United States v. Seng Tan
2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 6097
1st Cir.2012Background
- Tan and Bunchan operated WMDS and 1UOL, two MLM ventures that raised money primarily through recruiting, not product sales.
- Tan led investor seminars targeted at Cambodian-Americans, promising perpetual monthly returns and riches for recruits and family generations.
- Investors were urged to fund via loans or home-equity loans, often without selling any product, with letters promising lifetime payments signed by Tan.
- The schemes diverted investor funds for personal lavish expenditures by Bunchan and Tan, including cars, yachts, casino gambling, and designer goods.
- The ventures collapsed after rising checks to investors ceased; Tan actively recruited up until the scheme's unraveling, while Rochon served as a nominal president.
- Tan was convicted on multiple counts including mail fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy; this court previously affirmed Bunchan’s conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: knowledge and participation | Tan knew material facts and aided the scheme. | Tan lacked knowledge and was an innocent figurehead. | Rational jury could find Tan knew and participated. |
| Money laundering sufficiency | Proceeds derived from illegal activity were used via accounts; she can be an aider. | No direct link between her actions and casino-related laundering. | Convictions sustained; aiding-and-abetting theory supported. |
| Caesars-check count | Tan participated in a scheme to launder funds by coordinating checks and loans. | Little direct financial link to Tan beyond Rochild’s testimony. | Evidence supported conspiracy and aiding conduct; reasonable jury could convict. |
| Variance between indictment and proof | Indictment alleged receiving via mail; trial evidence showed sending via mail. | Material variance prejudiced defense and warranted reversal. | No plain error and no substantial prejudice; variance not reversible error. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Griggs, 569 F.3d 341 (7th Cir. 2009) (knowledge doctrine in conspiracy cases)
- United States v. Stergios, 659 F.3d 127 (1st Cir. 2011) (mail fraud elements and scheme analysis)
- United States v. Manor, 633 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2011) (sufficiency standard for appellate review)
- United States v. Lara, 181 F.3d 183 (1st Cir. 1999) (standard for reviewing credibility and inferences)
- United States v. Edelkind, 467 F.3d 791 (1st Cir. 2006) (plain-error review framework)
- United States v. Yefsky, 994 F.2d 885 (1st Cir. 1993) (guilty knowledge requirement for conspiracy)
- United States v. Pimental, 380 F.3d 575 (1st Cir. 2004) (knowledge element in mail fraud)
- United States v. Bucci, 582 F.3d 108 (1st Cir. 2009) (knowledge and willfulness in money-laundering contexts)
- United States v. Bristol-Mártir, 570 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2009) (aiding and abetting theory of liability)