United States v. Rutigliano, Lesniewski, Baran
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 10443
| 2d Cir. | 2015Background
- Three defendants (Rutigliano, a former LIRR conductor and union official; Lesniewski, an orthopedist; Baran, a former RRB employee) were tried and convicted in S.D.N.Y. for a long-running scheme to obtain fraudulent Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) disability annuities by preparing false applications, medical narratives, and related paperwork.
- The scheme involved facilitators (Rutigliano, Baran) who filled out applications and advised applicants, and a "go-to" doctor (Lesniewski) who produced false medical narratives; payments were received by wire and periodic re-certification forms were mailed to the RRB in the Southern District of New York.
- Defendants were convicted of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, wire fraud, and health care fraud, substantive counts of those offenses, and a false-statement count; sentences ranged up to 96 months.
- On appeal, defendants raised multiple challenges, principal among them: whether venue in S.D.N.Y. was proper (and whether it was "manufactured"), whether the statute of limitations barred some counts (overt-act issue), and whether certain jury instructions (conspiracy and definition of "occupational disability") were erroneous.
- The Second Circuit affirmed: it held the offenses (mail fraud, wire fraud, and health-care-fraud schemes) were continuing offenses with overt acts implicating S.D.N.Y.; rejected manufactured-venue and "substantial contacts" challenges under the circumstances; rejected Rutigliano’s Grimm-based limitations argument; and found the jury instructions proper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Government) | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Venue (proper district for prosecution) | Venue proper because overt acts (mailings, wires, insurance claims, doctor visits) implicated S.D.N.Y. | Venue improper because defendants’ acts lacked sufficient nexus to S.D.N.Y. | Affirmed: continuing-offense doctrine and overt acts (mailings, wires, medical claims) establish venue in S.D.N.Y. |
| Manufactured venue | Government did not manipulate venue unfairly; acts were genuinely in furtherance of the scheme | Venue was manufactured by government initiative (or irrelevant acts) to try case in S.D.N.Y. | Rejected: no plain error; record shows acts (re-certifications, wires) genuinely in furtherance and no unfair prejudice or government forum manipulation shown. |
| Statute of limitations / overt act (Grimm) | Receipt of proceeds and continuing concealment/re-certifications are overt acts within limitations | Rutigliano: passive receipt of payments after scheme completed cannot be an overt act (invoking Grimm exception) | Rejected Grimm exception: ongoing concealment, re-certifications, doctor visits, and payments were part of active conspiracy; overt acts occurred within limitations. |
| Jury instructions (conspiracy & "occupational disability") | Instructions correctly allowed conviction based on circumstantial proof of tacit agreement and correctly defined occupational disability for fraud purposes | Requested narrower language or alternative regulatory definitions; argued instruction could mislead jurors to require incapacitation | Affirmed: instructions were legally correct and not prejudicial when read as a whole; circumstantial proof and tacit-agreement instructions permissible; occupational-disability charge adequate. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Tzolov, 642 F.3d 314 (2d Cir.) (venue analysis looks to nature/location of acts)
- United States v. Kim, 246 F.3d 186 (2d Cir.) (continuing offenses may be prosecuted where offense began, continued, or concluded)
- United States v. Grimm, 738 F.3d 498 (2d Cir.) (narrow exception where prolonged routine payments may not be overt acts)
- United States v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608 (2d Cir.) (receipt of anticipated benefits can constitute an overt act)
- United States v. Vilar, 729 F.3d 62 (2d Cir.) (scheme not complete until proceeds received)
- United States v. Rommy, 506 F.3d 108 (2d Cir.) (defendant need not be physically present for venue to be proper)
- United States v. Lane, 474 U.S. 438 (U.S.) (post-receipt mailings designed to lull victim are in furtherance of fraud)
- United States v. Mennuti, 679 F.2d 1032 (2d Cir.) (conspiracy continues until conspirators receive anticipated economic benefits)