United States v. Salem, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 18682

Salem pled guilty to one count of wire fraud and Ganescu pled guilty to multiple counts of wire fraud and two counts of receipt of stolen funds in an internet fraud scheme.
The scheme involved foreign co-schemers, often based in Romania, who advertised goods online; victims wired money via Western Union and received no goods.
Chicago-area defendants, including Salem and Ganescu, recruited and coordinated with local co-schemers to collect payments and forwarded a portion to Romania.
The district court on remand made joint undertaking findings under U.S.S.G. § 1B1.3(a)(1)(B) and sentenced Salem to 97 months and Ganescu to 78 months, the same as the original sentences.
Salem and Ganescu argued the district court erred in applying joint undertaking accountability and in making relevant conduct findings; the district court’s findings were supported by the record.
On appeal, the Seventh Circuit affirmed, holding that the district court properly found jointly undertaken conduct and reasonable foreseeability, sustaining accountability for co-conspirators.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether there was a jointly undertaken criminal activity	Salem and Ganescu argue no joint undertaking existed.	Salem and Ganescu argue conduct of others was not in furtherance of their jointly undertaken activity.	Yes; district court properly found jointly undertaken activity.
Whether the acts of co-schemers were in furtherance of the jointly undertaken activity	The acts were in furtherance and reasonably foreseeable.	Co-schemers' acts were not shown to be in furtherance of Salem/Ganescu's activity.	Yes; the court reasonably concluded acts furthered the jointly undertaken scheme.
Whether the district court could rely on inference-based evidence to determine scope	Inferences supported by modus operandi, coordination, and sharing resources establish scope.	Evidence should be narrowly tied to defendants' own actions.	Yes; permissible inferences supported by record establish scope.
Whether Studley or other authorities require per-co-conspirator aiding conduct to establish accountability	Accountability may extend beyond direct assisting acts where jointly undertaken activity is shown.	Studley limits accountability to acts directly aiding each conspirator.	No error; authority supports broader scope for jointly undertaken activity.

United States v. Adeniji, 221 F.3d 1020 (7th Cir. 2000) (factors for scope of jointly undertaken activity)
United States v. Aslan, 644 F.3d 526 (7th Cir. 2011) (jointly undertaken activity and shared proceeds)
United States v. Giang, 143 F.3d 1078 (7th Cir. 1998) (close collaboration establishes joint undertaking)
United States v. Soto-Piedra, 525 F.3d 527 (7th Cir. 2008) (scope requires acts in furtherance of joint activity, not all acts)
United States v. Studley, 47 F.3d 569 (2d Cir. 1995) (not all acts by a conspirator must assist every other co-conspirator)
United States v. Thomas, 199 F.3d 950 (7th Cir. 1999) (knowledge of scheme scope relevant to accountability)
United States v. Wright, 651 F.3d 764 (7th Cir. 2011) (standard of review for guidelines applicability)
United States v. Shamah, 624 F.3d 449 (7th Cir. 2010) (clear error standard for factual findings)