall charge properly connected mens rea and actus reus; reviewed for harmless error and found no reversible error |
| Jury instruction suggested ERISA civil breach could satisfy § 664 intent | Government maintained explaining ERISA fiduciary duties is permissible context for jury and can be considered only as factor for intent | Bodouva argued instruction allowed a knowing civil ERISA violation to substitute for criminal intent under § 664 | Court affirmed: describing ERISA duties permitted so long as court cautions that civil breach alone cannot establish criminal intent; no plain error |
| Exclusion under Rule 403 of evidence about sources of family/company support | Government argued such evidence had limited probative value on intent and risked unfair prejudice/confusion | Bodouva argued evidence showed sacrifices and motive consistent with lack of greed, relevant to intent | Court affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion; probative value was limited and risk of unfair prejudice substantial |
| Exclusion of repayment evidence (2016 repayments) as irrelevant to intent in 2012–2013 | Government contended post-indictment, post-offense repayments were not relevant to defendant's state of mind at time of offense | Bodouva argued repayment showed remorse or lack of criminal intent | Court affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion; belated repayments were not relevant to intent at time of offenses |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Botti, 711 F.3d 299 (2d Cir.) (preservation and plain-harmless error principles for jury-charge objections)
- United States v. Quattrone, 441 F.3d 153 (2d Cir.) (review of jury charge as a whole for correct legal instruction)
- United States v. Sabhnani, 599 F.3d 215 (2d Cir.) (jury charge must communicate essential ideas)
- United States v. Snyder, 668 F.2d 686 (2d Cir.) (ERISA fiduciary duties may be described to jury but civil breach alone doesn’t establish criminal intent)
- United States v. Coppola, 671 F.3d 220 (2d Cir.) (deferential review of Rule 403 evidentiary rulings)
- United States v. Van Elsen, 652 F.3d 955 (8th Cir.) (post-offense repayments not probative of mens rea at time of offense)