122 F. Supp. 3d 11
E.D.N.Y2015Background
- Defendant John Sampson is charged in an 11-count indictment in the Eastern District of New York across embezzlement, obstruction of justice, witness and evidence tampering, concealment of records, and false statements to law enforcement.
- The government seeks to dismiss Counts 1–2 as time-barred or for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and to sever Count 11; the government opposes severance.
- Counts 1–2 allege embezzlement of surplus funds from two foreclosures handled by Sampson as a court-appointed referee for the Kings County Supreme Court foreclosures (Forbell Street and Eighth Avenue properties).
- Surplus funds from both foreclosures were supposed to be deposited with the Kings County Clerk within five days of filing referee reports; Sampson deposited funds in different banks and did not remit surplus funds as required.
- The alleged embezzlements occurred in 1998 (Forbell Street) and 2002 (Eighth Street), with related transactions extending into 2006–2008.
- Count 11 concerns false statements to FBI agents about a liquor-store ownership and unpaid sales tax balance, arising from interviews in 2012 after Sampson’s Senate tenure.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Counts 1–2 time-barred under 18 U.S.C. § 666? | Government argues embezzlement occurred on each withdrawal; statute tolled only during the 2008 transactions if time limits apply. | Sampson contends embezzlement occurred no later than 1998–2002 when funds were due to be deposited; 2008 actions are separate acts. | Counts 1–2 are time-barred. |
| Is there a basis to challenge subject matter jurisdiction over Counts 1–2? | Government maintains Sampson acted as State court referee (agency of NYS Supreme Court) and thus within jurisdiction. | Sampson claims he was not an agent of the court; agency terminated long before 2008. | Court need not reach jurisdictional challenge; counts dismissed as time-barred anyway. |
| Should Count 11 be severed from the indictment? | Count 11 relates to the same overarching scheme and arises from the same interview as Counts 9–10. | Joinder causes/prejudice risk; severance or limiting instructions necessary. | Count 11 denied; joinder proper. |
Key Cases Cited
- Toussie v. United States, 397 U.S. 112 (U.S. 1970) (statutes of limitations serve repose and prompt enforcement)
- United States v. Irvine, 98 U.S. 450 (U.S. 1878) (completion of the crime marks start of limitations period)
- United States v. Stockton, 788 F.2d 210 (4th Cir. 1986) (embezlement requires actual taking; completion upon appropriation)
- United States v. Sunia, 643 F. Supp. 2d 51 (D.D.C. 2009) (emphasizes timing of embezzlement completion)
- United States v. McGoff, 831 F.2d 1071 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (emphasizes when embezzlement is complete regardless of post-taking actions)
- United States v. O’Hagan, 521 U.S. 642 (U.S. 1997) (fraudulent appropriation constitutes embezzlement regardless of later use)
- United States v. McCarthy, 271 F.3d 387 (2d Cir. 2001) (discusses embezzlement and limitations implications)
- United States v. Newell, 658 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) (single transaction not split into multiple offenses)
- Bell v. United States, 349 U.S. 81 (U.S. 1955) (continuing offense analysis guidance)
- Artman v. Michigan, 218 Mich.App. 236, 553 N.W.2d 673 (Mich. Ct. App. 1996) (state-law embezzlement timing; cited for comparison)
- State v. Modell, 260 N.J. Super. 227, 615 A.2d 1264 (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1992) (state precedent on timing of embezzlement)