United States v. Flotron
3:17-cr-00220
D. Conn.Feb 19, 2018Background
- Defendant Andre Flotron, a Swiss citizen and former UBS precious-metals trader, was arrested in the U.S. in Sept. 2017 and released on strict home confinement while proceedings in the District of Connecticut proceeded.
- A one-count indictment (conspiracy to commit wire fraud, commodities fraud, and spoofing) was returned in Sept. 2017; the parties and court agreed to a trial date in Connecticut in April 2018.
- The Government warned it might supersede to add substantive counts but repeatedly assured the court the April trial date would not be jeopardized and that discovery/theory would remain substantially the same.
- On Jan. 30, 2018, the Government returned a seven-count superseding indictment: Count One (long-running conspiracy in District of Connecticut and elsewhere) and Counts Two–Seven (three substantive commodities-fraud counts and three spoofing counts), the latter all alleging transactions occurring in the Northern District of Illinois.
- Flotron moved to dismiss the substantive counts for improper venue and with prejudice, arguing the Government coerced a venue waiver to preserve the April trial; the Government sought dismissal without prejudice of the conspiracy count under Rule 48(a) so it could re-file in Illinois.
- The court found the Government had reneged on its scheduling assurances, dismissed Counts Two–Seven without prejudice, and denied the Government’s Rule 48(a) motion to dismiss Count One.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantive counts (Counts 2–7) must be dismissed where venue lies only in N.D. Ill. | Government: Venue for substantive counts is properly in N.D. Ill.; indictment is permissible though returned in Connecticut grand jury. | Flotron: Charging substantive counts in Connecticut that are venue-defective coerces a waiver and is improper; dismiss with prejudice. | Counts 2–7 dismissed without prejudice (venue-defective but dismissal with prejudice not warranted). |
| Whether court should permit dismissal under Fed. R. Crim. P. 48(a) of conspiracy count so Government can re-file in Illinois | Government: Leave to dismiss Count 1 so it can re-indict in Illinois; judicial economy favors single Illinois prosecution. | Flotron: Dismissal would breach Government’s commitment to speedy trial in Connecticut and prejudices defendant and public interest. | Denied; dismissal would be contrary to manifest public interest and Government acted in bad faith. |
| Standard for denying a Rule 48(a) motion | Government: Denial should require proof of prosecutorial bad faith. | Flotron/Court: Public interest harms and prejudice suffice; bad faith may be relevant but not required. | Court: Manifest public interest is controlling; bad faith not required but found here circumstantially. |
| Whether Government’s late superseding indictment justifies delaying/relocating trial | Government: Needs substantive counts for sentencing and efficiency; can re-file in Illinois. | Flotron: Late venue-defective charges undermine agreed speedy-trial schedule and coerce venue waiver. | Court: Speedy-trial and public interest favor enforcing original Connecticut schedule; Government’s reasons not substantial. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cabrales, 524 U.S. 1 (defendant’s right to trial in state/district where crime occurred)
- United States v. Cessa, 856 F.3d 370 (grand jury indicted outside district; practice is to indict where venue lies)
- Rinaldi v. United States, 434 U.S. 22 (Rule 48(a) leave-of-court protects defendants from prosecutorial harassment)
- United States v. HSBC Bank USA, N.A., 863 F.3d 125 (discussing court’s role under Rule 48(a) and public-interest inquiry)
- United States v. Pimentel, 932 F.2d 1029 (dictum on limits to denying Rule 48(a) motions)
- Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489 (Speedy Trial Act recognizes public as having an interest in a speedy trial)
- United States v. Crutch, 461 F.2d 1200 (2d Cir. reversal where defendant claimed no prejudice from delay/dismissal)
- United States v. Ammidown, 497 F.2d 615 (courts require substantial reasons for dismissal in public interest under Rule 48(a))