On September 30, 2014, Robert Lustyik entered a guilty plea in connection with alleged grand jury tampering and obstruction of justice. Mr. Lustyik has been charged with interfering with the investigation of his alleged business partner, Michael Taylor.
In return for this help, Mr. Taylor promised Mr. Lustyik a large sum of money and a stream of lucrative future business contracts. Before completing the alleged scheme, however, Mr. Lustyik was arrested. Mr. Lustyik pleaded guilty to an 11-count indictment charging conspiracy, honest services wire fraud, obstruction of a grand jury proceeding, and obstruction of an agency proceeding.
Sounds pretty hum-drum until you hear what Mr. Lustyik does for a living.
At the end of an internal investigation, outside counsel frequently prepares a written report. That written report may be for the Board of Directors only or it may be passed along to the Department of Justice.
In the report, the company has every incentive to name names. It will label the supposed employee-wrongder as “rogue” or an “outlier” to the normally-excellent compliance culture.
But what if the company gets it wrong when it reports to the government? Can the employee being blamed sue the company for defamation based on statements in the report? I’ve handled a few defamation cases myself, but it’s rare to see criminal law and defamation in the same case.
A recent Texas case is addressing this issue. Depending on how it turns out, companies may need to think a lot more carefully before blaming someone.
Robert Writt, a former project manager for Shell International E&P, Inc. has sued the Texas-based oil giant for defamation based on a report that Shell submitted to the Department of Justice concerning Mr. Writt’s alleged involvement in a number of Foreign Corrupt Practice Act (FCPA) violations.
The Department of Justice and the Securities and Exchange Commission are not specifically tasked with protecting client confidentiality of U.S. corporations. But the calculus changes when service providers use their client’s confidential information to profit from insider trading.
An information technology employee with Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati and the CEO of an investor relations firm were recently accused of doing just that. Stephen Gray and Dimitry Braverman face parallel criminal prosecutions and SEC lawsuits.
In short, they each had access to a wealth of confidential client information. The government alleges that each used this information to reap large profits from transactions in advance of merger and earnings announcements.
Mr. Gray has pleaded guilty to one count of securities fraud.
If a lawyer at a cocktail party introduces himself to you as an “international trade lawyer,” would you think “oh, how boring”?
There may be some less-than-exciting aspects of trade law (see, e.g., anti-dumping work) but this regulatory practice is increasingly attracting the interest of criminal authorities.
Practice tip: If you work in a big firm, make friends with the trade lawyers because some of their clients are going to need your white collar expertise.
Two recent prosecutions in New Jersey are good examples of these kinds of cases. Both involve the Arms Export Control Act, both are against contractors and both deal with supposedly fraudulent military contracts.
The government separately indicted Alper Calik and Hannah Robert for wire fraud and violations of the Arms Export Control Act.
The latest entrant into the Cover-Up Is Worse Than the Crime Hall of Fame is Sahil “Sonny” Uppal, a 26 year old former employee of Citadel LLC. He pleaded guilty to one count of obstruction of justice for hiding his unauthorized sharing of proprietary information related to Citadel’s high-frequency trading practice.
Mr. Uppal worked at Citadel, a Chicago-based financial institution, as a quantitative analyst, writing code for Citadel’s equity trading platform. But Mr. Uppal apparently decided to do more than programming. Instead, he made unauthorized copies of Citadel’s confidential and proprietary information related to high frequency trading, and then covered it up.
Now, the former analyst faces some serious prison time. Continue reading
Yesterday a jury in Richmond found former Governor Robert McDonnell and his wife guilty of public corruption. Here are the details of it.
I’m sure many others will offer in-depth analysis of the verdict in the coming days. Here are my initial thoughts about the verdict and the media coverage of the trial.
First, I was surprised by it. The evidence of a quid pro quo was nil, as best I can tell. The government certainly proved that the McDonnells accepted things of value, no question. But what did they give in return? Not much. The government did not appear to have any direct evidence that anyone agreed to provide official acts in return for those benefits.
I thought that perhaps the jury would split the baby and convict on one of the non-corruption charges. Or even acquit on everything. Boy, was I wrong.
Some questions from clients or issues in white collar criminal defense cases come up over and over. I’ll periodically post Resource Guides to cover those questions and issues. Reminder: this is not legal advice.
There are three categories of individuals in a federal grand jury investigation: (1) target; (2) subject; or (3) witness. The prosecutor will decide whether you are a target, subject or witness.
When you hire a white-collar defense lawyer, you will hear a lot about whether you are a target, subject or witness. That’s because your status in the investigation informs many of the decisions your lawyer will help you make during the process, such as whether to talk voluntarily with the government.
In complex white-collar trials, it’s not uncommon for the court to send written questionnaires to potential jurors ahead of the start of trial. The questionnaires are generally mailed to the potential jurors by the court a few weeks before trial. Having jurors complete the questionnaires allows both sides to review them thoroughly and prepare for voir dire. The court can also ask numerous questions to weed out jurors who should be excused for cause without having to take up hours of court time.
Both the prosecution and defense will suggest questions for the questionnaire. One great trial lawyer I worked with liked to request the question: “what bumper stickers are on your car?” When you think about it, it’s a deceptively simple question. You can learn a lot about someone from what she puts on her bumper for the world to see: she is a Democrat or Republican, she is a member of the NRA or the WWF, she has honor roll kids in school. (Or, perhaps, her kids can beat up other people’s honor roll kids.)
All in all, the questionnaires are a big help. But they can also set a trap for the unwary defense counsel thinking of making a Speedy Trial Act motion. A recent decision from the Eleventh Circuit in a securities fraud case demonstrates how.
If you don’t know what the California Public Employees Retirement System (“CalPERS”) is, you should. It is the second-largest public pension fund in the country. It is responsible for operating the pension benefit system and health care benefit system for all current and former employees of the State of California. It also operates these benefit systems for employees of other California public entities.
Yeah, I know, that sounds boring.
But consider this: CalPERS has nearly 1.7 million members. Its investment portfolio is $200 billion. Billion.
Capturing that investment business is hugely profitable. So, I suppose it’s not very surprising that CalPERS has been the target of a few fraudulent schemes.
CalPERS probably didn’t expect that its own CEO would be part of one.
From 2002 to 2008, CalPERS’ CEO was Federico Buenrostro, Jr. On July 11, 2014, Mr. Buenrostro pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit honest services fraud and bribery and to defraud the United States.
So, what did he do?
In short, he accepted bribes and he lied.
Every few weeks, I review the press releases for the U.S. Attorneys’ Offices across the country. In the blur of stories about drug busts and indictments for low-level health care fraud, sometimes a name sounds familiar.
No, not because it’s a friend. Or a relative. It’s because I’ve written about the person before.
Somewhere around 95% of all criminal cases end in a guilty plea. These cases are no exception. Of course, the government doesn’t issue press releases when it loses a case or when the result is a plea to a minor misdemeanor, so this isn’t a completely representative view of the outcome of all prosecutions.
Here are a few updates on popular past posts.