United States v. Wilcox
3:24-cr-03051
| N.D. Iowa | Mar 31, 2025Background
- Global Processing, Inc. (GPI) and its sole owner, David Wilcox, were indicted for bankruptcy fraud and making a false bankruptcy declaration, alleged to have defrauded farmers and used bankruptcy to hide fraud.
- Wilcox placed GPI into bankruptcy; a trustee was later appointed due to alleged poor and possibly fraudulent management.
- Bankruptcy court removed Wilcox’s authority to control GPI’s assets, which are now under the trustee’s control for liquidation.
- GPI did not retain counsel for the criminal proceeding; Wilcox’s personal attorney stated he represented only Wilcox, not GPI, and the trustee declined to retain counsel for GPI.
- The government served the summons on Wilcox’s attorney, but it was unclear whether proper service was made on GPI; the court directed a new summons to clarify service.
- The central issue is whether GPI, a closely held corporation now under bankruptcy, can appear without counsel and proceed with Wilcox as its representative, given the interplay of bankruptcy and criminal law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper service on Global Processing | Service accepted by Wilcox’s attorney covers GPI | No clear authority for attorney to accept for GPI | Court orders new summons for clear service on Wilcox for GPI |
| Can GPI proceed without counsel in criminal case | Wilcox can represent GPI as corporate representative | Corporation must appear only through counsel, not pro se | GPI may proceed via Wilcox if no counsel retained |
| Whether bankruptcy trustee controls GPI’s defense | Trustee can pay for/appoint GPI’s counsel; estate should cover costs | Trustee controls estate assets; Wilcox cannot force payment, no authority | Trustee not required to retain/pay counsel; assets are estate's |
| If GPI/estate must pay for defense | Wilcox/estate has funds to pay for GPI counsel | Forcing Wilcox to pay is unconstitutional taking; no authority for court | Court will not force Wilcox or estate to pay for GPI defense |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Hartsell, 127 F.3d 343 (4th Cir. 1997) (held corporations have limited 6th Amendment rights and may proceed without counsel if no liberty interest)
- United States v. Unimex, Inc., 991 F.2d 546 (9th Cir. 1993) (discussed limits of court’s ability to appoint counsel for indigent corporations in criminal cases)
- Rowland v. Cal. Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194 (1993) (corporations cannot proceed pro se in federal courts, but only addressed in the civil context)
- Ackra Direct Mktg. Corp. v. Fingerhut Corp., 86 F.3d 852 (8th Cir. 1996) (corporation cannot proceed pro se in civil case)