United States v. Smith
641 F.3d 1200
| 10th Cir. | 2011Background
- Paul Smith served as executive director of Marie Detty (1989–2004).
- Marie Detty's Plan was discretionary; board approved budgets, not binding contracts.
- 2002–2003 board-approved contributions were not funded due to cash flow and withheld funds.
- Smith directed the fiscal director to hold and later void checks intended for the Plan.
- Paradigm Associates contract disclosed Smith's financial interest but the shell company deposited funds to Smith's account.
- Indictment charged counts for embezzlement, mail fraud, and false statements; venue and sufficiency defenses were raised; the district court reversed some counts and tried others, then this appeal followed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was sufficient evidence for § 664 embezzlement | Government | Smith | Insufficient evidence; no plan assets and no embezzlement. |
| Whether venue was proper for § 1001(a)(2) false statements | Government | Smith | Venue improper; statements made in Minnesota. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Luna, 406 F.3d 1192 (10th Cir. 2005) (contract created asset in pension plan under certain conditions)
- LaBarbara, 129 F.3d 81 (2d Cir. 1997) (aiding and abetting conversion of a plan asset under § 664)
- Cabrales, 524 U.S. 1 (1998) (venue for continuing offenses and locus delicti principles)
- Wiles, 102 F.3d 1043 (10th Cir. 1996) (false statements venue analysis; continuing-offense considerations)
- Rodriguez-Moreno, 526 U.S. 275 (1999) (determines where a false statement is made for venue purposes)