United States v. Colon-Ledee
772 F.3d 21
| 1st Cir. | 2014Background
- Astrid and Edgardo Colón Ledée were convicted in a consolidated trial of bankruptcy-related crimes involving concealment and fraudulent transfers and a money-laundering count.
- Edgardo transferred Málaga #1 to Investments Unlimited (IU) in 2002, with Astrid drafting the deed and acting as IU’s president.
- Edgardo filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy in May 2003; he failed to disclose Málaga #1 or IU in initial filings, and Astrid signed the petitions as his attorney.
- In 2006, using IU funds, Edgardo (with Astrid as IU president) arranged purchases of Laguna Gardens V PHP, El Convento, and Antonsanti, financing through IU and paying with manager’s checks later tied to relatives.
- The trustee uncovered the concealed assets after a 2006-2007 adversary proceeding; a Partial Settlement Agreement in 2007 brought Málaga #1 into the bankruptcy estate, but a subsequent sale of Málaga #1 occurred in January 2007 to Santiago and Lebrón for $1.1 million.
- After a 17-day trial in 2012, Edgardo was convicted on Counts 1–7 and Astrid on all five counts against her; Edgardo was acquitted on Count Eight; sentencing followed with various guidelines-based calculations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there sufficient evidence of a conspiracy between Edgardo and Astrid? | Evidence showed ongoing collaboration and acts aligning with a common goal. | No explicit agreement and limited involvement by Astrid in early transfers. | Yes, sufficient evidence supported conspiracy conviction. |
| Did Counts Three–Five (fraudulent transfers) require proof the transfers used estate funds or post-petition funds to defeat bankruptcy? | Transfers were designed to conceal assets and defeat the Bankruptcy Code, regardless of funding source. | The funds need not be estate assets; the transfers must defeat bankruptcy. | The transfers fit § 152(7); judgments of acquittal not warranted. |
| Was there sufficient evidence of money laundering (Count Seven) separate from concealment? | Proceeds from the sham Málaga #1 sale were laundered via eight cashier’s checks to relatives. | Evidence insufficient or improper to support money-laundering elements. | Yes, sufficient evidence supported money-laundering conviction. |
| Was Astrid’s Rule 404(b) evidence of her 2000 bankruptcy admissible? | Shows knowledge, intent, and lack of mistake or accident. | Prejudicial risk outweighed probative value. | Admissible; probative value outweighed unfair prejudice under 403. |
| Was the 16-level loss enhancement properly applied in calculating intended loss for both appellants? | Combined value of concealed properties justified the enhancement. | Disputed valuation and treatment of post-petition funds; overstatement of loss. | Yes, loss calculation supported the 16-level enhancement. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Pesaturo, 476 F.3d 60 (1st Cir. 2007) (conspiracy may be shown by direct or circumstantial evidence)
- United States v. Rodríguez-Adorno, 695 F.3d 32 (1st Cir. 2012) (knowledge and intent may be inferred from acts furthering conspiracy)
- United States v. Liriano, 761 F.3d 131 (1st Cir. 2014) (conspiracy may be proven by tacit agreement and conduct)
- United States v. Innarelli, 524 F.3d 286 (1st Cir. 2008) (definition of intended loss for guideline calculations)
- United States v. Appolon, 695 F.3d 44 (1st Cir. 2012) (application of 2B1.1 loss enhancements; de novo review of loss method)
- United States v. Doe, 741 F.3d 217 (1st Cir. 2013) (special relevance and Rule 404(b) balancing framework)
- United States v. Hall, 434 F.3d 42 (1st Cir. 2006) (evidence of interstate commerce in money-laundering cases)