United States v. Roger Andrews
803 F.3d 823
| 6th Cir. | 2015Background
- Roger Lee Andrews solicited roughly $2 million in loans from friends and colleagues between 2006 and 2008, claiming funds would buy or improve property (usually in Indianapolis) and be repaid with interest.
- In reality Andrews never owned or improved the Indianapolis properties; he used most funds to day-trade through a TD Ameritrade account and lost most of the money.
- Andrews sometimes repaid early loans but increasingly failed to repay, repeatedly assuring lenders the Indianapolis transactions were pending to assuage concerns.
- Victims lost over $1.4 million; a grand jury indicted Andrews for one count of wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, a jury convicted him, and the district court sentenced him to 87 months and ordered restitution.
- On appeal Andrews challenged (1) whether all loans formed a single “scheme to defraud,” and (2) whether prosecution was time-barred by the five-year statute of limitations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the multiple loan solicitations constituted a single "scheme to defraud" under § 1343 | Government: common false pretenses, victims, and use of funds show one continuing scheme | Andrews: each loan was a separate scheme ending upon receipt of funds | Court: Affirmed single scheme; common statement, victims, and use of funds supported one course of fraudulent conduct |
| Whether the indictment was barred by the five-year statute of limitations | Government: last fraudulent loan was within five years and jury could find at least one post-cutoff wire; lulling statements extended scheme | Andrews: prosecution of loans before Sept 2008 is time-barred because each loan concluded the scheme when funds received | Court: Affirmed indictment timely; last loan occurred within five years and continued assurances/lulling effects kept the scheme ongoing |
| Whether the conduct was more like Anderson (receipt ends scheme) so transfers/exposure after receipt are irrelevant | Government: Andrews invested funds in trading account, creating continued risk and ongoing deception | Andrews: argued receipt completed fraud similar to Anderson | Court: Distinguished Anderson—investing and continued misrepresentations made the conduct part of ongoing scheme |
| Duplicity/statute-of-limitations challenge preserved | Government: defendant did not timely raise duplicity; primary claim was limitations | Andrews: brief ambiguous but did not preserve duplicity challenge below | Court: No preserved duplicity claim; addressed limitations only and rejected it |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Daniel, 329 F.3d 480 (6th Cir. 2003) (defines "scheme to defraud" and addresses limitations in fraud prosecution)
- United States v. Cunningham, 679 F.3d 355 (6th Cir. 2012) (scheme duration is a jury question)
- United States v. Kennedy, 714 F.3d 951 (6th Cir. 2013) (common acts supporting a common fraudulent design can form a single scheme)
- United States v. Fishman, 645 F.3d 1175 (10th Cir. 2011) (series of fraudulent transactions over years can constitute one long-running scheme)
- United States v. Nixon, 694 F.3d 623 (6th Cir. 2012) (multiple fraudulent acts may be charged separately but can also be one scheme)
- United States v. Stafford, 639 F.3d 270 (6th Cir. 2011) (upholding multiple-count convictions from a prolonged fraudulent enterprise)
- United States v. Faulkenberry, 614 F.3d 573 (6th Cir. 2010) (post-fraud assurances may have a "lulling effect" and form part of continuing scheme)
- United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438 (1986) (continuing misrepresentations can extend the timeframe of a fraudulent scheme)
- United States v. Anderson, 188 F.3d 886 (7th Cir. 1999) (holding receipt of funds completed scheme in its facts; distinguished here)