441 F. App'x 798
2d Cir.2011Background
- Ohle and Bradley were convicted after a jury trial of conspiracy to defraud the IRS, and Ohle was also convicted of two counts of attempted tax evasion.
- The charged conspiracy encompassed a multi-phase scheme: embezzling from the Ames trust, diverting fees from Bank One, and hiding proceeds from tax authorities.
- Evidence included referral fees and wire transfers involving Ames, Carpe Diem, and Bermuda, with payments traced to Ohle and associates.
- Ohle argued insufficiency of evidence for conspiracy and for the tax evasion charges, and challenged venue as improper for several counts.
- Bradley challenged his guidelines calculations and sentence as procedurally unreasonable, and both defendants challenged the district court’s forfeiture orders and asserted a Brady-related new-trial claim.
- The district court denied these post-trial challenges, and the Second Circuit affirmed all judgments of conviction and related orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of conspiracy evidence | Ohle/Bradley contend evidence fails to show one overarching conspiracy. | Ohle/Bradley argue lack of single-plot nexus and misalignment of acts. | Sufficient evidence supported a single interdependent conspiracy. |
| Sufficiency of tax evasion evidence | Gov't showed intent to defraud taxes via shelters and misstatements. | Ohle argues lack of fair notice for 1256 shelter evasion. | Evidence supported willful tax evasion and the evasion theory arguments were unnecessary to delineate precisely. |
| Venue for conspiracy and tax evasion counts | Venue proper where overt acts occurred or/contemplated by conspirators. | Defendants challenge pre-conspiracy acts as irrelevant to venue. | Venue proper in SDNY for conspiracy and tax evasion counts based on acts and foreseeability. |
| Forfeiture orders | Bradley challenges the scope of forfeiture. | Ohle challenges proportionality of forfeiture. | District court’s factual findings upheld; forfeitures affirmed. |
| Brady claims and new trial | Gov't suppressed Brady material requiring new trial. | No reasonable probability of different outcome from delayed disclosure. | Brady claim meritless; no remand necessary. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Abu-Jihaad, 630 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2010) (standard for reviewing sufficiency with deference to verdict)
- United States v. Hassan, 578 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2008) (exceedingly deferential standard of review for sufficiency)
- United States v. McDermott, 245 F.3d 133 (2d Cir. 2001) (conspiracy schematics and multiple acts can form single conspiracy)
- United States v. Sureff, 15 F.3d 225 (2d Cir. 1994) (multi-factor analysis of conspiracy elements)
- United States v. Uddin, 551 F.3d 176 (2d Cir. 2009) (forfeiture derivation of proceeds through others allowed)
- United States v. Rommy, 506 F.3d 108 (2d Cir. 2007) (venue for conspiracy based on overt acts in district)
- United States v. Svoboda, 347 F.3d 471 (2d Cir. 2003) (venue principles for conspiracies and communications into district)
- Spies v. United States, 317 U.S. 492 (1943) (conduct likely to mislead or conceal can be an evasion act)
- Drachenberg, 623 F.3d 122 (2d Cir. 2010) (venue and evasion analysis for tax offenses)
- United States v. Gross, 276 F.2d 816 (2d Cir. 1960) (treater of misdirection as evasion activity in venue)