United States v. Randal Kent Hansen
791 F.3d 863
8th Cir.2015Background
- Hansen, a South Dakota farmer with hedge fund experience, became RAHFCO’s general partner and controlled investments while sub-advisors executed trades.
- RAHFCO presented a conservative investing narrative and claimed regular audits and withdrawal solvency to attract investors.
- Hansen and partners issued a private placement memorandum and investor communications that overstated safety and liquidity; audits were not conducted as promised.
- Investors received quarterly earnings statements with inflated performance figures prepared by Hansen using others’ numbers; these statements bore false attributions to an accounting firm.
- Audits began but were halted when Spicer Jeffries could not confirm holdings; Sadis & Goldberg withdrew, yet Hansen did not notify investors or pursue new audits.
- By 2011, RAHFCO collapsed, revealing that funds were diverted, withdrawals exceeded investments, and the scheme resembled a Ponzi structure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of intent to defraud for fraud charges | Hansen lacked intent or knowledge of fraud | Evidence shows no intent; relied on others | Sufficient evidence supported intent or willful blindness |
| Validity of willful blindness jury instruction | Instruction appropriately invoked willful blindness | Evidence insufficient for willful blindness | Instruction supported by evidence; no error |
| Conspiracy instruction and plain-error review | Instruction misled by suggesting no need to know unlawfulness | Instruction consistent with model jury instructions | No plain error; instructions adequately informed jury |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Parker, 364 F.3d 934 (8th Cir. 2004) (requires intent or knowledge for mail fraud/conspiracy)
- United States v. McKanry, 628 F.3d 1010 (8th Cir. 2011) (circumstantial proof of intent permitted)
- United States v. Foster, 740 F.3d 1202 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard for reviewing judgment of acquittal)
- United States v. Ervasti, 201 F.3d 1029 (8th Cir. 2000) (circumstantial evidence may show intent to defraud)
- United States v. Chavez-Alvarez, 594 F.3d 1062 (8th Cir. 2010) (willful blindness framework; awareness and deliberate avoidance)
- United States v. Sigillito, 759 F.3d 913 (8th Cir. 2014) (willful blindness requires awareness and deliberate avoidance)
- Global-Tech Appliance, Inc. v. SEB S.A., 563 U.S. 2060 (2011) (two-pronged test for willful blindness)
- United States v. Hiland, 909 F.2d 1114 (8th Cir. 1990) (willful blindness sufficient when warned but not acted on)
- United States v. Dockter, 58 F.3d 1284 (8th Cir. 1995) (model jury instructions as accurate statements of law)