Article

Note: Gary Parker (Fraudster) and his brother ran a financing service (Business) that "was supposedly engaged in the financing and leasing of commercial equipment." Business represented to at least 29 individuals (Customers) that it could secure funding from Business's investors to enable Customers to purchase commercial equipment, a transaction Business called "commercial equipment leases". Each Customer signed a lease agreement (Lease Agreement) and made advance payments to Business. After receiving advance payments, Business failed to deliver the funding.

Fraudster, his brother, and two co-defendants were charged with "conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud, wire and mail fraud, conspiracy to launder money and money laundering, and participating in a conspiracy of evading income taxes", and were convicted after a jury trial. Fraudster was given an enhanced sentence because of his leadership role in Business. On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals, Dubina, Black, and Fay, JJ., affirmed. Fraudster then moved to vacate, set aside, or correct his conviction and sentence. The motion was referred to a Magistrate Judge for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, who recommended that Fraudster's motion be denied. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Moreno, J., adopted the recommendation and denied Fraudster's motion.

Fraudster argued that he was denied his Sixth Amendment right to due process and was rendered ineffective assistance of counsel. Among other things, Fraudster claimed his counsel should have objected to allegedly false testimony by two Customers who claimed they had obtained letters of credit as required by the Lease Agreement, and should have requested a jury instruction that Fraudster was under no obligation to either perform under the Lease Agreement or refund the Customers' advance payments because each Customer had failed to obtain the required LC.

The Judge ruled that because Fraudster's primary defense at trial and appeal had been that he had no knowledge of the scheme, Fraudster's counsel did not render ineffective assistance by failing to argue that Fraudster was not obligated to perform under the Lease Agreement. Furthermore, there was sufficient evidence to "demonstrate that defendants never intended to perform on any of the contracts, even if letters of credit had been provided."

[JEB/pbl]

COPYRIGHT OF THE INSTITUTE OF INTERNATIONAL BANKING LAW & PRACTICE

The views expressed in this Case Summary are those of the Institute of International Banking Law and Practice and not necessarily those of ICC or the other partners in DC-PRO.