United States v. Richard William Peterson
689 F.3d 1260
| 11th Cir. | 2012Background
- Indictment dated January 17, 2006 charged ten defendants with Count I conspiracy to commit mail, wire, and insurance fraud and Count II money-laundering conspiracy.
- Pre-trial motions by Broughton (and others) challenged timeliness of the indictment; district court denied them.
- Trial featured an IRS undercover operation (1996–1999) targeting insurance fraud and the use of rented assets to capitalize insurance entities.
- Evidence tied Appellants to offshore and domestic entities (Zapetis, Carazo, Solomon, Connally, Clancy) and to schemes involving Gatun CDs, Star Insurance, Cap Treis, and Premier, among others.
- Appellants claimed the statute of limitations was misapplied and challenged the sufficiency of evidence for both counts.
- Court affirmed convictions, holding § 3292 suspension proper and the indictment timely; and evidence sufficient to support both Count I and Count II.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was § 3292 suspension proper? | Broughton: § 3292 suspension improper; no valid foreign evidence basis. | Broughton: suspension lacks evidentiary support and timing. | Yes; § 3292 suspension proper. |
| Is the indictment timely under the applicable statute of limitations? | Broughton: five-year limit governs; conspiracy completed earlier. | Court: conspiracy continued through March 2001; timely under tolling. | Timely under § 3292-tolled period. |
| Was there sufficient evidence to convict on Count I (conspiracy to commit mail, wire, and insurance fraud)? | Broughton: insufficient proof of conspiracy, assets, capitalization, and reliance. | Broughton: evidence shows knowledge and participation; credibility issues resolved by jury. | Sufficient evidence supports conviction. |
| Was there sufficient evidence to convict on Count II (money-laundering conspiracy)? | Broughton: payments not tied to illicit proceeds or crime; minimal evidence. | Broughton: ample circumstantial evidence of intent and participation; Connally’s actions corroborate. | Sufficient evidence supports conviction. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Trainor, 376 F.3d 1325 (11th Cir. 2004) (guides statutory interpretation of § 3292 suspension)
- United States v. Robison, 505 F.3d 1208 (11th Cir. 2007) (abuse-of-discretion review on dismissal; de novo on legal errors)
- United States v. Lyttle, 667 F.3d 220 (2d Cir. 2012) (§ 3292 does not require pivotal foreign evidence; facilitates investigation)
- United States v. Hasson, 333 F.3d 1264 (11th Cir. 2003) (elements of conspiracy and interdependence with wire fraud)
- United States v. Evans, 473 F.3d 1115 (11th Cir. 2006) (lulling doctrine; continuation of fraud can extend conspiracy)