“JPMorgan discloses federal criminal investigation over sale of mortgage-backed securities”

August 9, 2013

The Washington Post on August 8, 2013 released the following:

“By Associated Press,

NEW YORK — The U.S. Justice Department is investigating JPMorgan Chase over mortgage-backed investments the bank sold in the run-up to the financial crisis.

The New York-based bank said in a regulatory filing that it is responding to investigations by the civil and criminal divisions of the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Eastern District of California. In May, the civil division informed JPMorgan that it had “preliminarily concluded” that the bank had violated federal securities laws in connection with certain mortgage-backed investments it sold from 2005 to 2007.

A JPMorgan spokeswoman declined to comment.

The disclosure is just the latest in a swirl of mortgage-related lawsuits and investigations that have hammered big U.S. banks in the aftermath of the financial crisis. The banks have been accused of improperly foreclosing on homeowners, discriminating against others and knowingly making loans to people who couldn’t afford them. Other probes, including the one disclosed by JPMorgan, have focused on mortgage-backed securities, where the banks bundled together their mortgages and sold them in slivers to investors.

JPMorgan didn’t give details on what the Justice Department is investigating. But previous lawsuits and investigations, against both JPMorgan and other big banks, have said that the banks misled investors about the quality of the loans they were buying. When the real estate bubble burst, many of the mortgage-backed securities soured and the investors who bought them lost billions.

If the investigations result in criminal or civil action by the Justice Department against JPMorgan, it would be the most high-profile government move against the bank to date. JPMorgan, which came through the financial crisis stronger than most of its competitors and was lauded for wise risk-management practices, has lately faced a slew of sanctions by federal regulators.

In January, regulators ordered the bank to take steps to correct poor risk management that led to a surprise trading loss last year of more than $6 billion. The Federal Reserve and the U.S. Comptroller of the Currency also cited JPMorgan for lapses in oversight that could allow the bank to be used for money laundering. Last month, the bank agreed to pay $410 million to settle allegations by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission that it manipulated electricity prices in California and the Midwest.

An investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission of the trading loss is nearing final stages with civil charges possible, according to news reports Thursday. The SEC is seeking an admission of wrongdoing from JPMorgan in a settlement, The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times reported, citing unnamed people familiar with the case.

That would be a departure from the SEC’s traditional policy of allowing most companies and individuals agreeing to settlements to neither admit nor deny wrongdoing. It would be a major application of a new policy announced recently by SEC Chairman Mary Jo White that calls for requiring admissions of wrongful conduct in some significant cases.

SEC spokesman John Nester declined comment on the reports.

The newly disclosed Justice Department investigations are not JPMorgan’s first legal headaches over mortgage-backed securities. It has settled charges from the SEC over mortgage-backed investments it made in the run-up to the financial crisis. It’s also facing lawsuits from the New York Attorney General’s Office and the National Credit Union Administration over the securities.

JPMorgan is fighting the attorney general’s lawsuit, which focused on investments sold by Bear Stearns in 2006 and 2007. JPMorgan bought Bear Stearns in 2008.

JPMorgan made the disclosure about the Justice Department investigations in a quarterly regulatory filing late Wednesday. It came a day after the U.S. government accused Bank of America of civil fraud, saying the company failed to disclose risks and misled investors in its sale of $850 million of mortgage bonds during 2008. The government says that the bank failed to tell investors that more than 70 percent of the mortgages backing the investment were written by mortgage brokers outside the banks’ network.

Bank of America has disputed those allegations, saying the investors who bought the securities had “ample access” to data about the mortgages.

“We are not responsible for the housing market collapse that caused mortgage loans to default at unprecedented rates and these securities to lose value as a result,” the bank said in a statement this week.

Shares of JPMorgan Chase & Co. slipped 47 cents, to close Thursday trading at $54.83. The stock has traded between $36.40 and $56.93 in the past 52 weeks, and remains up 25 percent since the start of the year.”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys Videos:

Federal Crimes – Be Careful

Federal Crimes – Be Proactive

Federal Crimes – Federal Indictment

Federal Crimes – Detention Hearing

Federal Mail Fraud Crimes

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


“Federal public defenders warn of dire budget cuts”

July 3, 2013

Seattle PI on July 2, 2013 released the following:

By GENE JOHNSON, Associated Press

“SEATTLE (AP) — The lawyers who represent poor people charged with federal crimes across the country say they already face an unfair fight when they head into court against the resources of the Justice Department — and that’s only going to get worse if draconian budget cuts occur as planned next year.

As a result of the automatic cuts known as sequestration, federal public defender offices have recently been told they must reduce spending by 14 percent for fiscal year 2014, on top of the roughly 9 percent suffered this year.

The result, the lawyers say, will be drastic layoffs for public defenders, expensive case delays and costly appeals — all for nothing, as pricier private attorneys are expected to step in to fill the void at government expense.

“Absent some immediate action, federal defenders will begin the process this summer of laying off between a third and half of their staff,” said a memo prepared by several federal public defenders. “They will begin closing many offices. The cuts will result in irreparable damage to the criminal justice system, and paradoxically, greater expense to the taxpayer as indigent defendants are increasingly assigned private counsel.”

Congress provides about $1 billion for the representation of criminal defendants who can’t afford their own lawyer. The money is split evenly between federal public defender program, which was established in 1970, and private attorneys, who are generally paid $125 an hour to represent defendants who can’t be represented by the public defenders because of conflicts of interest or other reasons.

Because the right to counsel is a constitutional guarantee, the federal defenders have no control over their workloads. When someone is charged and needs a lawyer, they’re appointed. If public defenders have to take fewer cases due to staffing cuts that work will fall to the private lawyers — who cost substantially more than full-time federal defenders, studies have shown.

“There are no actual savings here,” said Tom Hillier, the chief federal public defender in Seattle. “Sooner or later Congress is going to have to come to grips with the fact that they’re destroying institutions, and they’re not saving money.”

Under this year’s cuts, some public defenders lost their jobs and the rest are taking up to 20 days of unpaid leave. The federal public defender’s office in Los Angeles is simply closing for three weeks in September. The chief federal defender in southern Ohio laid himself off.

In New York, the trial of Osama bin Laden’s son-in-law was delayed because the public defenders who were representing him had to take furloughs, and in Boston, the lawyers for the surviving marathon bombing suspect have had to do it amid unpaid time off.

When staffing cuts force public defenders to ask for delays in cases or withdraw from cases altogether, it means defendants have to spend more time in pretrial custody — increasing jail costs and raising concerns about the right to a speedy trial, the defenders’ memo noted. The offices have also cut spending on training, travel, expert witnesses and case investigators — all of which can affect the quality of representation and give rise to appeals.

The cuts being required next year are even starker.

—In Seattle, Hillier said he will have to lay off nine employees or his entire office will have to take more than nine weeks of unpaid time off.

—In San Francisco, Federal Public Defender Steven Kalar said he will have to close at least one branch office — possibly Oakland, San Jose, or both — and stop working on certain types of complex cases.

—In the District of Columbia, Federal Public Defender A.J. Kramer said that his office would have to withdraw from a large number of cases. He’s already down 10 positions, out of 35 he would normally be authorized to fill.

“We’re headed to a huge fiscal crisis,” said Seattle U.S. Attorney Jenny Durkan, whose office has added lawyers recently but also remains below historic staffing levels. “If the federal public defender closes shop, we can’t do our work. Everybody we charge, they’re entitled to a lawyer.”

“The fact that we are not fully funded makes it an unfair fight in court,” Hillier said. “The government has full resources and full staff, and we don’t.”

Nationally, more than 900 of the public defender program’s approximately 2,700 staff members are expected to be cut over the next two years. Defenders in more than 20 states are planning to close offices. Because it costs money to lay people off — in terms of severance, benefits and unemployment insurance claims — many offices have to lay off more than one-third of their staff to reach the 23 percent budget reduction.

Several federal defenders have argued that the cuts could be eased by delaying payments to the private attorneys until the next fiscal year, but U.S. District Judge Robert Lasnik of Seattle said that wasn’t a good option. Lasnik serves on the Executive Committee of the U.S. Judicial Conference, a group of seven judges that oversees the budget for public defense.

“It’s almost like deficit spending,” Lasnik said. “That only works if we get money to replace the money we’re spending.”

He added: “This is not a defense-versus-prosecutors thing, or judges-verses-defense thing. The system doesn’t work if any one of the legs of the stool is not able to hold things up. We have a need for the funding of federal defenders.”

To ease the burden on the federal defenders, the Judicial Conference might have to reduce rates for private attorneys appointed to represent poor defendants, even though “they don’t make very much as it is,” Lasnik said.

That could result in experienced private lawyers declining to take cases, some attorneys argue.

The only real solution, said U.S. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., is to replace sequestration, which was supposed to be so unpalatable that Congress would never let it happen.

“From children getting cut from Head Start, to workers being furloughed at our military bases, to the significant cuts federal public defenders across the country are facing and so much more,” she said, “the impacts of sequestration continue to grow in our communities, and it’s only going to get worse.””

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys Videos:

Federal Crimes – Be Careful

Federal Crimes – Be Proactive

Federal Crimes – Federal Indictment

Federal Crimes – Detention Hearing

Federal Mail Fraud Crimes

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


“Oregon Man Indicted for Alleged Role in $50 Million Securities Fraud Scheme”

May 16, 2013

The U.S. Department of Justice Office of Public Affairs on May 16, 2013 released the following:

“An Oregon man has been charged with allegedly orchestrating a $50 million securities fraud scheme, announced Acting Assistant Attorney General Mythili Raman of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and U.S. Attorney Laura E. Duffy of the Southern District of California.

Bradley Holcom, 55, of Canby, Ore., was arrested Tuesday following his indictment in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California. The indictment, which was filed on May 9, 2013, and unsealed late yesterday, charges Holcom with eight counts of mail fraud, four counts of wire fraud and one count of securities fraud.

According to the indictment, Holcom made false statements to investors in connection with the sale of approximately $50 million worth of promissory notes that he sold to more than 150 investors located throughout the United States from at least 2004 through 2010. The indictment alleges that Holcom solicited investors to provide funds for the development of raw land for commercial and residential purposes through an investment program he operated called the Trust Deed Investment Program. Holcom allegedly falsely told investors who purchased notes through the Trust Deed Investment Program that they would receive a lien on a specific piece of property he was developing and that the lien would be in first position, which would allow investors to directly foreclose on the underlying development property if Holcom was unable to repay the principal due under the notes.

Despite his statements to investors, Holcom allegedly never provided investors with a lien on the property he was purportedly developing and instead conveyed to investors a lesser interest that did not allow investors to directly foreclose on the property to protect their investment. In addition, the indictment alleges that while Holcom promised investors that their purported lien would be in first position, Holcom solicited investments for properties that he knew were already encumbered by first position liens.

According to the indictment, Holcom also allegedly sold properties that were supposedly serving as the security for investors without informing investors that the property they had financed for development was gone.

The indictment alleges that by approximately 2008, Holcom’s financial condition had seriously deteriorated, but he continued to solicit investors for new funds by making misrepresentations about his true financial condition and the manner in which he was using investor money.

The maximum penalty for each wire fraud and mail fraud count is 20 years in prison. The count of securities fraud carries a maximum penalty of 25 years in prison.

The charges contained in the indictment are merely accusations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

This case was brought in connection with the President’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. The task force was established to wage an aggressive, coordinated and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. With more than 20 federal agencies, 94 U.S. attorneys’ offices and state and local partners, it’s the broadest coalition of law enforcement, investigatory and regulatory agencies ever assembled to combat fraud. Since its formation, the task force has made great strides in facilitating increased investigation and prosecution of financial crimes; enhancing coordination and cooperation among federal, state and local authorities; addressing discrimination in the lending and financial markets and conducting outreach to the public, victims, financial institutions and other organizations. Over the past three fiscal years, the Justice Department has filed nearly 10,000 financial fraud cases against nearly 15,000 defendants including more than 2,900 mortgage fraud defendants. For more information on the task force, please visit http://www.StopFraud.gov .

This case was investigated by the FBI’s Phoenix Division – Yuma Resident Agency. The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Henry P. Van Dyck and Deputy Chief Daniel Braun of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section, and by Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephen Clark of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California. The department recognizes the substantial assistance of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys Videos:

Federal Crimes – Be Careful

Federal Crimes – Be Proactive

Federal Crimes – Federal Indictment

Federal Crimes – Detention Hearing

Federal Mail Fraud Crimes

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


DOJ Recommends 15 Months for Exec in Bribery Case

September 11, 2012

The Wall Street Journal on September 10, 2012 released the following:

“By C.M. Matthews

The Justice Department said a former executive of an industrial valve manufacturer who admitted to authorizing bribes in China should be sentenced to 15 months in prison.

Federal prosecutors recommended the sentence for Paul Cosgrove, former director of international sales for Control Components Inc., in court papers filed in federal district court in Santa Ana, Calif. last week. But, the prosecutors also said they wouldn’t oppose 15 months of home confinement because of Cosgrove’s health problems.

Cosgrove pleaded guilty in May to violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits improper payments to foreign officials to win business. He was charged along with five other former Control Components executives in April 2009 in connection with an alleged bribery scheme. Two other Control Components executives were also charged in a related matter in 2009.

According to court documents, Cosgrove approved improper payments in connection with a sprawling, global bribery scheme to win contracts for Rancho Santa Margarita, Calif.-based Control Components. So far, five other former CCI executives have pleaded guilty to charges stemming from the alleged scheme. Control Components pleaded guilty in July 2009 to violating the Travel Act, which prohibits commercial bribery, and the FCPA. The company paid an $18.2 million criminal penalty and agreed to implement rigorous internal controls.

Prosecutors said last week that they could not dispute a probation office report that said Cosgrove has “serious health issues.” Cosgrove had quadruple bypass surgery in 2010, according to court documents, and suffers from chronic health problems including heart disease and diabetes. The report recommended three years of probation and six months of home confinement for Cosgrove.

But prosecutors said that was an inadequate sentence because, “the sentencing end of deterrence in FCPA cases is important as the statute is intended to combat a culture of corruption that could otherwise undercut the business development and good governance of nations around the world.” While Cosgrove’s conduct warranted jail time, they said they would not object to home confinement, so long as it was for at least 15 months.

“To the extent the Court concludes that these factors outweigh the aggravating factors which would otherwise warrant a sentence of imprisonment within the guidelines range, any period of home confinement should be as long as the otherwise-applicable term of incarceration,” they wrote. “To state it differently, the government sees nothing in the Probation Officer’s analysis which would warrant only six rather than 15 months of home detention.”

The prosecutors also said Cosgrove should pay up to $20,000 in fines.

Cosgrove’s lawyers have filed their own sentencing memorandum under seal. They didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Cosgrove’s sentencing is scheduled for Sept. 13”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys Videos:

Federal Crimes – Be Careful

Federal Crimes – Be Proactive

Federal Crimes – Federal Indictment

Federal Crimes – Detention Hearing

Federal Mail Fraud Crimes

Federal Crimes – Appeal

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


Justice Dept., FBI to review use of forensic evidence in thousands of cases

July 11, 2012

The Washington Post on July 10, 2012 released the following:

“By Spencer S. Hsu

The Justice Department and the FBI have launched a review of thousands of criminal cases to determine whether any defendants were wrongly convicted or deserve a new trial because of flawed forensic evidence, officials said Tuesday.

The undertaking is the largest post-conviction review ever done by the FBI. It will include cases conducted by all FBI Laboratory hair and fiber examiners since at least 1985 and may reach earlier if records are available, people familiar with the process said. Such FBI examinations have taken place in federal and local cases across the country, often in violent crimes, such as rape, murder and robbery.

The review comes after The Washington Post reported in April that Justice Department officials had known for years that flawed forensic work might have led to the convictions of potentially innocent people but had not performed a thorough review of the cases. In addition, prosecutors did not notify defendants or their attorneys even in many cases they knew were troubled.

On Tuesday, the Justice Department announced that it will conduct the more expansive review.

“The Department and the FBI are in the process of identifying historical cases for review where a microscopic hair examination conducted by the FBI was among the evidence in a case that resulted in a conviction,” spokeswoman Nanda Chitre said in a statement. “We have dedicated considerable time and resources to addressing these issues, with the goal of reaching final determinations in the coming months.”

FBI spokeswoman Ann Todd deferred comment to the Justice Department.

In its April report, The Post identified two District men convicted largely on the testimony of FBI hair analysts who wrongly placed them at crime scenes. Santae A. Tribble, now 51, was convicted of killing a taxi driver in 1978, and Kirk L. Odom, now 49, was convicted of a sexual assault in 1981. Since the Post report, Tribble’s conviction was vacated, and on Tuesday, prosecutors moved to overturn Odom’s conviction and declare him innocent. The Justice Department had not previously reviewed their cases.

Chitre said the new review would include help from the Innocence Project, a New York-based advocacy group for people seeking exoneration through DNA testing. It also would include the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

Steven D. Benjamin, a Richmond lawyer who is incoming president of the association, called the review “an important collaboration” and a departure from one-sided government reviews that left defendants in the dark.

“Mistakes were made. What is important now is our working together to correct those mistakes,” Benjamin said, adding that his organization will “fully assist in finding and notifying all those who may have been affected.”

The review comes as the National Academy of Sciences is urging the White House and Congress to remove crime labs from police and prosecutors’ control, or at least to strengthen the science and standards underpinning the nation’s forensic science system.

The last time the FBI abandoned a forensic practice was in 2005, when it ended efforts to trace bullets to a specific manufacturer’s batch through analyzing their chemical composition after its methodology was scientifically debunked. The bureau released files in an estimated 2,500 bullet-lead cases only after “60 Minutes” and The Post reported the problem in 2007.

Michael R. Bromwich, a former Justice Department official who investigated the FBI Laboratory in the mid-1990s as inspector general and, more recently, the city of Houston’s crime lab, said the review is important as the nation’s crime labs come under scrutiny.

“These recent developments remind us of the profound questions about the validity of many forensic techniques that have been used over the course of many decades and underscore the need for continuing attention at every level to ensuring the scientific validity and accuracy of the forensic science that is used every day in our criminal justice system,” Bromwich said.

The Post reported in April that hair and fiber analysis was subjective and lacked grounding in solid research and that the FBI lab lacked protocols to ensure that agent testimony was scientifically accurate. But bureau managers kept their reviews limited to one agent, even as they learned that many examiners’ “matches” were often wrong and that numerous examiners overstated the significance of matches, using bogus statistics or exaggerated claims.

Details of how the new FBI review will be conducted remain unclear. The exact number of cases that will be reviewed is unknown. The FBI is starting with more than 10,000 cases referred to all hair and fiber examiners. From those, the focus will be on a smaller number of hair examinations that resulted in positive findings and a conviction.

It also is unclear whether the review will focus only on exaggerated testimony by FBI examiners or also on scientifically unfounded statements made by others trained by the FBI, or made by prosecutors. Also unclear is at what point government officials will notify defense attorneys or the Innocence Project.

In past reviews, the department kept results secret and gave findings only to prosecutors, who then determined whether to turn them over to the defense.”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys Videos:

Federal Crimes – Be Careful

Federal Crimes – Be Proactive

Federal Crimes – Federal Indictment

Federal Crimes – Appeal

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


Five Individuals Charged in Alleged Connection with Death of a Customs and Border Protection Border Patrol Agent; $1 Million FBI Reward Announced

July 9, 2012

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on July 9, 2012 released the following:

Individuals Charged Are Allegedly Responsible for Death of Agent Brian Terry

TUCSON, AZ— The indictment charging five individuals involved in the death of United States Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry was unsealed today in Tucson, Arizona, and a reward of up to $1 million for information leading to the arrest of four fugitives was announced by Department of Justice officials.

According to the indictment, Manuel Osorio-Arellanes, Jesus Rosario Favela-Astorga, Ivan Soto-Barraza, Heraclio Osorio-Arellanes, and Lionel Portillo-Meza are charged with crimes including first-degree murder, second-degree murder, conspiracy to interfere with commerce by robbery, attempted interference with commerce by robbery, use and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence, assault on a federal officer, and possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. A sixth defendant, Rito Osorio-Arellanes, is charged only with conspiracy to interfere with commerce by robbery.

The 11-count third superseding indictment (Case Number: CR-11-0150-TUC-DCB-BPV), which was handed up by a federal grand jury in the District of Arizona on November 7, 2011, alleges that on December 14, 2010, five of the defendants (Manuel Osorio-Arellanes, Jesus Rosario Favela-Astorga, Ivan Soto-Barraza, Heraclio Osorio-Arellanes, and Lionel Portillo-Meza) engaged in a firefight with Border Patrol agents. During the exchange of gunfire, Agent Terry was shot and killed. The indictment alleges that the defendants had illegally entered the United States from Mexico for the purpose of robbing drug traffickers of their contraband. In addition to the murder of Agent Terry, the indictment also alleges that the five defendants assaulted Border Patrol Agents William Castano, Gabriel Fragoza, and Timothy Keller, who were with Agent Terry during the firefight.

United States Attorney Laura E. Duffy said, “Agent Terry died in the line of duty while protecting his country. But he was more than a federal agent—he was a son, a brother, a co-worker, and a friend to many. The indictment unsealed today reflects the progress our dedicated law enforcement team has made piecing together this complex murder case. But there is more work to be done and we will not rest until we bring justice to the family of Brian Terry.”

“United States Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry made the ultimate sacrifice in December of 2010, while protecting our border,” stated James L. Turgal Jr., FBI Special Agent in Charge, Phoenix Division. “Today’s announcement is an important step forward in the pursuit of justice for Border Patrol Agent Terry and his family. It is our hope that the publicity surrounding this case will lead to information concerning the whereabouts of the remaining four fugitives. The FBI and our law enforcement partners will continue to pursue those individuals responsible for the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry.”

Manuel Osorio-Arellanes has been in custody since his arrest the night of the shooting. Rito Osorio-Arellanes has been in custody since December 12, 2010, when he was arrested by Border Patrol agents on immigration charges. The indictment is being unsealed today in order to seek the public’s assistance in locating the fugitive defendants.

This case is being prosecuted in federal court in Tucson by attorneys from the Southern District of California, Special Attorneys Todd W. Robinson, David D. Leshner, and Fred A. Sheppard. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Arizona is recused. This case is being investigated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

An indictment is a formal charging document and defendants are presumed innocent until the government meets its burden in court of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Wanted Posters
Ivan Soto-Barraza
Heraclio Osorio-Arellanes
Jesus Rosario Favela-Astorga
Lionel Portillo-Meza”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys Videos:

Federal Crimes – Be Careful

Federal Crimes – Be Proactive

Federal Crimes – Federal Indictment

Federal Crimes – Detention Hearing

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


Feds warn of crackdown on Seattle gun violence

June 19, 2012

SeattlePI on June 19, 2012 released the following:

“GENE JOHNSON, Associated Press

SEATTLE (AP) — The Justice Department’s top official in Seattle promised Monday to start sending more people to federal prison for gun crimes following several tragic and random shootings in the city, including the deaths of four people at an artsy cafe.

For more than a decade, federal prosecutors have reviewed state cases of felons caught with weapons under a nationwide program called Project Safe Neighborhoods, and they’ve gone after some of the worst offenders — sending them to federal prison for longer than they would face under state law.

Seattle U.S. Attorney Jenny Durkan said her office will now prosecute all felon-in-possession gun cases in Seattle in which there is federal jurisdiction and in which the defendants would face more time federally.

“We have seen way too many shootings in the city this year,” Durkan said at a news conference. “If you bring a gun to a crime, you will do time, and you likely will do federal time.”

The federal penalties for gun crimes include up to 10 years for being a felon caught with a firearm, an automatic five-year minimum for bringing a gun to a drug deal, and a 15-year minimum for those who are caught with a gun after having three prior violent or drug-related felony convictions.

By contrast, under state law, ex-cons who are caught with a gun could face a two-year sentence if their underlying felony is considered “serious.” If the underlying felony is not considered serious — burglary, drug cases, and child pornography among others — it takes four convictions for being a felon-in-possession before the offender is sent back to prison for one year, said King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg, who hosted the news conference Monday.

Few people realize how lenient state law is about felons who get guns, Satterberg said, and Washington state is also permissive when it comes to armed children. Children under 18 have to be convicted of illegal gun possession five times before they are sent to a state Juvenile Rehabilitation Authority facility for 15 weeks, he said.

Seattle has already seen more homicides this year — 21 — than it saw all of last year, though it remains one of the nation’s safer big cities.

On May 30, a man with a history of undiagnosed mental problems walked into a cafe in the city’s University District and opened fire, killing four people and wounding another. He then killed a woman downtown while stealing her car, and took his own life on a city street that afternoon as police moved in to arrest him.

The spree followed two unrelated, random killings. In the first, a 21-year-old culinary student who had just moved to Seattle was killed by a bullet fired from a passing car as she was walking home. In the second, a man was driving in a van with his children and his parents in broad daylight when a bullet struck him in the head. The still-unidentified shooter, who had been in an argument on the street, was aiming for someone else.

Last year, a King County deputy prosecutor specially designated to review gun cases for federal prosecution, Stephen Hobbs, looked at 200 cases. The U.S. attorney’s office wound up prosecuting 40 of those cases, and in about 50 others, Hobbs sent a letter to the defendants warning them that they would probably face federal prosecution — and a longer sentence — unless they agreed to plead guilty in state court.

In about 25 to 50 of the cases, the U.S. attorney’s office might have had jurisdiction but declined to prosecute, said spokeswoman Emily Langlie. For now, the office’s new policy of taking all cases applies only to Seattle.

Durkan, Satterberg and Seattle Mayor Mike McGinn acknowledged that solving gun violence takes more than tough prosecution. The state lacks the capacity in many cases to provide meaningful interventions in emergency mental health situations, Satterberg said, and budgetary cuts to social services have compounded that.

But there are things people can do to help, they said. They urged gun owners to keep their guns properly locked up. While Seattle police have recovered 361 guns from criminals this year, 81 others have been reported stolen in burglaries, Deputy Seattle Police Chief Nick Metz said.

They also said state laws should be changed to make penalties stiffer for felons and children who get guns illegally, and to stop gun purchases at gun shows without a background check.

Durkan urged people to call police or mental health hotlines if they’re concerned about relatives who have weapons and may be mentally ill.

“There’s more help out there than people understand,” she said.”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys Videos:

Federal Crimes – Be Careful

Federal Crimes – Be Proactive

Federal Crimes – Federal Indictment

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


Federal prosecutors drop case against John Edwards

June 13, 2012

San Francisco Chronicle on June 13, 2012 released the following:

“(06-13) 13:20 PDT Greensboro, N.C. (AP) —

Federal prosecutors have filed an order dismissing the remaining criminal charges against John Edwards.

A jury in North Carolina acquitted the former presidential candidate last month on one count of accepting illegal campaign contributions. It deadlocked on five other felony counts, resulting in a mistrial on those charges.

A statement issued by the U.S. Justice Department on Wednesday said prosecutors will not seek to retry Edwards on the five unresolved counts.

Edwards was accused of masterminding a scheme to use about $1 million in secret payments from two wealthy political donors to hide his pregnant mistress as he sought the White House in 2008.”

US v. John Edwards – Order for Dismissal

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys Videos:

Federal Crimes – Be Careful

Federal Crimes – Be Proactive

Federal Crimes – Federal Indictment

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


FBI probes Foothills Regional Airport

June 13, 2012

Winston-Salem Journal on June 13, 2012 released the following:

“By: Sharon McBrayer and Julie N. Chang | Media General News Service

MORGANTON —
The FBI is investigating Foothills Regional Airport and two of its employees have been suspended without pay.

A news release Tuesday from Foothills Regional Airport Authority said a federal criminal investigation involves two employees of the airport, Alex Nelson and Brad Adkins. Nelson was the airport manager but Adkins did not hold a management position, according to airport officials.

“The Airport continues normal operations without interruption,” the statement said. “Brent Brinkley, a long time employee, has been appointed as acting administrator.”

FBI Public Affairs Specialist Shelley Lynch said, “As a matter of Department of Justice policy, the FBI can neither confirm nor deny the existence of investigations.”

According to the FBI’s website, it investigates public corruption, major white-collar crime, significant violent crime, civil rights violations and transnational/national criminal organizations and enterprises and cyber-based attacks and high-technology crimes, along with national security threats.

Airport Authority Chairman and Burke County Commissioner Chair Wayne Abele said Tuesday no one has been charged with anything and federal investigators haven’t given them any information about the investigation.

“All I know is it’s an ongoing investigation,” Abele said.

Abele said about 10 FBI personnel showed up at the airport last Tuesday, accompanied by Caldwell County Sheriff’s deputies, and seized records and computers.

“The FBI, they don’t charge people unless they have a concrete case,” Abele said.

The public airport, located on NC 18, receives funding from Burke and Caldwell counties and the cities of Morganton and Lenoir. The funding the airport received in the 2011-12 budgets of the two counties and two cities were:

  • Caldwell County — $48,254, which includes money for capital improvements; and $30,017 in property taxes the county collects on planes, said Stan Kiser, Caldwell County manager.
  • Burke County — $36,246 for operating expenses; $4,166 in capital improvement money; and $4,100 from property taxes paid on planes, said Paul Ijames, Burke County finance director and assistant county manager. He said more planes are kept on the Caldwell County side. He said even though $4,100 was budgeted for taxes, only $3,300 has been collected so far in property taxes on the 20 planes listed for the Burke County side.
  • City of Morganton — $38,088 for operating expenses and $4,166 in capital funding, said City Manager Sally Sandy.
  • City of Lenoir — $42,320 total for operating and capital expenses, said Kaye Reynolds, communications and resource director for the city of Lenoir.

None of the boards of the four governments has voted on their individual budgets for next year.

Each one of the four has a representative on the Airport Authority, which alerted the two counties and two cities about the investigation, according to the release from city of Morganton Attorney Louis Vinay. Vinay also is acting as the authority’s attorney after its previous one retired, Kiser said.

Cuts to the airport’s budget from the four member entities resulted in a $42,000 revenue shortfall on the operations side, Nelson recently told the Burke County Board of Commissioners. The airport made internal cuts, shortened operational hours and skipped on mowing to cut that amount down to about $24,000, Nelson said at the time.

The airport planned on asking each entity for additional money for this fiscal year, Nelson said.

During that recent meeting, Burke County Commissioner Maynard Taylor questioned why the airport needed more money and why it isn’t self-supporting. He also questioned what the average county resident received from the airport.

“We’re spending more money than we have every year to keep this thing above ground so to speak, but the average citizen in Burke – what are they getting for that,” Taylor said in previous reports.

The airport’s condition has improved since the authority took over, Abele said at the meeting.

At the time, Nelson said the airport is a “tourism magnet,” adding that area colleges recruiting athletes use the airport.

Burke County commissioners have put off the funding request.”

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys Videos:

Federal Crimes – Be Careful

Federal Crimes – Be Proactive

Federal Crimes – Federal Indictment

Federal Crimes – Detention Hearing

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.


Prosecutors also have stake in Edwards’ trial verdict

May 22, 2012

Myrtle Beach Online on May 21, 2012 released the following:

“By Anne Blythe

GREENSBORO — John Edwards might be the one with the most to win or lose with the jury deliberating his fate, but the U.S. Department of Justice has a lot riding on his case, too.

When the eight men and four women return to the federal courthouse in downtown Greensboro Tuesday morning, they will begin their third day of deliberations in a case that also has put the Justice Department’s small public-integrity section under scrutiny.

Edwards’ trial came almost four years after the unit’s federal prosecutors bungled a corruption case against Ted Stevens, the U.S. senator from Alaska accused of failing to properly report more than $250,000 in gifts.

Stevens was convicted, , but the verdict was appealed and later vacated after it was revealed prosecutors and FBI agents had conspired to conceal and withhold evidence from the defense.

An investigation was launched into the integrity and professional practices of prosecutors in the public-integrity division. A scathing report from that investigation was released earlier this year, showing that prosecutors had “repeatedly ignored the law” and the ethical standards of their profession.

The Public Integrity Section was set up to root out corruption through the prosecution of elected and appointed public officials at all levels of government.

The section has exclusive jurisdiction over allegations of criminal misconduct on the part of federal judges and also supervises the nationwide investigation and prosecution of election crimes.

New chief for federal unit

Since the Stevens case, the unit has a new chief, former New York-based federal prosecutor Jack Smith. The Justice Department also has ordered training to make sure prosecutors disclose key evidence to defense attorneys.

Attorneys who have attended Edwards’ trial have commented throughout that the prosecution as well as the defense has a lot at stake in the case.

Edwards, a former two-time Democratic presidential candidate and U.S. senator who branched into politics after achieving success as a trial lawyer, was indicted last June on six counts related to violations of campaign-finance laws. The violations allegedly occured during Edwards’ campaign for the 2008 nomination, when two wealthy Edwards’ supporters gave more then $900,000 used to help hide Edwards’ extramarital affair with Rielle Hunter and her pregnancy.

Each of the six counts Edwards faces carries a penalty of up to five years in prison and a $250,000 fine. However, Kieran Shanahan, a former federal prosecutor from Raleigh who sat through the trial, said Edwards – if convicted and unable to successfully appeal – would likely recieve a concurrent sentence and serve no more than five years.

Peter Henning, a law professor at Wayne State University in Detroit and co-author of “The Prosecution and Defense of Public Corruption,” said Monday that a not-guilty verdict would be “a black eye” for the justice department.

“It would call into question their decision even to pursue the case,” Henning added.

But he added that he had seen no surprises from the prosecution, and that ultimately the questions that arise from the trial might be those raised by rulings made outside the jury’s presence by Judge Catherine Eagles, who was appointed to the federal bench in 2010 by President Barack Obama.

Eagles prohibited a former Federal Election Commission chairman from offering his opinion to the jury on whether the money from billionaires Rachel “Bunny” Mellon and Fred Baron would typically be classified as a campaign contribution or gift. Scott Thomas, who had more than 30 years with the FEC, testified while the jury was out of the courtroom that he thought the money that went from Mellon and Baron to other people was used for personal expenses that did not need to be publicly reported or subject to campaign limits.

The jury, during its first two days of deliberations, has asked for many exhibits related to testimony about the $925,000 in checks issued by Mellon in 2007 and 2008.

Though only the 12 people on the jury know what is being discussed behind closed doors, the first two counts on the jury verdict sheet are related to the Mellon money.

Toward the end of the trial, the jurors sounded as if they were a collegial group, laughing and talking as they walked into and out of the jury box.

On Monday, the second day of deliberations, the jurors were quieter and somber-looking, barely looking at prosecutors or Edwards as they waited for the judge to answer questions or release them for lunch or the evening break.

As many await the verdict inside the federal courthouse in downtown Greensboro, national political organizations are seeking answers and raising questions outside the tense atmosphere.

Objections to judge’s instructions

On Monday, the Center for Competitive Politics, a conservative group that promotes the deregulation of U.S. elections, harshly criticized the final juror instructions issued last week in the trial, particularly sections about the definition of “influencing an election.”

“If Edwards goes to prison, we will have an Alice in Wonderland world where conduct that would not be punished by a civil fine can result in jail time,” Allison Hayward, vice president for policy of CCP, said in a prepared statement.

The organization’s spokeswoman pointed to a U.S. Supreme Court case decided in 1976, the landmark Buckley v. Valeo case, which states that under “due process” a person of ordinary intelligence must understand that his actions could be considered illegal.

“There is no legislative history to guide us in determining the scope of the critical phrase ‘for the purpose of … influencing,’ ” Hayward further stated.

“The Supreme Court said the phrase ‘for the purpose of influencing’ is so vague and broad that it cannot be constitutionally applied to define campaign spending.””

————————————————————–

Douglas McNabb – McNabb Associates, P.C.’s
Federal Criminal Defense Attorneys Videos:

Federal Crimes – Be Careful

Federal Crimes – Be Proactive

Federal Crimes – Federal Indictment

————————————————————–

To find additional federal criminal news, please read Federal Criminal Defense Daily.

Douglas McNabb and other members of the U.S. law firm practice and write and/or report extensively on matters involving Federal Criminal Defense, INTERPOL Red Notice Removal, International Extradition Defense, OFAC SDN Sanctions Removal, International Criminal Court Defense, and US Seizure of Non-Resident, Foreign-Owned Assets. Because we have experience dealing with INTERPOL, our firm understands the inter-relationship that INTERPOL’s “Red Notice” brings to this equation.

The author of this blog is Douglas C. McNabb. Please feel free to contact him directly at mcnabb@mcnabbassociates.com or at one of the offices listed above.