Fraud Cases

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the defendant’s conviction for healthcare fraud, holding that there was sufficient evidence based on testimony regarding “red flags” at the defendant’s pharmacy, including patients from out of state, unrealistically high prices, and discrepancies in billing and inventory. The Court also rejected the defendant’s challenges to lay witness testimony from patients stating they received medication that they did not need and held that the Government replacing its expert did not prejudice the defendant where the substance of the testimony stayed the same.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the defendant’s sentence, holding that the district court properly estimated the loss amount based on specific, circumstantial evidence of causation, namely that the defendant’s investors relied on the defendant’s fraudulent representations, and that the court did not err in rejecting the defendant’s intervening causation theory. The Court also held that the defendant’s claims on remand before the district court where limited by the scope fo the appellate court’s mandate on remand and did not fall under any of the three exceptions.

On July 8, 2020, federal prosecutors in the Southern District of Florida charged a father and his adult sons with criminal violations relating to distribution of misbranded drugs. According to the criminal complaint, the government is alleging that the men operated a church, the “Genesis II Church of Health and Healing,” through which they sold and marketed “Miracle Mineral Solution,” a bleaching agent that the men allegedly sold as a “miracle cure-all that could treat, prevent, and cure a variety of serious diseases and disorders, including cancer, Alzheimer’s, autism, malaria, Parkinson’s, multiple sclerosis, and HIV/AIDS.” Most recently, the men promoted Miracle Mineral Solution as a cure for COVID-19.

The Court affirmed the defendant’s conviction under 18 USC 912 for impersonating a U.S. employee and acting in conformity with that pretense, rejecting his argument that the offense requires an intent to defraud. The Court held that all that was required was impersonating an officer and an “overt act” which causes a victim to take a course of action they otherwise wouldn’t, which in this case was satisfied because the defendant’s high school crush opened her door to him and let him in based on her belief that he was a DEA agent.

The DOJ announced charges against the president of a California-based medical company, alleging a scheme to solicit investors, manipulate his company’s stock price, and commit healthcare fraud  based on his company submitting false claims to the federal government for COVID-19 testing. The charges include one count of securities fraud and one count of conspiracy to […]

Throughout June, the Department of Justice announced a series of prosecutions initiated against individuals and business accused of “COVID-Relief Fraud,” the DOJ’s term for fraud charges involving the recently enacted Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act. Several of these charges involved the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans issued by the SBA. In an […]

Evidence/Expert Testimony – Expert testimony discussing a theory that lacks sufficient testing, known or potential error rates, control standards, acceptance among the science community, and a connection between the theory and the underlying research is sufficiently unreliable to be excluded. Further, a peer-reviewed paper mentioning the theory is insufficient alone to prove reliability. Evidence/Rebuttal – […]

The Court affirmed the defendant’s convictions for identity theft and access device fraud. The Court affirmed the trial court’s admission of photographic stills from ATM video surveillance, holding that they were non-testimonial business records. The trial court also did not err in allowing lay witness identification, expert witness testimony, or the admission of the defendant’s mugshot where there was no indication of his prior criminal history.

The Court affirmed the defendant’s convictions for unlawful possession of unauthorized access devices and aggravated identity fraud, holding that it was not an abuse of discretion for the court to admit evidence of a firearm owned by the defendant. The evidence was relevant to the defendant’s possession of the unauthorized access devices because the firearm was found within close proximity of the access devices and within the same small area, and the probative value outweighed any undue prejudice, especially since the government did not indicate to the jury that the firearm was unlawfully owned.

In a unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court reversed the convictions of the Port Authority officials involved in the infamous “Bridgegate scandal,” holding that their convictions for wire fraud on a federally funded program, predicated on their blocking off certain lanes as political retribution against an opposition mayor, were not supported by sufficient evidence because they did not involve a scheme “to obtain money or property.”