Federal Pretrial Diversion Update

Criminal Defense Attorney, Federal Pretrial Diversion, Middle District Florida, Pretrial Diversion, Pretrial diversion (PTD), PTD,

Federal Pretrial Diversion, Middle District Florida

Federal Pretrial Diversion

Federal Pretrial Diversion


Tampa Federal Criminal Defense Attorney has  previously covered the Federal Pretrial Diversion here: Federal Pretrial Diversion Eligibility Criteria  According to the Feds, “Pretrial diversion (PTD) is an alternative to prosecution which seeks to divert certain offenders from traditional criminal justice processing into a program of supervision and services administered by U.S. Probation. 
 

We just obtained their manual that details the processes used in evaluating these cases for eligibility. The Federal Pretrial Diversion Manual describes the assessment procedure, which is helpful to know in deciding how to help get a defendant into pretrial diversion.

 


Excerpts From the Manual




Defendants and Offenders Subject to the Procedures


Subject to this policy is any person identified, prior to or subsequent to the formal filing of charges, by the United States Attorney’s Office or pretrial services or probation office as a candidate for diversion and who meets the eligibility criteria identified in the United States Attorneys’ Manual, Title 9, Criminal Division, Chapter 22, Pretrial Diversion Program.  The person identified as a candidate for diversion may seek advice of defense counsel and must sign a pretrial diversion agreement.

Impact on a Defendant’s Job and Employment

The officer should obtain details about the candidate’s work history spanning the previous 10 years.  The officer may ask the candidate for a resume to help establish employment history or gather pay stubs and tax records to help verify previous employment.  If documents relating to past employment are not available, the officer should contact collateral sources or former employers to verify past employment.  After investigating and verifying past employment, the officer should ascertain whether employment program referrals are appropriate. If the candidate’s current employment would be jeopardized by an employer’s knowledge of the candidate’s participation in the diversion program, the officer should use pay stubs or other means of verification. The officer also should conduct employment contacts if such contacts will not jeopardize the candidate’s continued employment.

Federal Pretrial Diversion Eligibility Criteria

Federal Pretrial Diversion , Pretrial Diversion, Pretrial diversion (PTD), PTD, Middle District Florida, Criminal Defense Attorney,

Federal Pretrial Diversion PTD

Federal Pretrial Diversion

The Eligibility Criteria for the DOJ Pretrial Diversion Program have been updated.  The disqualifier for having a history of substance abuse (alcohol or drugs) has been removed.

Federal Pretrial Diversion Eligibility Criteria


According to the Feds, “Pretrial diversion (PTD) is an alternative to prosecution which seeks to divert certain offenders from traditional criminal justice processing into a program of supervision and services administered by the U.S. Probation Service. In the majority of cases, offenders are diverted at the pre-charge stage. Participants who successfully complete the program will not be charged or, if charged, will have the charges against them dismissed; unsuccessful participants are returned for prosecution.”

The four disqualifiers are now — The U.S. Attorney, in his/her discretion, may divert any individual against whom a prosecutable case exists and who is not:

1.  Accused of an offense which, under existing Department guidelines, should be diverted to the State for prosecution;
2.  A person with two or more prior felony convictions;
3.  A public official or former public official accused of an offense arising out of an alleged violation of a public trust; or
4.  Accused of an offense related to national security or foreign affairs.

Federal Pretrial Diversion a Possibility? Call 813-222-2220 .


Source: https://www.justice.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/22mcrm.htm#9-22.100/s/Jeff

Tampa United States Attorney – Office

 

Finished another Criminal Defense morning at the United States Attorney’s Office Building in the Middle District of Florida – Tampa Division in Florida.

400 N Tampa St, Tampa, FL 33602, USA

Help Need Here? Call Casey 813-222-2220 .

 

Criminal Defense morning at the United States Attorney's Office Building in the Middle District of Florida - Tampa Division

Criminal Defenseat the United States Attorney’s Office Building in the Middle District of Florida – Tampa Division

 

Tampa Federal Criminal Defense Attorney, Tampa Federal Criminal Defense Lawyer, Middle District Florida
United States Attorney’s Office Tampa, Florida

 

Electronic Discovery in Criminal Cases – Principles

 

ESI, electronic discovery, Electronic Discovery, Criminal ,

Electronic Discovery, Criminal

Electronic Discovery in a Criminal Case 

ESI Discovery in Federal Criminal Cases


Federal Criminal Defense Attorney just received an excellent checklist and  list of principles to be applied in electronic discovery in criminal cases. Thanks to our Federal defense lawyer for this excellent outline. Below the principles are a quick ESI checklist. “Today, most information is created and stored electronically. The advent of electronically stored information (ESI) presents an opportunity for greater efficiency and cost savings for the entire criminal justice system . . . To realize those benefits and to avoid undue cost, disruption and delay, criminal practitioners must educate themselves and employ best practices for managing ESI discovery.” Excerpt from Introduction to Recommendations for ESI Discovery in Federal Criminal Cases .


Principle 1: Lawyers have a responsibility to have an adequate understanding of electronic discovery.
Principle 2: In the process of planning, producing, and resolving disputes about ESI discovery, the parties should include individuals with sufficient technical knowledge and experience regarding ESI.
Principle 3: At the outset of a case, the parties should meet and confer about the nature, volume, and mechanics of producing ESI discovery. Where the ESI discovery is particularly complex or produced on a rolling basis, an on-going dialogue may be helpful.
Principle 4: The parties should discuss what formats of production are possible and appropriate, and what formats can be generated. Any format selected for producing discovery should maintain the ESI’s integrity, allow for reasonable usability, reasonably limit costs, and, if possible, conform to industry standards for the format.
Principle 5:When producing ESI discovery, a party should not be required to take on substantial additional processing or format conversion costs and burdens beyond what the party has already done or would do for its own case preparation or discovery production.
Principle 6: Following the meet and confer, the parties should notify the court of ESI discovery production issues or problems that they reasonably anticipate will significantly affect the handling of the case.
Principle 7: The parties should discuss ESI discovery transmission methods and media that promote efficiency, security, and reduced costs. The producing party should provide a general description and maintain a record of what was transmitted.
Principle 8: In multi-defendant cases, the defendants should authorize one or more counsel to act as the discovery coordinator(s) or seek appointment of a Coordinating Discovery Attorney.
Principle 9: The parties should make good faith efforts to discuss and resolve disputes over ESI discovery, involving those with the requisite technical knowledge when necessary, and they should consult with a supervisor, or obtain supervisory authorization, before seeking judicial resolution of an ESI discovery dispute or alleging misconduct, abuse, or neglect concerning the production of ESI.
Principle 10: All parties should limit dissemination of ESI discovery to members of their litigation team who need and are approved for access, and they should also take reasonable and appropriate measures to secure ESI discovery against unauthorized access or disclosure.


Special Thanks to the Federal Defender’s Office and The Joint Electronic Technology Working Group (JETWG) that was created to address best practices for the efficient and cost-effective management of post-indictment ESI discovery between the Government and defendants charged in federal criminal cases.

ESI Discovery Checklist. A one-page Checklist for addressing ESI production issues.


ESI Discovery Production Checklist


Is this a case where the volume or nature of ESI significantly increases the case’s complexity?

Does this case involve classified information?

Does this case involve trade secrets, or national security or homeland security information?

Do the parties have appropriate technical advisors to assist?

Have the parties met and conferred about ESI issues?

Have the parties addressed the format of ESI being produced? Categories may include:

  • Investigative reports and materials
  • Witness statements
  • Tangible objects
  • Third party ESI digital devices (computers, phones, etc.)
  • Photos, video and audio recordings
  • Third party records
  • Title III wire tap information
  • Court records
  • Tests and examinations
  • Experts
  • Immunity and plea agreements
  • Discovery materials with special production considerations
  • Related matters
  • Discovery materials available for inspection but not produced digitally
  • Other information

Have the parties addressed ESI issues involving:

  • Table of contents?
  • Production of paper records as either paper or ESI?
  • Proprietary or legacy data?
  • Attorney-client, work product, or other privilege issues?
  • Sensitive confidential, personal, grand jury, classified, tax return, trade secret, or similar information?
  • Whether email transmission is inappropriate for any categories of ESI discovery?
  • Incarcerated defendant’s access to discovery materials?
  • ESI discovery volume for receiving party’s planning purposes?
  • Parties’ software or hardware limitations?
  • Production of ESI from 3rd party digital devices?
  • Forensic images of ESI digital devices?
  • Metadata in 3rd party ESI?
  • Redactions?
  • Reasonable schedule for producing party?
  • Reasonable schedule for receiving party to give notice of issues?
  • Appropriate security measures during transmission of ESI discovery, e.g., encryption?
  • Adequate security measures to protect sensitive ESI against unauthorized access or disclosure?
  • Need for protective orders, clawback agreements, or similar orders or agreements?
  • Collaboration on sharing costs or tasks?
  • Need for receiving party’s access to original ESI?

Preserving a record of discovery produced?
Have the parties memorialized their agreements and disagreements?
Do the parties have a system for resolving disputes informally?
Is there a need for a designated discovery coordinator for multiple defendants?
Do the parties have a plan for managing/returning ESI at the conclusion of the case?


Electronic Discovery in a Criminal Case? Call Casey at 813-222-2220 .


Mail Fraud Conviction Overturned – Florida Federal Criminal Defense Attorney Reports

Mail Fraud 18 U.S.C. § 1957

Tampa Federal Criminal Defense Attorney was just informed that a Florida Lawyer’s Mail Fraud conviction in a United States District Court in Florida was eviscerated by the 11th Circuit:

“A jury convicted Joseph T. Lander on mail fraud and money laundering charges related to two separate fraudulent schemes, and he appealed. The Eleventh Circuit held in the resulting appeal that the material variance between the proof offered by the Government at Lander’s trial and the allegations in support of Count Two of the indictment substantially prejudiced Lander’s ability to prepare his defense. It reversed Lander’s conviction and vacated his sentence on that count, and reversed as well his convictions on eleven money laundering counts, as they depended on conviction on Count Two. It affirmed Lander’s convictions as to the other scheme to defraud, and rejected Lander’s other assertions of error.
Lander worked as an attorney in Dixie County, Florida, where he practiced law and served as the county attorney. A group of real estate developers planning a project called River Shores at Jena in Dixie County retained Lander to help guide their project through the county’s regulatory process.
When they initially met Lander they did not know he was the county attorney, but they quickly became aware of this fact through their meetings with him. In order to “give a level of security to the prospective buyers that [the developers] would finish the development,” the developers gave Lander $820,000 in August of 2005 to be held in trust to draw against as the developers incurred infrastructure expenses.
Lander then opened an account called the “Lander Law Firm—Special Account” to hold the developers’ funds. But, not all of these funds helped complete River Shores. For example, Lander made a $140,980 withdrawal from the account to buy an island off the western coast of Florida. He also used the money for various other personal expenses. These personal withdrawals continued until December of 2007 when Lander depleted and closed the account.
While Lander was making personal draws on the account, he also fulfilled two of the requests from the developers for money from the account. Lander mailed a $200,000 cashier’s check drawn from the account on August 17, 2005. In early 2006, Lander fulfilled another request for $300,000.
According to one of the developers, he did not question that Lander still held the other $320,000 because Lander remitted these two requests in a timely manner. When the developers made a third request for funds, Lander denied it and informed them that the county commissioners were not comfortable with the project and the rest of the money would be released when they finished the project.
This scheme was the basis for Count Two of the indictment, which charged a violation of the mail fraud statute. The indictment met the requirement for a material misrepresentation by alleging that Lander “falsely represented to certain developers having business before Dixie County that the developers were required to pay a performance bond to Dixie County.”
The Eleventh Circuit held, however, that the evidence at trial disproved that Lander made this misrepresentation. For example, when one of the developers was asked whether Lander ever represented to them that Dixie County required a performance bond, he responded: “Not that I recall.”
Another one of the developers stated that Lander never told her that the developers needed to post a performance bond. And he Government could point to no place in the record where the evidence at trial supported the charge that Lander misrepresented to the River Shores developers that they needed to post a performance bond.
Without this misrepresentation to support the River Shores scheme to defraud, the Government shifted its trial strategy. During its closing argument, it appeared to rely on Lander’s representations to the developers that he could make sure their project moved through the regulatory process.
The Eleventh Circuit held, as a result, that the misrepresentation the Government relied on did not coincide with the allegations of the indictment and represented a material variance from the indictment. The Court concluded moreover that this variance substantially prejudiced Lander, in that he was not informed of the charges against him and was unfairly surprised by the evidence offered at trial.”
Thanks to the FPD Orlando Office for the tip.
Case Excerpts:
“The grand jury returned a twenty-one count superseding indictment against Lander.  Sixteen of those counts concern us here.  Count Two of the indictment relates to the River Shores Scheme and is explained more fully below.  Counts Four through Fourteen charge Lander with money laundering by engaging in a monetary transaction in property of a value greater than $10,000 derived from mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957.  These counts are based on various withdrawals Lander made from the Lander Law Firm – Special Account.”
“Lander argues before this court, as he did in his Motion for Judgment of Acquittal, that the facts proved at trial to support the River Shores mail fraud charge (Count Two) materially varied from the allegations of the superseding indictment.  According to Lander, this variance substantially prejudiced his rights and his conviction on this count should be reversed.  We agree.”
““The standard of review for whether there is a material variance between the allegations in the indictment and the facts established at trial is twofold:  First, whether a material variance did occur, and, second, whether the defendant suffered substantial prejudice as a result.”  United States v. Chastain, 198 F.3d 1338, 1349 (11th Cir. 1999) (citing United States v. Prince, 883 F.2d 953, 959 (11th Cir. 1989)).”
“We have called an allegation of a variance in essence “one form of challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.”  United States v. Jenkins, 779 F.2d 606, 616 (11th Cir. 1986).  “A ‘variance’ occurs when the evidence at trial establishes facts materially different from those alleged in the indictment.”  United States v. Caporale, 806 F.2d 1487, 1499 (11th Cir. 1986) (citing United States v. Johnson, 713 F.2d 633, 643 n.9 (11th Cir. 1983)).”
“To find substantial prejudice, we have ordinarily considered whether “the proof at trial differed so greatly from the charges that appellant was unfairly surprised and was unable to prepare an adequate defense.”  United States v. Calderon, 127 F.3d 1314, 1328 (11th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted).”
“Next, we must decide whether this variance substantially prejudiced Lander. We hold that it did.  As our precedent explains, the rationale behind the material variance rule is that the accused be informed of the charges against him and that he not be surprised by the evidence offered at trial.  Thompson v. Nagle, 118 F.3d 1442, 1453 (11th Cir. 1997) (citing Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 82, 55 S. Ct. 629, 630 (1935)).  This justification is grounded in the fundamental requirement that an indictment “apprise[] the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet.”  Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 763-64, 82 S. Ct. 1038, 1047 (1962) (citations omitted) (quotation marks omitted). “
Mail Fraud Indictment? Call 813-222-2220 .

Cell Phone and GPS Location Data in Criminal Prosecutions

18 U.S.C. § 2516, GPS, warrantless GPS surveillance, Electronic Communications Privacy Act, privacy, Cell Phone Location Data
Cell Phone and GPS Location Data
Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer at Law Office of W.F. ”Casey” Ebsary, Jr. notes recent developments in Cell Phone Location Data used in Criminal Prosecutions. When the government wants to track an individual’s location through his or her cell phone, it submits an application to a judge seeking an order compelling a company to provide access to location data. Cell phones generate several types of data that can be used to track their users’ past or present locations with various degrees of precision.

Cell Phones and Privacy Invasion

Pardon | Seal | Expunge

Presidential Pardons

Presidential Pardons


Presidential Pardons are at 22 and counting under President Barack Obama as of November 2011. A Tampa Bay, Florida resident benefited from a “presidential pardon this week [and]  called his earlier felony a “youthful indiscretion” that happened after he got mixed up in the wrong crowd.”


Florida Update 2020


Florida Clemency Board Blocks Pardons

As of August, the clemency board had a backlog of more than 24,000 cases.

https://news.wfsu.org/state-news/2020-09-23/florida-clemency-board-blocks-pardon-blocked-for-felons-rights-leader


Pardon vs. Seal | Expunge


According to the United States Department of Justice (USDOJ) “[w]hile a presidential pardon will restore various rights lost as a result of the pardoned offense and should lessen to some extent the stigma arising from a conviction, it will not erase or expunge the record of your conviction.

Free Florida Sealing and Expunge Web App

We have place a free Florida Sealing and Expunge Web App on SealMyFile.com. Check and See If You Are Eligible To Have Your Record Sealed Or Expunged. The contact The Law Office of Board Certified Criminal Trial Lawyer W.F. “Casey” Ebsary, Jr. at 813-222-2220.

 


Presidential Pardon Requirements


 

Federal Offense Only

“Under the Constitution, only federal criminal convictions, such as those adjudicated in the United States District Courts, may be pardoned by the President. ” Furthermore, “if you are seeking clemency for a state criminal conviction, you should not complete and submit [a Presidential Pardon] petition. Instead, you should contact the Governor or other appropriate authorities of the state where you reside or where the conviction occurred (such as the state board of pardons and paroles) to determine whether any relief is available to you under state law. ”


Five Year Waiting Period

“Under the Department’s rules governing petitions for executive clemency, 28 C.F.R. §§ 1.1 et seq., an applicant must satisfy a minimum waiting period of five years before he becomes eligible to apply for a presidential pardon of his federal conviction. “


Application Tip:

When completing the application, “you should state the specific purpose for which you are seeking pardon and, if applicable, attach any relevant documentary evidence that indicates how a pardon will help you accomplish that purpose (such as citations to applicable provisions of state constitutions, statutes, or regulations, or copies of letters from appropriate officials of administrative agencies, professional associations, licensing authorities, etc.). In addition, you should bear in mind that a presidential pardon is ordinarily a sign of forgiveness and is granted in recognition of the applicant’s acceptance of responsibility for the crime and established good conduct for a significant period of time after conviction or release from confinement. ”


USDOJ Has Penalty for False Statements

“The failure to fully and accurately complete the application form may be construed as a falsification of the petition, which may provide a reason for denying your petition. In addition, the knowing and willful falsification of a document submitted to the government may subject you to criminal punishment, including up to five years’ imprisonment and a $250,000 fine. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 1001 and 3571.”

Source:  https://www.tampabay.com/news/business/presidential-pardon-brings-relief-stirs-regret-wesley-chapel-man-tells/1203163


https://www.justice.gov/pardon/pardon_instructions.htm

Pardon?  Seal? Expunge? Call 813-222-2220

Search Warrant Gibson Guitars

Search Warrant, Gibson, Gibson Guitar, Gibson Search Warrant, The Lacey Act, 16 U.S.C. § 3372(a)(2)(B)(iii)

Search Warrant, Gibson, Gibson Guitar, Gibson Search Warrant

Gibson Guitar Search Warrant

Gibson Guitars and The Lacey Act, 16 U.S.C. § 3372(a)(2)(B)(iii)


Gibson Search Warrant? Feds with nothing better to do spent a lot of time and money drafting this Affidavit for Search Warrant. Somehow, I don’t feel any safer.

UPDATE: “Gibson, fearing a bankrupting legal battle, settled and agreed to pay a $300,000 penalty to the U.S. Government. It also agreed to make a “community service payment” of $50,000 to the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation — to be used on research projects or tree-conservation activities. The feds in return agreed to let Gibson resume importing wood while they sought “clarification” from India.” According to Investor’s Business Daily.



Jump to End of Article to see Previous Federal Guitar-related Prosecutions.


Gibson Search Warrant Excerpts:

 
“The Lacey Act, 16 U.S.C. § 3372(a)(2)(B)(iii), makes it unlawful for any person to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire, or purchase in interstate or foreign commerce any plant taken, possessed, transported or sold, in violation of any limitation under any law or regulation of any State, or under any foreign law, governing the export or transshipment of plants. Section 3371 defines the term plant and plants to mean any wild member of the plant kingdom, including roots, seeds, parts, or products thereof, and including trees from either natural or planted forest stands.


Gibson Guitar Affidavit for Search Warrant Download Here
 
8. Title 18, United States Code, Section 545, makes it unlawful for anyone to knowingly import or bring into the United States any merchandise contrary to law, or to receive, conceal, buy, sell, or in any manner facilitate the transportation, concealment, or sale of such merchandise after importation, knowing the same to have been imported or brought into the United States contrary to law.
 
9. Countries generally establish laws and regulations related to the harvest (logging) and export of wood, timber or plants (forest products) in order to manage natural resources and regulate the commercialization of their nation’s natural resources.
 
10. The international community uses an “International Tariff Code” system or ITC, also known as the “Harmonized Schedule” or HS, to simplify international trade in commodities including plants and plant products. Most relevant to this case is HS Code 4407, “Wood sawn or chipped lengthwise, sliced or peeled, whether or not planed, sanded, or end jointed, or a thickness exceeding 6mm.” India prohibits the export of products classified under HS Code 4407 for all plant species harvested in India, without exception.”
 
“14. Guitar bodies utilize veneers of various wood species. Veneers are typically large pieces of uniformly cut thin sheets of wood, defined by the harmonized tariff codes under the HS series 4408. Veneers are defined as being less than 6mm thick” 
 
Gibson Search
Warrant
Affidavit

“The plant product imported was “Ebony fingerboards for guitars: Diospyros ebenum, harvested in India”. The final consignee was declared as GIBSON GUITAR, 641 Massman Dr, TN, with Herb Jenkins listed as the point of contact.”

“34. According to Matthews, since January 2010, GIBSON CUSTOM has used only Indian rosewood. Eugene Nix initially receives and inspects all the GIBSON CUSTOM rosewood and ebony upon import. Nix then kiln dries the wood andlor conditions the rosewood and ebony to prepare it for the manufacturing process. The rosewood and ebony is then shipped to GIBSON CUSTOM from the GIBSON ELECTRIC facilities when it is ready. Gibson purchasing managers are responsible for the order placement and purchase of specific species of sawn wood from selected venders. The following GIBSON GUITAR CORPORATION employees are responsible for the sourcing and procurement of rosewood and ebony for manufacturing at the different GIBSON GUITAR CORPORATION Divisions . . . .”

“31. SA Seiler conducted an interview with GIBSON GUITAR CORPORATION employee, Eugene Nix, on November 17, 2009. Nix is the wood products engineer for GIBSON GUITAR CORPORATION and is responsible for sourcing types and species of wood for manufacturing use by GIBSON GUITAR CORPORATION. In addition, Nix is responsible for inspection of the imported wood to evaluate its condition, properties, and quality. Nix also accomplished all kiln drying for imported wood received at the GIBSON ELECTRIC manufacturing facility in Nashville, Tennessee, including rosewood and ebony. Nix shipped dried wood to other Gibson divisions when the wood was ready for further manufacturing. The kiln used for drying wood is located in the rough mill, an adjacent building to 641 Massman Drive. The rough mill is marked as building 653 on Massman Drive. Nix stated that Gibson uses only Indian ebony in Gibson products (containing ebony). Nix further stated the following: Rosewood used by Gibson is Indian rosewood, although Gibson had used Madagascar rosewood and ebony in the past. According to Nix, all ebony and rosewood was stored at Red Arrow Delivery Service upon import and delivery to Nashville until GIBSON GUITAR CORPORATION was ready to have it picked up. Gibson’s purchasing managers are responsible for actually placing orders for rosewood and ebony from suppliers and Herb Jenkins was the senior purchasing manager at GIBSON ELECTRIC. Nix confirmed he kept electronic files and email correspondence concerning the sourcing, receipt, and use of rosewood and ebony by GIBSON GUITAR CORPORATION on his computer. ”
 
Computers Seized

 

“38. Your affiant is aware that computers are used to engage in business transactions that involve the trade of wildlife and plant species. A computer may have been used to store, generate, and print documents used in furtherance of the shipments of lndian ebony and lndian rosewood, which are in violation of the laws enumerated hereinabove. For example, THEODOR NAGEL GMBH would direct their United States sales representative, Hunter Trading Corporation, to send email notification to Red Arrow Delivery Service, to authorize the release of sawn rosewood and ebony to GIBSON GUITAR CORPOPRATION upon receipt of invoice payment. In another example, LUTHIER MERCANTILE INTERNATIONAL sent an email notification to Red Arrow Delivery Service to expect arrival of a 24 pallet shipment of lndian rosewood and ebony for GIBSON GUITAR CORPORATION.”

Previous Federal Guitar Cases


Guitar Hero Bandit Sentenced. A man who committed an … www.justice.gov/usao/cac/pressroom/pr2009/029.html


Second Texas man sentenced to 16 months in prison for …… Chinese nationals Fu Yiner and Wang Hong, who smuggled items made from sea turtle shell parts, including guitar picks violin bows, were … www.justice.gov/usao/co/press_releases/archive/2008/June08/6_20_08.html


Second Chinese National Pleads Guilty to  As set forth in the indictment and acknowledged in today’s plea agreement, Fu knowingly sent four shipments of raw shell and guitar picks made  www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2008/January/08_enrd_018.html

Source for Update: https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/gibson-guitar-raid-like-tea-party-intimidation/

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act | Attorney | Video

15 U.S.C. 78 FCPA FCPA Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

15 U.S.C. 78 FCPA FCPA Foreign Corrupt Practices Act

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act – The DOJ and FBI enforce this law. Special FBI offices as well as teams of Department of Justice Prosecutors are now working full time, to identify criminal violations and then prosecute both people and companies. 15 U.S. Code Section 78, FCPA, Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

Call Casey here: 813-222-2220
Casey’s Qualifications are here:
Casey’s Office is here:

Foreign Corrupt Practices Act Attorney Lawyer

Accidental Smuggler | Junk in the Trunk

Nerd Smugglers Key Codes

Federal Criminal Defense Source has supplied us with an Affidavit from Federal Law Enforcement that outlines how drug smugglers would obtain electronic key codes using the Vehicle Identification Numbers. They would then use the keys to open the trunk to stuff drugs in the trunk outside of the United States, and retrieve them from the vehicle after it had returned to the United States.

 



Drugs in the Trunk? How Did That Get in There?

“The FBI has uncovered an elaborate drug smuggling scheme along the U.S., Mexican border. It involves G.P.S. devices, duplicate keys, duffel bags stuffed with drugs and regular commuters used as mules” according to a television news report, see video below.

A Doctor and several other unsuspecting people were arrested at the border after cops found some vehicles to have the drugs in the trunk. All the drivers claimed to not know there was 200 pounds of weed in the trunk. Charges are pending against the smugglers. Excerpts from the Affidavit are below. Smugglers call these unsuspecting folks “blind mules.”

Accidental Smuggler | FBI Arrests Marijuana Blind Mules

The affidavit details the use of blind mules to run drugs from Juarez to El Paso. It’s public record in a case out of El Paso, Texas and was filed July 1, 2011.

Electronic Key Codes and Smuggling Excerpts From FBI DEA Agent Affidavit:
Based on the information provided by [Confidential Source] CS-1, the locksmith [they] were using was specifically identified. Throughout the remainder of this Affidavit, this locksmith is referred to as LOCKSMITH A.
13. On 06/17/2011, we interviewed an El Paso, Texas-based licensed locksmith, {not LOCKSMITH A). This licensed locksmith informed us that there were several “key code source” companies that have the capability to provide vehicle key cut codes to licensed locksmiths based on the provision of the VIN by the licensed locksmith, This licensed locksmith further informed us that, as a result of differing standards and policies amongst vehicle manufacturers, “key code source” companies have varied abilities to provide key cut codes depending on the vehicle make and model. For example, this locksmith stated that most “key code source” companies had very limited access to key cut codes for most XXXX key cut codes, but had widely available access to XXXX key cut codes.
14. Texas Department of Public Safety records indicate that LOCKSMITH A is a licensed Texas locksmith with a license expiring on 12/31/2011. Based on the information described in this paragraph and in paragraph 13 above, I believe that LOCKSMITH A has access to one or more “key code source” companies and therefore has the ability to obtain vehicle key cut codes for vehicles, especially Ford vehicles, solely by providing a VIN to one or more of these “key code source” companies.
I have reviewed the information from this database with respect to a single user account (hereafter referred to as USER ACCOUNT A) from a XXXX Dealership located in Dallas, Texas. This information indicates that the following vehicle key codes were pulled by USER ACCOUNT A:
27. Per XXXX Motor Company, USER ACCOUNT A has pulled/accessed 5,321 vehicle key codes in the last 18 months, approximately 10 key codes per day. Also based on my review of this information, USER ACCOUNT A has pulled vehicle key codes for XXXX vehicles which are registered all over the United States, not just in Dallas, Texas. Based on the high volume of key codes pulled, as well as the geographic dispersion of the registered locations of the associated vehicles, I believe that USER ACCOUNT A is being utilized to provide vehicle key codes to one or more “key code source” companies as described in paragraph 13 above,
28. In order to corroborate CS-l’s information with respect to LOCKSMITH A, and to confirm the link between LOCKSMITH A and USER ACCOUNT A, we tasked an Individual to go to LOCKSMITH A and request that LOCKSMITH A make a copy of a XXXX vehicle key, solely based on the provision of the VIN for that . . . .  vehicle.
LOCKSMITH A employee informed the Individual that the key would only work to get in to the car, but would not start it.
30. On 06/27/2011, we received confirmation from [the manufacturer’s] Global Investigations Department that on 06/24/2011, at approximately 12:22 PM (10:22 PM Mountain Time), USER ACCOUNT A pulled/accessed the TEST VIN for the 2006 [vehicle]. The TEST VIN was therefore pulled/accessed by USER ACCOUNT A during the relevant timeframe that the Individual provided the TEST VIN to the employee at LOCKSMITH A.
[B]y utilizing keys made by LOCKSMITH A and by victimizing individuals whom they have caused to unwittingly smuggle drugs, have violated Title 21, United States Code, Sections 841 and 846, Possession with Intent to Distribute a controlled substance, namely 100 kilograms or more of marijuana and Conspiracy to possess with the intent to Distribute controlled substance, namely 100 kilograms or more of marijuana.
Did Someone Hide Drugs in Your Car? Call me Toll Free 1-877-793-9290 .