United States v. Felix Daniel
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 7016
| 7th Cir. | 2014Background
- Daniel was convicted by a jury of one count wire fraud and three counts mail fraud arising from his role in Rymtech, a mortgage-reduction program.
- Rymtech recruited homeowners to transfer property to straw buyers and used fraudulent loan applications to obtain financing.
- Homeowners were told properties would be placed in a trust and would eventually regain title, which was not feasible given Rymtech’s finances.
- Daniel directed loan officers to prepare fraudulent applications and supported the program’s false assurances through letters and communications to homeowners.
- A jury heard evidence that Daniel was deeply involved in recruitment, management, and misrepresentations about Rymtech’s investment strategy.
- At trial, Daniel objected to a specific unanimity instruction; the district court refused, and he was convicted on all counts, prompting post-trial motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unanimity instruction required? | Daniel: specific unanimity instruction required under Pattern 4.04. | Daniel: unanimity was not necessary for a specific fraudulent act; scheme unanimity suffices. | No specific unanimity instruction required; instructions properly stated law. |
| Sufficiency of evidence | Daniel: insufficient intent and personal participation; Ross credibility undermines case. | Daniel: ample evidence of intent and involvement; letters and emails show deceit. | Evidence sufficient to support convictions; both mail and wire fraud proven by either direct or circumstantial proof. |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. United States, 526 U.S. 813 (U.S. 1999) (juror unanimity not required for all underlying brute facts)
- United States v. Sheneman, 682 F.3d 623 (7th Cir. 2012) (elements of wire fraud require intent, scheme, and use of wires)
- United States v. Seidling, 737 F.3d 1155 (7th Cir. 2013) (same elements for mail fraud as wire fraud, with mail usage required)
- United States v. LaPlante, 714 F.3d 641 (1st Cir. 2013) (unanimity may be required for means; underlying facts can be varied)
- United States v. Rice, 699 F.3d 1043 (8th Cir. 2012) (unanimity on a particular means may not be required)
- United States v. Lyons, 472 F.3d 1055 (9th Cir. 2007) (in scheme to defraud, not all jurors must agree on the same false promise)
- United States v. Briscoe, 65 F.3d 576 (7th Cir. 1995) (mail system foreseeability of mailing in furtherance of the scheme)
- United States v. Dickerson, 705 F.3d 683 (7th Cir. 2013) (standard for reviewing jury instructions)