United States v. Tum
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 2316
| 1st Cir. | 2013Background
- Tum challenges bench-trial convictions for wire fraud and conspiracy to defraud Unum Life Insurance.
- Government proved interstate-wire transmission through a multistate batch-deposit process and related banking transfers.
- Tum concealed HHCS earnings and related payments to his wife, creating false records used in tax and benefits filings.
- Judge convicted Tum on all counts after trial; Hussen was acquitted on all counts at the bench trial.
- Appeal proceeds with de novo review of sufficiency; Tum argues no interstate wires and flawed conspiracy proof.
- Court reviews conspiracy elements as to Tum and HHCS, rejecting Rosenblatt-based reversal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of interstate-wire evidence | Tum contends no interstate wires occurred; deposits stayed within Maine. | Government proved multistate processing and transfers crossing borders. | Evidence sufficient; interstate wires reasonably proven. |
| Conspiracy to defraud wire-fraud scheme | HHCS had no knowledge of Unum fraud; no common target with Tum. | HHCS knew Tum’s fraud was income-related; agreement to the essential plan suffices. | Conspiracy to commit wire fraud sustained; essential nature shown. |
| Rosenblatt applicability | Rosenblatt supports reversal due to lack of shared target. | Rosenblatt distinguished; here conspiracy to wire fraud aligns with case law. | Rosenblatt not controlling; convictions affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Guerrier, 669 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011) (de novo standard and favorable view of evidence on appeal)
- United States v. Woodward, 149 F.3d 46 (1st Cir. 1998) (interstate-wire nexus and foreseeability in wire-fraud)
- United States v. Fermín Castillo, 829 F.2d 1194 (1st Cir. 1987) (foreseeability suffices; wires need not be personally used)
- United States v. Feola, 420 U.S. 671 (U.S. 1975) (mail and wire fraud conspiracy elements and victim identity not essential)
- United States v. Rosenblatt, 554 F.2d 36 (2d Cir. 1977) (reversing where co-conspirator’s fraud lacked shared target; distinguished here)