United States v. Naranjo
634 F.3d 1198
| 11th Cir. | 2011Background
- Naranjo operated a multi-year capital investment scheme tied to The Loan Shoppe and MRNA Financial, Inc. that later proved to be a Ponzi scheme causing over 100 victims to lose about $2.7 million combined.
- Investors funded the schemes via wired funds to the MRNA or The Loan Shoppe accounts; MRNA dissolved before investments but continued to receive deposits.
- Naranjo controlled the related accounts, used checks, and directed transfers while omitting his name from corporate records and licenses, signaling concealment of involvement.
- The government presented evidence of three large cash withdrawals from the fraud proceeds and Naranjo’s efforts to hide his association with the accounts.
- Trial included summary financial charts and bank records; Jencks/Brady issues and summary-evidence objections were litigated but not resolved in Naranjo’s favor on appeal.
- Sentencing relied on estimates of the number of victims and total losses, with enhancements for role and loss that were challenged but upheld on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of fraud intent evidence | Naranjo lacked intent to defraud | Record fails to prove intent to defraud | Sufficient intent proven; convictions affirmed |
| Concealment money laundering sufficiency | Three cash withdrawals show concealment of funds | Transactions not purposefully concealed | Sufficient evidence of purposeful concealment; convictions affirmed |
| Jencks Act/Brady violations | Prosecution possessed favorable material | Violations occurred, need new trial | No abuse of discretion; no possession of report; Brady/Jencks not violated |
| Admissibility of summary charts | Charts based on business records prejudicial | Cross-examination could challenge accuracy | Summary charts admissible; not a due process violation; cross-examination available |
| Sentencing based on victim/loss estimates | Estimates were reasonable for loss | Estimates were improper | Within guidelines; sentence reasonable; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Majors, 196 F.3d 1206 (11th Cir. 1999) (requirements for purposeful concealment evidence)
- United States v. Miles, 290 F.3d 1341 (11th Cir. 2002) (evidence that proceeds deposited into third-party accounts may support concealment)
- United States v. Thayer, 204 F.3d 1352 (11th Cir. 2000) (reaffirming concealment-money-laundering theories)
- United States v. Garcia-Emanuel, 14 F.3d 1469 (10th Cir. 1994) (financial-dealings through third-party accounts can support concealment)
- United States v. Blankenship, 382 F.3d 1110 (11th Cir. 2004) (signing checks from third-party accounts; concealment analysis)
- United States v. Dvorak, 617 F.3d 1017 (8th Cir. 2010) (cash withdrawals as evidence facilitating concealment)
- United States v. Richardson, 233 F.3d 1285 (11th Cir. 2000) (use of summary charts with proper limiting instructions)