Articles Posted in Fraud

Published on:

By

A conviction for federal bank fraud and identity theft carries severe consequences, including imprisonment, restitution, and long-term supervised release. When such cases reach the appellate level, the focus turns to whether the trial court properly weighed the statutory sentencing factors under 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) and whether the resulting sentence was reasonable in light of the defendant’s conduct and history. A recent decision by a Florida court demonstrates how federal appellate courts evaluate claims of substantive unreasonableness and the broad discretion afforded to trial courts in imposing upward variances from the Sentencing Guidelines. If you are facing federal fraud charges, an experienced St. Petersburg criminal defense attorney can help protect your rights and present compelling arguments at both the trial and appellate levels

Case Setting

It is reported that the defendant was indicted by a federal grand jury in the Middle District of Florida for multiple fraud-related offenses, including bank fraud, mail fraud, false representation of a Social Security number, and aggravated identity theft. The defendant entered into a plea agreement, pleading guilty to one count of bank fraud and one count of aggravated identity theft. The agreement also notified the defendant that the government intended to seek an upward variance from the applicable sentencing guideline range.

Allegedly, the defendant used a stolen Social Security number belonging to a minor child to open a bank account at a Florida credit union. The defendant then obtained a Visa credit card using the same fraudulent identity, causing a financial loss exceeding $1,300. The presentence investigation revealed that the defendant had a lengthy criminal history involving similar schemes, including prior convictions for defrauding financial institutions and a prior federal conviction for aggravated identity theft. At the time of the new offenses, the defendant was still under supervision for his earlier federal conviction.

Continue reading →

By
Posted in: Fraud
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

Federal courts treat fraud offenses with heightened scrutiny, especially when they involve extensive identity theft, exploitation of government programs, and multi-jurisdictional activity. Individuals convicted of such offenses often pursue sentence reductions under newly enacted sentencing amendments or seek compassionate release based on post-conviction conduct or personal circumstances. However, these requests are subject to strict legal standards. A recent ruling from a Florida court highlights just how difficult it can be to obtain relief when a sentence stems from a complex and deliberate fraud scheme. If you are facing fraud charges, it is smart to meet with a St. Petersburg fraud crime defense attorney who understands what strategies can help you seek a favorable outcome.

Factual and Procedural History

It is reported that the defendant was convicted of wire fraud and aggravated identity theft after a multi-state fraud scheme involving COVID-19 relief funds and stolen identities. Between July and September 2020, the defendant engaged in a series of fraudulent acts, including applying for Economic Injury Disaster Loans using false information and filing for unemployment insurance under stolen identities. These actions led to the theft of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

It is alleged that the defendant falsely claimed to operate a bakery with twelve employees, generating almost $200,000 in annual revenues, and secured nearly $50,000 in EIDL loan proceeds. The defendant received multiple prepaid debit cards connected to fraudulent California unemployment claims and had already withdrawn more than $178,000 in cash prior to mailing the cards to Florida. The investigation uncovered that the defendant filed for benefits using information from approximately 20 identity theft victims. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

The federal government staunchly prosecutes fraud crimes. However, they must do so within the statute of limitations, which is a crucial safeguard against indefinite legal jeopardy. The statute of limitations may be tolled in some cases, though, as discussed in a recent Florida federal court fraud case. If you are facing federal fraud charges, it is in your best interest to speak to an experienced St. Petersburg fraud crime defense attorney about what you can do to protect your rights.

Facts and Procedure of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant conspired to commit access device fraud and engaged in aggravated identity theft by using stolen Social Security numbers to apply for government benefits. Reportedly, these fraudulent activities occurred between 2014 and 2015. Under federal law, the statute of limitations for such offenses is generally five years, meaning the government needed to bring charges by June 2020.

It is reported that during the COVID-19 pandemic, grand jury sessions in Florida were suspended in early 2020, preventing prosecutors from obtaining a timely indictment. Instead, the government allegedly filed an information against the defendant in May 2020, just before the statute of limitations expired. However, the defendant had not waived the right to an indictment, which is required for prosecution based on an information alone.

Continue reading →

By
Posted in: Fraud
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

Florida courts do not regard fraud schemes as victimless crimes; as such, they often deliver lengthy sentences to people found guilty of fraud offenses. Such sentences will typically be upheld unless a defendant can demonstrate that they are either substantively or procedurally unreasonable. In a recent fraud case, a Florida court discussed the considerations weighed in determining if a sentence is unreasonable. If you are accused of committing fraud, it is in your best interest to talk to a St. Petersburg fraud scheme defense attorney to evaluate what course of action you can take to protect your interests.

Factual History and Procedural Setting

It is alleged that in 2019, the defendant was indicted on multiple federal charges related to identity theft and access device fraud. The indictment stemmed from incidents involving fraudulent purchases made at a department store using a stolen credit card. The defendant ultimately pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit access device fraud and aggravated identity theft. The presentence investigation report (PSI) detailed additional instances of criminal conduct, including intercepting packages and engaging in fraudulent financial transactions.

Reportedly, the PSI also outlined the defendant’s prior criminal history, including convictions for similar offenses. At the sentencing hearing, the district court considered the defendant’s age, criminal history, and ongoing fraudulent behavior. Despite the defendant’s motion for a downward variance, the court imposed a total sentence of 30 months imprisonment, consisting of 6 months for conspiracy to commit access device fraud and a consecutive 24 months for aggravated identity theft. The defendant appealed, arguing her sentence was unreasonable. Continue reading →

By
Posted in: Fraud
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

COVID-19 ravaged prisons throughout Florida and the country, ultimately costing many people their lives. In light of that fact, the Florida courts have granted some inmates compassionate release. The mere fact that a person may contract COVID-19 is not adequate grounds for granting such relief, though, as discussed in a recent opinion issued by a Florida court. If you have questions regarding compassionate release or your rights as a criminal defendant, it is in your best interest to speak to a St. Petersburg criminal defense attorney as soon as possible.

Procedural History of the Case

It is alleged that the defendant was indicted for multiple counts of fraud and receiving healthcare kickbacks in violation of federal law. She entered into a plea agreement for one of the counts and was sentenced to eighteen months in prison, followed by three years of supervised release. She began serving her sentence in October 2021 after delaying her surrender date on multiple occasions. She then moved for compassionate release due to the risk of contracting COVID-19 during her incarceration. The government filed a response in opposition to her motion. The court ultimately denied her request.

Grounds for Granting Compassionate Release

While the court noted that the defendant exhausted her administrative remedies as required to seek such relief, it nonetheless found that compassionate release was not warranted for numerous reasons. First, the defendant had not shown that there were compelling and extraordinary reasons supporting her request. Continue reading →

Published on:

By

Providing false information to an insurance company in an effort to obtain benefits is a crime in Florida. Simply because an insurer does not rely on false information offered by an insured does not mean that an insured cannot be convicted of insurance fraud for offering such information. The State’s burden of proof in insurance fraud cases was the topic of a recent Florida opinion in a case in which the State appealed the dismissal of its charges against the defendant. If you are accused of committing fraud, it is in your best interest to consult a St. Petersburg criminal defense attorney to evaluate what defenses you may be able to assert.

Facts of the Case

It is reported that the defendant was involved in a car crash in July 2016. He reported the accident to his insurer twice, and both times stated his car had been stolen and he was not driving it at the time of the collision. The insurer received the police report regarding the crash, though, which stated he was driving when it occurred. The insurer relied on the report and paid it out under the defendant’s collision coverage. The State ultimately charged the defendant with filing a false insurance claim. The defendant then moved to dismiss the charges on the grounds that the State failed to allege that the insurer relied on his false statements. The court granted the motion, and the State appealed.

Elements of Insurance Fraud in Florida

On appeal, the appellate court reversed the trial court ruling. The court explained that the statute was clear and unambiguous, and therefore, must be given its obvious and plain meaning. In relevant part, the statute stated that a person commits insurance fraud if they present any oral or written statement to the insurer in support of a claim, with the knowledge that it contains false, misleading, or incomplete information. Continue reading →

By
Posted in: Fraud
Published on:
Updated:
Published on:

By

The Florida District Court of Appeal, Second District released an opinion on November 8, 2017, that addressed the due process rights available to a criminal defendant at a sentencing hearing. In the case, the defendant appealed the trial court’s decision to revoke his probation and impose a 40-month sentence. The Florida court of appeals applied earlier precedent from Florida criminal decisions to determine whether the State committed a reversible error when the defendant was interrupted during his sentencing hearing.

Due process rights require courts to render judgment only after they have properly considered the issues advanced by the parties. In the context of a probation violation hearing, the court must make separate determinations on whether to revoke probation and also whether the violation justifies the revocation of probation. The due process standard, according to the United States Supreme Court, gives a probationer the opportunity to present mitigating evidence and argue for sentencing alternatives when the trial court has sentencing discretion.

The primary Florida case cited was Amason v. State, 76 So. 3d 374 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011). In Amason, the defendant pled guilty to violating her probation. The charge included four alleged violations of probation, including a violation of condition 9 for a failure to make restitution payments and a violation of condition 3 for changing her residence without the approval of her probation officer. The trial court questioned the defendant, but the trial court interrupted her three times. The defendant’s counsel was unable to cross-examine the witnesses at the hearing. Moreover, the defendant was not able to respond to the allegation that she had committed fraud and that the maximum sentence should be imposed. The appeals court found that the court violated her due process rights. The appeals court reversed the trial court’s decision and remanded for a revocation hearing before a different trial judge so that the defendant could present mitigating evidence.

Continue reading →