United States v. Sachakov
812 F. Supp. 2d 198
E.D.N.Y2011Background
- Sachakov is charged with health care fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1347 and health care false statements under 18 U.S.C. § 1035 in a three-indictment posture, with a superseding indictment issued July 27, 2011.
- Indictment timeline: initial arrest Sept. 22, 2010, initial indictment Feb. 16, 2011, and a superseding six-count indictment July 27, 2011; arraignments followed, and a November 2011 trial date was set.
- The Speedy Trial Act clock ran from indictment/arraignment; several exclusions were granted, but exclusion at March 3, 2011 and June 27, 2011 status conferences was not requested by the government.
- The government inadvertently failed to seek exclusionary time for certain periods, leading the court to dismiss Count One (health care fraud) without prejudice.
- Counts Two through Six (health care false statements) were upheld; they do not inherit the original clock and are not dismissed, given Blockburger-style analysis and double jeopardy considerations.
- Remaining rulings: statutes not vague, not unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, and defendant not entitled to a bill of particulars.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Count One was dismissed with prejudice under the Speedy Trial Act | Sachakov maintains Count One should be dismissed with prejudice due to unexcluded time. | Sachakov argues the government’s failure to request exclusions is a Speedy Trial Act violation warranting prejudice. | Count One dismissed without prejudice. |
| Whether the superseding indictment constitutes a government motion to dismiss | Defendant contends the superseding indictment functions as a motion to dismiss the original indictment with prejudice. | Government position not to treat as a dismissal motion; discretion to fashion remedies applies. | Superseding indictment not treated as a government motion to dismiss; dismissals at court discretion. |
| Whether the speedy trial clock ran for the health care fraud and health care false statements charges | Original clock ran out on health care fraud; false statements are not bound by that clock. | N/A (defense focuses on the misapplication of the clock). | Health care fraud clock inherited the original clock and was expired; health care false statements did not inherit the clock. |
| Whether the health care fraud charge and the false statements charges are constitutionally vague or violate the Commerce Clause | § 1347 may be vague and fail to reference interstate commerce. | Statute is vague or unconstitutional under Commerce Clause challenges. | Statute not vague; it satisfies Commerce Clause requirements. |
| Whether defendant is entitled to a bill of particulars | Request for detailed lists and patient information is necessary. | Not necessary where indictment tracks the statute and provides sufficient notice. | Bill of particulars denied; indictment and provided materials suffice. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Gambino, 59 F.3d 353 (2d Cir. 1995) (if original clock runs, superseding count inherits clock and exclusions)
- United States v. Roman, 822 F.2d 261 (2d Cir. 1987) (superseding indictments can inherit original clock and exclusions)
- Taylor v. United States, 487 U.S. 326 (1988) (dismissal with/without prejudice at district court discretion; not a fixed remedy)
- Zedner v. United States, 547 U.S. 489 (2006) (best practice is explicit ends-of-justice findings when granting continuances)
- United States v. Stayton, 791 F.2d 17 (2d Cir. 1986) (Speedy Trial Act goals include efficient administration of justice)