United States v. Michael Bikundi, Sr.
926 F.3d 761
| D.C. Cir. | 2019Background
- Florence and Michael Bikundi ran Global Healthcare, a D.C. home‑care provider that received ~$80.6M in D.C. Medicaid payments from 2009–2014. Alleged scheme involved falsified employee credentials, patient records, timesheets, and payments to beneficiaries to sign false timesheets.
- Florence had a prior nursing‑license revocation and was listed on HHS’s exclusion list; she used variant names on provider forms.
- Government evidence included testimony of multiple former employees, bank records showing rapid transfers among 100+ accounts and into sham entities (CFC, Tri‑Continental), and a DHCF report (Exhibit 439) produced mid‑trial.
- Indictment charged health‑care fraud, conspiracy to commit health‑care fraud, money laundering, and money‑laundering conspiracy; jury convicted both defendants on most counts and acquitted on three monetary‑transaction counts.
- District court sentenced Florence (120 months) and Michael (84 months), ordered joint-and‑several restitution (~$80.6M) and roughly $40M forfeitures each; appeals contested speedy‑trial and Sixth Amendment claims, severance, admission of Exhibit 439, sufficiency of evidence, jury instructions, and sentencing issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Speedy‑trial (Statutory & Sixth Amendment) | Florence: district court failed to make adequate "ends‑of‑justice" findings; 18‑month delay violated Act and Sixth Amendment | Government: complexity and voluminous discovery justified exclusions; defendant consented to many continuances and delayed asserting rights | Court affirmed: findings were sufficient given complexity/discovery; Barker factors weigh for government; no violation |
| Severance (Rule 14) | Michael: prejudice from evidence disparity (Florence’s exclusion) and marital association warranted separate trial | Government: abundant independent evidence of Michael’s culpability; jury instructions limited prejudice | Denied: no abuse of discretion; limiting instructions and separate verdict form sufficient |
| Late disclosure/admission of Exhibit 439 (Rule 16) | Defendants: government sandbagged with late DHCF report quantifying beneficiaries without services; prejudicial | Government: disclosed when report came into its possession; district court had discretion to admit and offer limited relief | Affirmed: even assuming Rule 16 violation, district court did not abuse discretion; cross‑examination reduced prejudice and defendants declined continuance/mistrial |
| Sufficiency of evidence (money laundering & fraud) | Defendants: transactions were transparent intercompany transfers; services may have been legitimate; no specific intent to conceal or to defraud | Government: sham entities, convoluted transfers, cashier’s checks, altered records, employee testimony show intent to conceal and to defraud; Florence’s handwritten URL supports knowledge of exclusion | Affirmed: evidence viewed in light most favorable to government supported convictions for money laundering, health‑care fraud, and conspiracies |
| Jury instructions (unanimity; aiding and abetting) | Defendants: court should have sua sponte given special unanimity instruction and avoid aiding‑and‑abetting charge | Government: no precedent requires sua sponte unanimity instruction; evidence supported aiding/abetting alternative | No plain error: failure to give special unanimity instruction not plain error in this circuit; aiding‑and‑abetting instruction supported and harmless if error |
| Sentencing: restitution, forfeiture, guidelines enhancements | Defendants: restitution/forfeiture too large (includes legitimate services), Honeycutt and Eighth Amendment/Economic inability arguments; challenges to loss, abuse‑of‑trust, managerial, and administrative‑order enhancements | Government: pervasive fraud made isolating legitimate services impossible; statutory forfeiture language covers gross proceeds and property "involved in" laundering; guidelines special rule and credit rule applied; positions of trust and managerial role supported by record | Affirmed: restitution and forfeiture proper given pervasive fraud; enhancements supported by facts; Eighth Amendment challenge fails (not grossly disproportional), Honeycutt not violated because court apportioned forfeiture equally |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489 (2006) (Speedy Trial Act findings requirement)
- Barker v. Wingo, 407 U.S. 514 (1972) (Sixth Amendment speedy‑trial balancing test)
- Doggett v. United States, 505 U.S. 647 (1992) (presumptively prejudicial delay threshold)
- Zafiro v. United States, 506 U.S. 534 (1993) (Rule 14 severance standard)
- United States v. Adefehinti, 510 F.3d 319 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (money‑laundering intent and ‘‘transparent’’ transactions discussion)
- United States v. Rice, 746 F.3d 1074 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (ends‑of‑justice continuance findings)
- United States v. Lopesierra‑Gutierrez, 708 F.3d 193 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (Speedy Trial Act review)
- Honeycutt v. United States, 137 S. Ct. 1626 (2017) (limits on joint forfeiture liability)