United States v. Schreiber
1:21-cr-10016
D.S.D.Oct 7, 2021Background
- Defendants Sven Schreiber (Standing Rock IT Director, based in Fort Yates, ND) and Arnaldo Piccinelli (IT contractor) are indicted for alleged bribery/kickback scheme involving tribal consulting contracts.
- The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe’s Wells Fargo account is in Mobridge, South Dakota; tribal payroll and the funds paying Piccinelli were drawn from that account.
- Piccinelli received payments into his personal account, withdrew funds (sometimes in Florida), and admitted giving some funds to Schreiber (who also was in Florida at times).
- Defendants moved to dismiss for improper venue, arguing essential conduct occurred outside South Dakota and that only the bank account’s location ties the case to the District.
- Magistrate Judge Moreno recommended denying the motions, concluding defendants ‘‘reached into’’ South Dakota by using Mobridge-originated funds; the court conducted a de novo review.
- The district court adopted the R&R, rejected defendants’ objections, and denied the motions to dismiss for improper venue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether venue is proper in the District of South Dakota for bribery charges | Venue is proper because the Tribe’s Mobridge bank account supplied the funds for the contracts and alleged kickbacks, so the scheme began/continued in SD | Venue is improper because the essential bribery conduct (solicitation, receipt, withdrawals) occurred in ND and FL; SD only supplied incidental funds | Venue is proper: funds drawn from the Mobridge account suffice to show defendants reached into SD and satisfy venue by a preponderance of evidence |
| Whether effects-only in SD would be sufficient to support venue | N/A (Plaintiff emphasizes a source-of-funds link, not mere effects) | If venue rests only on effects in SD, venue is improper under controlling authority | Court distinguished cases where only effects occurred, finding here the source (Mobridge account) provides a substantive venue nexus |
| Applicability of multi-district offense doctrine (18 U.S.C. § 3237(a)) | The offense began, continued, or was completed in multiple districts, so prosecution may proceed in any such district, including SD | Multi-district elements occurred primarily outside SD, so SD is not a proper district for prosecution | Court applied the multi-district analysis and concluded SD is a proper district because essential conduct included transfers originating in SD |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Mink, 9 F.4th 590 (8th Cir. 2021) (directs courts to identify the offense’s essential conduct elements and limits venue inquiry to those elements rather than mere circumstances)
- United States v. Rodriguez-Moreno, 256 U.S. 275 (1921) (venue analysis requires identifying the nature of the crime and where the criminal acts occurred)
- United States v. White, 887 F.2d 267 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (bribery venue lies only where unlawful acts were committed and not solely where effects are felt)
- United States v. Totaro, 40 Fed. Appx. 321 (8th Cir. 2002) (venue proper where criminal scheme began with transfers from bank accounts located in the forum district)