Articles Posted in Federal Crimes

In federal criminal cases charging a defendant with fraud relating to the operation of a business, a common defense is asserted that the defendant relied upon the advice of a professional or other advisor, such as an accountant, and had the right to assume his/her conduct was legal. In a federal criminal trial where the defendant is charged with fraud or a related crime and the defense is a good faith reliance upon such advice, the judge should normally allow the defendant to assert such defense and should normally instruct the jury that such good faith reliance upon an advisor is a valid defense if supported by the facts.

In criminal fraud cases in federal court, the government normally must prove that the defendant intended to defraud the victim. In other words, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant’s purpose in performing the acts that constitute the fraud crime was to defraud another person out of services, money and/or other property. As a result, a logical defense to criminal fraud would be that the defendant had no ill-intent, but rather thought he/she was acting lawfully based upon the advice of an advisor. This is why good faith reliance upon the advice of a professional can be a valid defense in federal criminal fraud cases. Of course, whether the defendant acted with intent to defraud someone or was honestly and innocently relying upon an advisor is a matter for the jury to decide.

However, in order for the jury to properly understand and evaluate this defense when deliberating, the judge in the case must instruct the jury about this good faith reliance defense. If the judge rejects the federal criminal defense lawyer’s request to instruct the jury about the defendant’s good faith reliance upon an advisor defense, the jury cannot consider it when deciding the case. Under federal law, the judge does not have the authority to decide what the defendant’s defense is and instruct the jury accordingly. Likewise, the federal judge in a criminal case does not have the authority to decide that the defendant’s defense of good faith reliance upon an advisor is weak or lacking in credibility and therefore refuse to instruct the jury about the defense.

Several Employees of United Directories, a company located in Jacksonville Beach, Florida, were indicted in federal court for allegedly defrauding businesses out of more than $400 million by allegedly sending fraudulent bills for Yellow Pages advertisements. Federal law enforcement officials said United Directories and its employees sent the false Yellow Pages advertisement bills of several hundred dollars each to more than 100,000 companies across the country over a four year period.

Two of the charges include mail fraud and money laundering. The federal government will charge someone with mail fraud any time a person is alleged to have used the mail to commit or facilitate fraud. Using the mail as part of a scheme to defraud confers jurisdiction upon the federal government in a criminal case. Money laundering involves taking money that is known to come from illegal activity or an illegal source and mixing it with legitimate money in an attempt to conceal the source of the money, or clean it. When this kind of money is involved in an alleged fraudulent scheme, the potential penalties can be quite severe.

Based on the tone and substance of a recent speech and press release from Eric Holder, the federal government plans to step up investigations and prosecutions of medical professionals for health care fraud. Mr. Holder made it clear that the government considers health care fraud one of the country’s “most destructive” and “widespread” challenges. As a result, the federal government has created a couple of task forces specifically conceived to deal with health care fraud cases. Mr. Holder is also asking state and local law enforcement agencies to assist the federal government in making health care fraud cases and make their own cases.

Health care fraud, also referred to as Medicare or Medicaid fraud, can take several forms. Some of the more common accusations of health care fraud involve claims that doctors are charging the government for medical services or equipment that were not necessary or doctors are charging the government for medical services or equipment that were not provided. Investigators will look for what they consider to be excessive or unusual billing practices when investigating health care fraud cases.

According to the government, approximately $60 billion in public and private health care spending is lost each year to health care fraud. As a result, the government is increasing its budget to fight what they perceive to be health care fraud. In 2010, the federal government increased the health care fraud budget from $200 million to $300 million. As expected, health care fraud cases have increased. In the six months prior to the speech and press release, 60 health care fraud cases were filed and over 200 people were charged with health care fraud related crimes.

Federal law enforcement officials arrested 26 doctors, nurses and other health care providers in Miami, New York and Detroit for Medicare fraud according to a recent article. We are also aware of similar arrests made recently in the Jacksonville, Florida area. According to the article, the alleged Medicare fraud was committed in several ways. Medicare fraud typically involves a doctor or other medical provider billing Medicare for services that were never performed or required, billing for unnecessary medical equipment or billing at an excessive rate.

In these cases, the suspects allegedly committed Medicare fraud by billing for expensive shoe inserts while providing a much cheaper version to the patients, billing for expensive treatments that were not medically necessary, submitting old ultrasound readings that were found at another doctor’s office and billing for expensive home-care visits for homeless people or people who were paid to fake symptoms. The article indicates that the total amount of the Medicare fraud cost taxpayers approximately $16 million.