98 F.4th 1119
D.C. Cir.2024Background
- In 2016, Jesse Benton received $100,000 from Russian national Roman Vasilenko, which he used, in part, to purchase fundraising tickets to a Trump event in Benton’s name but on Vasilenko’s behalf.
- The funds were falsely reported as Benton's personal contributions; Vasilenko attended the event and was photographed with Trump.
- Benton was convicted on six felony counts: conspiracy, soliciting a foreign national contribution, acting as a conduit for a contribution, and causing false records (three counts under Sarbanes-Oxley §1519).
- Benton appealed, challenging the use of Sarbanes-Oxley for campaign finance crimes, admissibility and use of a previously pardoned conviction, evidentiary sufficiency, and aspects of the jury charge.
- The D.C. Circuit affirmed the lower court’s judgment on all issues considered.
Issues
| Issue | Benton's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Use of Sarbanes-Oxley §1519 for campaign finance filings | Only FECA, the specific statute, should govern false campaign finance filings, not general Sarbanes-Oxley provisions | No expressed Congressional intent to displace §1519; discretion to charge under either/both statutes is permissible | Government may prosecute under either FECA or §1519 as Congress did not foreclose §1519’s use |
| Admissibility of pardoned prior conviction under Rule 404(b) | The pardon should bar use of the conviction as evidence of "bad acts" | Pardon does not erase underlying conduct or bar its use for intent/willfulness under Rule 404(b) | Admissible; pardon does not affect Rule 404(b) analysis when not based on innocence |
| Use of pardoned conviction at sentencing | The conviction should not be counted in criminal history due to the pardon | Conviction not shown to be based on innocence; Benton waived further objection at sentencing | Declined to review (invited error by accepting calculation at sentencing) |
| Adequacy of jury instructions and sufficiency of evidence on “contribution” element | Instructions did not require finding that foreign national intended to influence election; evidence insufficient as to that intent | Instructions aligned with statutory language; sufficiency challenge improper under prevailing law | Declined to review (invited error); Gov’t not required to prove specific intent under circuit law |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (FECA’s comprehensive regulatory scheme for political contributions)
- United States v. Batchelder, 442 U.S. 114 (government discretion in charging overlapping criminal statutes)
- Busic v. United States, 446 U.S. 398 (general-specific canon in statutory construction)
- Simpson v. United States, 435 U.S. 6 (specific statute prevails over general in sentencing when both apply)
- Yates v. United States, 574 U.S. 528 (Sarbanes-Oxley §1519 is broadly applicable)
- United States v. Kim, 65 F.3d 123 (no requirement for primary purpose under FECA “contribution” definition)