United States v. Gary Gillion
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 26568
4th Cir.2012Background
- Gillion became southeastern regional manager of CitiCapital, a CitiGroup trailer-leasing subsidiary, based in Columbia, SC, with duties over regional profits, contracts, and policy compliance.
- DalCanton, CitiCapital vice president, testified about a scheme with Gillion involving Capital City to defraud CitiCapital.
- Gillion formed Capital City in late 2003 and engaged in three fraud methods: inflated trailer sales, secret leases, and lease-to-own arrangements.
- Gillion forged a signature on a Capital City bill of sale and used DalCanton to create a cover trail and conceal the scheme.
- A Baker Transportation lease-to-own contract in Oct. 2003 triggered transfers of CitiCapital trailers to Capital City and subsequent payments to Gillion.
- An eight-count indictment (later superseded) charged conspiracy to commit mail fraud and multiple counts of mail fraud; Gillion was convicted on four substantive mail-fraud counts and one conspiracy count.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether proffer statements were admissible after indictment | Gillion argues the proffer agreement terminated upon indictment | Gillion contends the agreement should have lapsed; statements inadmissible | Admissible; agreement construed as continuing breach-based contract |
| Sufficiency of evidence on CitiCapital property interest | CitiCapital had a right to lease-to-own proceeds from Baker contract | Gillion’s concealment destroyed CitiCapital’s interest | Sufficient evidence to show CitiCapital had a property interest in lease payments |
| Sufficiency of evidence of material false pretenses | Gillion used concealment and misrepresentations to obtain profits | No adequate misrepresentations by Gillion to defraud CitiCapital | Sufficient evidence of material false pretenses and concealment under mail-fraud standards |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Cloud, 680 F.3d 396 (4th Cir. 2012) (evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion; issues on breach reviewed de novo as a contract-like proffer agreement)
- Lopez v. United States, 219 F.3d 343 (4th Cir. 2000) (interpretation of proffer agreements; contracts-like analysis)
- United States v. Liranzo, 944 F.2d 73 (2d Cir. 1991) (proffer agreements interpreted as contracts)
- United States v. Chiu, 109 F.3d 624 (9th Cir. 1997) (contract-like interpretation of proffer agreements)
- Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court 1999) (materiality of falsehood in mail fraud)
- Gray v. United States, 405 F.3d 227 (4th Cir. 2005) (property rights broadened; includes intangible rights in mail fraud context)
- Pereira v. United States, 347 U.S. 1 (Supreme Court 1954) (mail fraud scope; mailing need not be central to scheme)
- Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705 (Supreme Court 1989) (mail fraud: mailings need be a step in the scheme)
- Blecker v. United States, 657 F.2d 629 (4th Cir. 1981) (mailings that relate to acceptance of proceeds can support conviction)
- United States v. Edwards, 188 F.3d 230 (4th Cir. 1999) (elements of conspiracy to commit mail fraud)
- United States v. Johnson, 400 F.3d 187 (4th Cir. 2005) (confession as evidence is weighed with other corroborating proof)