United States v. St. Pierre
809 F. Supp. 2d 538
E.D. La.2011Background
- Criminal case against Mark St. Pierre for bribery and related offenses arising from City of New Orleans IT contracts.
- Indictment 63 counts (Nov 6, 2009) later superseded; trial on 53 counts concluded May 26, 2011 with guilty verdict.
- Forfeiture notice and theories pursued under 18 U.S.C. § 981(a)(1)(C) and § 982; proceeds tracing from Counts 1–52 and money laundering from Count 53.
- GSA-contract arrangements allowed nonbid IT work via CIBER; Imagine Software subcontracts; St. Pierre owned 25% of Imagine.
- Dell camera sales to Dell and then to City of New Orleans involved Veracent (St. Pierre's company) as supplier; revenues tied to alleged crimes.
- Court held a forfeiture hearing (Aug 10, 2011) and now issues Preliminary Order of Forfeiture imposing a money judgment; no ancillary proceeding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of forfeitable proceeds for Counts 1–52 under §981(a)(2)(B). | Government seeks full proceeds from illicit contracts. | St. Pierre should forfeit only amounts he personally acquired. | Proceeds limited to amounts acquired by co-conspirators proportional to St. Pierre's ownership. |
| Appropriate statutory basis for forfeiture of Counts 1–52 and Count 53. | Counts 2–52 fall under §981(a)(1)(C); Count 53 under §981(a)(1)(A). | Argues improper consolidation of bases or misapplication. | Court finds §981(a)(1)(C) for Counts 1–52 and §981(a)(1)(A) for Count 53; avoid double-forfeiture. |
| Temporal scope for forfeiture proceeds. | Proceeds from 2004 onward due to conspiracy in 2004. | Bribes before Nov 2004 negate proceeds. | Proceeds from 2004–2006 attributable; earlier acts not required for forfeiture. |
| Proportional liability and joint liability for bribes. | St. Pierre liable for coconspirators’ proceeds. | Only amounts personally acquired should be forfeited. | St. Pierre as 25% owner liable for 25% of Imagine's 2004–2006 proceeds and Veracent crime camera proceeds; other proceeds not attributed to him. |
| Direct costs deduction under §981(a)(2)(B). | Deduct direct costs; burden on St. Pierre. | No proof of direct costs to deduct. | No direct costs proven; forfeiture amount not reduced. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Taylor, 582 F.3d 558 (5th Cir. 2009) (criminal forfeiture with punitive purpose; nexus required)
- United States v. Webber, 536 F.3d 584 (7th Cir. 2008) (nexus and statutory framework for forfeiture in conspiracy cases)
- United States v. Juluke, 426 F.3d 323 (5th Cir. 2005) (burden to prove nexus by preponderance; use of record evidence)
- United States v. Bornfield, 145 F.3d 1123 (10th Cir. 1998) (definition of proceeds and tracing concepts in forfeiture context)
- United States v. Tencer, 107 F.3d 1120 (5th Cir. 1997) (traceable proceeds and conspiracy liability principles)