United States v. Harold Persaud, 866 F.3d 371

Persaud, a cardiologist in private practice in Ohio, was indicted in the Northern District of Ohio on 16 counts: one health-care fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1347), fourteen false-statements counts (18 U.S.C. § 1035), and one money-laundering count (18 U.S.C. § 1957); a forfeiture finding sought to forfeit proceeds linked to the charges.
Trial lasted nearly a month (Aug. 31–Sept. 28, 2015) with 39 witnesses; Persaud was convicted on all counts except one false-statement count.
District court imposed 20 years’ imprisonment, a $1,500 special assessment, and restitution exceeding $5.4 million; forfeiture of $343,634.67 and $250,188.42 in assets.
Persaud appealed challenging his conviction, sentence, restitution, and forfeiture orders; the government moved to strike portions of Persaud’s briefs.
This opinion affirms Persaud’s convictions, sentence, restitution, and forfeiture, and dismisses the government’s motion as moot.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain health-care fraud	Persaud argues expert testimony reweighs clinical judgment, not fraud	Government proved ongoing scheme to defraud healthcare programs and profits from it	Sufficient evidence supported fraud conviction
Whether there was sufficient evidence for false statements (50)	Persaud says IVUS/angiogram comparisons were mischaracterized by government	Government’s experts sufficiently showed inflated stenosis statements	Sufficient evidence supported false-statements convictions
Whether there was sufficient evidence for money laundering	Persaud contends no underlying fraud ties to funds	Fraud established; transfer to wife proceeds of that fraud	Sufficient evidence to sustain money-laundering conviction
Whether restitution and forfeiture orders were properly supported and enforceable	Argues insufficiency or miscalculation of damages and proceeds	Evidence supported restitution and forfeiture; challenges waived by default	Restitution and forfeiture affirmed; issues deemed waived/unchallenged in the briefing
Whether the district court’s restitution/forfeiture rulings are reviewable errors	Persaud contends errors in calculation or application of amounts	No reversible error shown; still within appellate discretion	Restitution and forfeiture upheld; government’s motion deemed moot

United States v. Warshak, 631 F.3d 266 (6th Cir. 2010) (standard sufficiency review; credibility of expert testimony for jury)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (U.S. 1979) (reasonable doubt standard for sufficiency of evidence)
United States v. Blakeney, 942 F.2d 1001 (6th Cir. 1991) (reviewer must view record as a whole; cannot reweigh evidence on appeal)
United States v. Hunt, 521 F.3d 636 (6th Cir. 2008) (necessity of proving false statements; mens rea standard)