United States v. Jimenez, 96 F.4th 317

Ariel Jimenez, owner of a Bronx tax preparation business, was convicted after a jury trial of conspiracy to defraud the United States (tax-return claims), conspiracy to commit wire fraud, aggravated identity theft, and money laundering.
The government showed that, between 2009 and 2015, Jimenez led a scheme that used stolen children's identities, selling them for false-dependent tax claims to generate fraudulent tax refunds.
Jimenez's co-conspirators included employees and his ex-wife, who managed operations; witnesses included insiders and victims, along with corroborating documentation of stolen identities and fraudulent returns.
The original indictment was filed December 12, 2018, with a superseding indictment following in 2021; the statute of limitations was a central factual and legal dispute.
At trial, Jimenez argued he withdrew from the conspiracy more than five years prior to indictment, seeking acquittal based on limitations; he also disputed the jury instructions on conspiracy withdrawal.
The district court denied Jimenez's motions for acquittal and for a new trial; Jimenez was sentenced to 144 months, ordered to forfeit $14 million, three properties, and pay $44 million restitution. He appealed on the jury instruction and evidentiary sufficiency grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the jury instruction on conspiracy withdrawal a misstatement of law?	Jimenez: Instruction should use "and," not "nor"; argued it misstated law and heightened burden.	Government: "Nor" is legally equivalent to "and" or "or" in this context; instruction tracked Second Circuit precedent.	Court found instruction proper; no legal error.
Was the evidence insufficient to establish conspiracy?	Jimenez: No agreement shown; key witnesses not credible; evidence circumstantial.	Government: Substantial direct and circumstantial evidence, including insider testimony, documents, and corroboration.	Court held evidence was more than sufficient.
Did Jimenez prove withdrawal from the conspiracy before the limitations period?	Jimenez: Evidence showed he ordered end of scheme and burned lists before December 2013.	Government: Scheme and benefits continued after 2013; proceeds used well within 5-year period.	Court found no withdrawal; sufficient evidence of continuing participation/benefit.
Was denial of Rule 29 motion for acquittal error?	Jimenez: See prior arguments (withdrawal and insufficiency).	Government: No error; jury properly credited evidence.	Court affirmed denial of acquittal.

United States v. Berger, 224 F.3d 107 (2d Cir. 2000) (sets the standard for effective withdrawal from a conspiracy: defendant must not promote the conspiracy nor benefit from it)
United States v. Eppolito, 543 F.3d 25 (2d Cir. 2008) (restates and applies rule on conspiracy withdrawal standard)
United States v. Applins, 637 F.3d 59 (2d Cir. 2011) (sets standard for review of jury instructions; reversible only if prejudicial)
United States v. Babilonia, 854 F.3d 163 (2d Cir. 2017) (articulates standard for sufficiency of evidence; deferential to jury)
United States v. Landesman, 17 F.4th 298 (2d Cir. 2021) (emphasizes deference to jury on witness credibility and weight of evidence, especially in conspiracy cases)