1:24-cr-00140
S.D.N.Y.May 7, 2025Background
- Jonathan Moynahan Larmore was convicted by a jury in October 2024 on charges of securities fraud and fraud in connection with a tender offer, related to a scheme involving fraudulent announcements about a tender offer for WeWork stock.
- Larmore used a shell company, Cole Capital, to falsely announce a tender offer for WeWork, aiming to inflate the stock price and profit from options and shares he controlled.
- In March 2025, he was sentenced to 60 months in prison and three years of supervised release.
- Larmore appealed his conviction and sentence, and moved for bail pending appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3143(b).
- The motion for bail was made prior to his May 2025 surrender date and was opposed by the Government.
Issues
| Issue | Larmore's Argument | Government's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of Evidence | Evidence at trial equally consistent with innocence | Evidence overwhelmingly supports the verdict | Evidence sufficient; no substantial appellate question |
| Evidentiary Rulings (in limine) | Rulings improperly admitted prejudicial evidence | Court properly applied Rules; limiting instructions used | Rulings well within discretion; deferential review |
| Attorney-Client Privilege Waiver | Error to allow testimony of Larmore's attorneys | Larmore waived privilege by introducing communications | Waiver correct; evidence was probative, not prejudicial |
| Standard for Bail Pending Appeal | Appeals issues are substantial | No substantial questions of law or fact raised | No basis for bail under § 3143(b) |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Randell, 761 F.2d 122 (2d Cir. 1985) (defines standards for bail pending appeal, including 'substantial question' requirement)
- United States v. Abuhamra, 389 F.3d 309 (2d Cir. 2004) (presumption in favor of detention under § 3143)
- United States v. Glenn, 312 F.3d 58 (2d Cir. 2002) (sufficiency of evidence; jury role in weighing competing inferences)
- United States v. McPherson, 424 F.3d 183 (2d Cir. 2005) (court's deference to jury verdict in evidentiary sufficiency assessments)
- United States v. Coplan, 703 F.3d 46 (2d Cir. 2012) (jury determinations, deference to Government's view of evidence)
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for upholding jury verdicts based on sufficiency of the evidence)