Article

Note: A federal grand jury returned an indictment charging Kenneth Taylor (Alleged Fraudster) with “one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, two counts of wire fraud, and two counts of subscribing to a false tax return.” Through various entities including Success Bullion USA LLC, Clearfog Investments LLC, Raigold LLC, and Centerlink LLC, Alleged Fraudster, in concert with two co-defendants, purportedly marketed and sold fictitious financial products including “Proof of Funds Statements” and standby letters of credit. The indictment provided that Alleged Fraudster purportedly exercised control over these entities, misrepresented connections, capital available to him and represented that by using his standbys and other products, investors could obtain high-value loans, improve their credit and access “private trading platforms.”

Following discovery, Alleged Fraudster filed a motion requesting that the prosecution submit a bill of particulars regarding the first count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud. In his motion, Alleged Fraudster made seven requests seeking specific information regarding what “fictitious financial instruments”, misrepresentations and “fraudulent promotion” he allegedly made during the purported scheme. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Tigar, J., denied the motion.

A bill of particulars may serve to provide a defendant with the nature of the charges against him in order to prepare for trial and to otherwise avoid surprise in the face of a vague indictment. The bill’s purpose is not, however, to provide the defendant with all of the government’s evidence. In determining the appropriateness of ordering the prosecution to submit a bill of particulars the “court should consider whether the defendant has been advised adequately of the charges through the indictment and all other disclosures made by the government.” United States v. Long, 706 F.2d 1044, 1054 (9th Cir. 1983).

The Judge began noting that Alleged Fraudster motioned for the bill in a timely manner, being on the same day as the agreed motions deadline. Alleged Fraudster’s requested information, however, went to the conspiracy charge which the Judge compared to a request for complete discovery and thus outside the purpose of the bill. The indictment returned by the grand jury provided the statute under which Alleged Fraudster was charged, the relevant time period of the prosecution’s case, Alleged Fraudster’s role in the scheme, the entities involved and the nature of the financial instruments and representations purportedly made. As the indictment alleged a single conspiracy, the Judge distinguished Alleged Fraudster’s case on the grounds that, “unlike in other cases, there is no confusion over which transactions the government contends were fraudulent; the government contends that all of them were.” The Judge concluded that “[a]lthough the government produced voluminous discovery in this case, a bill of particulars is not warranted because the indictment and search warrant affidavits provide sufficient detail as to the theory of the government’s case against [Alleged Fraudster].”

[MJK]

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 the ICC or Coastline Solutions.