Miami Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

Two South Florida residents have been arrested and formally charged with operating a major student visa fraud ring. Government prosecutors have alleged that the two women defrauded the federal government into issuing more than 200 student visas to foreign nationals who are not and never were students in the United States. According to sources, the bust is largest ever visa scheme to defraud in Immigration Customs Enforcement's ("ICE's) history. The indictment alleges that all of the visas were connected to fraudulently enrolled students at Florida Language Institute located in Miami. The women are scheduled to appear in federal court this week. It is unclear at this point whether the women will be represented by criminal lawyers from the public defender's office or private Miami criminal defense lawyers.

The federal government has taken fraudulent student visas very seriously since the 9/11 attacks. Many of the terrorists involved in the attacks entered the United States using fraudulent visas. For example, the terrorist that piloted the plane into the Pentagon obtained a student visa to study English in this country. Upon his arrival, he told airport officials that he intended to take classes in California. Since the attacks, federal investigators have closely scrutinized schools that accept foreign students to ensure that the students actually show up for class and that the visas are not being used for terrorism or to hide illegal employment or immigration.

The grand jury indictment alleges that Lydia Menocal, the school's director, and Ofelia Macia, another school employee, falsely executed requests for student visas for foreign students. The documents allegedly executed were immigration forms called I-20's or certificates of eligibility that are used to apply to the federal government to obtain the student visas. The students for whom applications were sought never attended the college under scrutiny. Federal law enforcement has yet to determine where the purported students are and what they are presently doing. The federal government does not believe at this time that the two defendants were assisting terrorists. They believe they were selling the rights to visas for monetary gain.

The two defendants will appear before a United States magistrate at there initial appearance. At that time, the government may seek pre-trial detention. As long as the defendants have ties to the community, the court will have a difficult time holding them because they are a danger to the community, as there is no evidence suggested by the government that either defendant sought to assist terrorists. After their initial hearing, both defendants will appear at their arraignment. The arraignment is the point in the case where the formal charges are announced in open court. After the arraignment, the defense will have time to review the discovery and consult with their clients. Based on a thorough review of the evidence, both defendant will decide to either enter a guilty plea or take their case to trial. A lot will depend on what the defendants are facing according to the federal sentencing guidelines.

Two Miami Women Charged with Running Vast Student Visa Fraud Ring, The Miami Herald, March 4, 2010.

The head of the United States Department of Justice criminal division held a conference for criminal defense lawyers at which he explained the new tools the federal government was using to fight white-collar crimes such as fraud. Larry Breuer used the example of the recent investigation and prosecution regarding the Galleon hedge fund insider trading case and another case where 22 people were charged under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act ("FCPA"). While white collar crimes are usually prosecuted under federal statutes such a racketeering, wire fraud, and mail fraud, the new case being prosecuted under FCPA is uncommon. According to Breuer, Federal investigators made the cases through the use of wire taps and undercover agents.

Breuer told the lawyers at the conference that, "Taken together, these cases reflect a new chapter in white-collar criminal enforcement...out are the days of resting easy in the belief that only self-reporting or tipsters will bring criminality to light." He promised a more innovative and proactive approach to investigating and prosecuting white-collar crimes. The recent FCPA case brought by the federal government is the largest case ever prosecuted under that particular statute. The statute criminalizes conduct where individuals pay bribes to solicit business from overseas. Not only did Breuer promise a proactive approach, but also encouraged businesses to police themselves by reporting criminal violations they discover on their own.

Other examples cited at the conference regarding the Justice Department's new policy included the Medicare Fraud Strike Force, as well as, the Mortgage Fraud Task Force. Breuer boasted that since the inception of the healthcare fraud investigative tool, 300 hundred people have been arrested for their involvement in approximately 200 cases. The value of the losses suffered by the federal healthcare system added up to approximately $860 million. The Medicare Strike Force now operates in the following cities; Miami, Tampa, New York, Detroit, Houston and Baton Rouge. The Mortgage Fraud Task Force is also implementing new and innovative techniques to combat real estate/mortgage fraud.

Breuer also told the attorneys in attendance that the Justice Department was reorganizing all of its fraud divisions in an effort to achieve "firm and fair" justice. The department is also lobbying for changes in the sentencing guidelines involving fraud to help eliminate the great sentencing disparities that exist for white-collar crimes. Whether the new pro-active approach taken by the Justice Department leads to more prosecutable fraud cases will be determined over time. If you or a loved on is being investigated by federal investigators or have been charged in federal court regarding a fraud case, seek the services of an experienced criminal law firm to defend and protect your rights. Never speak with anyone regarding a fraud crime unless you are represented by counsel.

U.S. Top Cop Say Justice Department Using New Tools, Reuters, February 26, 2010.

A Miami federal district court judge dismissed cases pending against two defendants standing trial for allegedly shredding documents related to the Allen Stanford case. In a well-publicized case, Stanford's former head of security and another security specialist were indicted federally for their involvement in shredding documents ordered not be destroyed that were being looked at by the SEC. Rafanello and Perraud were facing charges including obstruction of justice for their involvement. Allen Stanford is facing numerous charges including securities fraud, wire fraud, mail fraud, racketeering and money laundering for his part in the alleged running of a $7 billion "Ponzi Scheme". After federal authorities disbanded Stanford's financial operation, Rafanello and Perraud allegedly destroyed thousand of documents to allegedly thwart the SEC investigation. After the jury heard closing arguments presented by federal prosecutors and the two Miami criminal attorneys representing the defendants, the federal judge decided to dismiss all of the charges during the deliberation process.

The lawyers representing Rafanello and Perraud previously argued to motions to dismiss at the close of the government's case and at the close of the defendants' case. It is quire unusual for a judge to take a case away from a jury after the jury has been read their instructions and the evidence has been delivered to the deliberation room. Judge Goldberg said, "I'm not taking this lightly, as to the necessary element of intent which is necessary in every charge brought by the prosecution, the evidence is substantially lacking." The judge dismissed the case during the second day of jury deliberations. Intent had been the sole focus of the defense throughout the case and Judge Goldberg had mentioned several times that the evidence of intent was always thin to non-existent.

Throughout the trial, the lawyer representing Stanford was present to hear the testimony and see for himself the outcome of the case. Stanford's lawyer was exited about the result and called the prosecutor's case extremely weak. Although the case went well for these two defendants, it is highly unlikely the outcome will be the same for Stanford. With the number of "Ponzi scheme" cases now appearing on federal court dockets, the media attention will likely dictate a different result. Hundreds of people across the country have lost fortunes and in some cases, their entire lifesaving as a result of the organized schemes to defraud. Although the only major fraud case resolved to date is the unprecedented Madoff case, the other federal prosecutions should resolve by the end of the year. Federal dockets are much smaller and cases are fast-tracked to keep them that way.

What was the motive of the federal prosecutors to proceed with a case that they knew was weak. One can expect that the government hoped that the defendants would buckle under the pressure and provide testimony against Stanford. There is no evidence that plea agreements were ever discussed, but the government would haven taken all the help they could get to prosecute Stanford in his fraud case. The case is the perfect example of not succumbing to pressure even if it means taking a case to trial. If state or federal prosecutors cannot prove case, why not make them prove it in court. Of course, there is always a risk to going to trial, yet a dismissal or a not guilty verdict sometimes outweighs the risks.

Stanford Document Shredders Acquitted by Judge as Jury Debated, The Miami Herald, February 13, 2010.

Three Miami-Dade police officers expect to be indicted in federal court on perjury and obstruction of justice charges. The three men previously testified as witnesses in a federal court trial. They are being charged with making false statements during the prosecution of Pedro L. Marte. The officers stopped Marte based on an anonymous tip that he had a firearm under the hood of his 1992 Mercury Marquis. The officers testified that the defendant ran a stop sign which gave them the authority to conduct the traffic stop. During a search of the car, a revolver was found under the hood. The government charged Marte with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. One of the defense attorneys involved in the case was quoted as saying, Bottom line: I think they're dead wrong in indicting them under these circumstances," referring to the officers.

It appears Marte may have been targeted by these officers. He had two prior cocaine trafficking convictions in the State of Florida. At trial, Marte's defense filed and argued a motion to suppress. The crux of the argument was based on the fact that officers conducted a "warrantless search" and never read Marte his Miranda rights. After listening to the testimony of the officers, the U.S. district judge granted the motions and dismissed the indictment. The judge then sent the matter to federal prosecutors to investigate the testimony of the officers involved in the arrest. The United States Constitution provides that all searches must be conducted pursuant to a warrant. However, over time exceptions to the warrant requirement have been created pursuant mostly to case law. Exceptions to the warrant requirement include: consent to search, search incident to arrest, the automobile exception and the exigent circumstances to name a few.

Although the indictment remains sealed and not available to the general public, it is believed that the focus of the indictment is based on the testimony provided by the officers at the hearing. The charges will most likely stem from the fact that the officers failed to testify regarding the information obtained by the confidential informant. Despite the fact that the federal court judge dismissed the charges against Marte, he was arrested one week again for federal gun charges. One of the other defense lawyers involved in the case claimed that the case is an outrage because Marte had the gun and also admitted to having the gun and feds let him go anyway.

Possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is a serious charge both in state and federal court. In state court, that charge carries a mandatory prison term of three years. In federal court, the same charge also carries mandatory prison time. Although usually charged in state court, federal prosecutors filed these charges because the cases are fairly easy to prove and they can boost their conviction numbers. If you or anyone you know is charged with a state or federal weapons charge it is essential to retain counsel with experience in the defending these types of cases. It is important to seek a trial active attorney as the majority of these cases go to trial because of the mandatory sentences.

Three Miami-Dade Cops Face Perjury Indictments, The Miami Herald, February 12, 2010.

The day that South Florida has been waiting for finally came. Infamous Broward County lawyer Scott Rothstein entered a guilty plea in federal court for operating a massive 'Ponzi" scheme. Rothstein appeared before a United States District Judge and pled guilty to conspiracy to commit money laundering, conspiracy to commit wire fraud and mail fraud and wire fraud. As part of his plea agreement, he agreed to an asset forfeiture of $1.2 billion, 24 pieces of real estate, expensive car, boats, jewelry and bank accounts. Rothstein appeared unshaken as he entered the guilty plea with the assistance of his Miami criminal attorney.

Rothstein was accused of operated a large scheme to defraud investors. In some instances, he received money from investors promising that the money would be lent to clients in the form of bridge loans that would yield a hefty return. Other investors gave money to Rothstein thinking they were buying civil case settlements. The investors were told that they would purchase the settlements at a discount to be repaid over time as at full face value. In both cases, the investments never existed and money invested from new investors was paid to older investors. The four year fraud used numerous bank accounts to facilitate the complex money laundering scheme.

Rothstein is scheduled to appear back in federal court on May 6th for his sentencing hearing. Based on the charges he pled guilty to, he is facing up to 100 years in prison. Most experts believe his sentence will range from 20 to 30 years. According to the special agent in charge of the investigation, "Scott Rothstein used a classic approach to mislead investors - an ostentatious lifestyle, personality and guarantees of sky-high returns-all red flags in the world of Ponzi schemes." Investors became suspicious late last year when they stopped receiving scheduled returns on their investments. Panic followed, which led to the inevitable dissolution of his 70 person law firm in Ft. Lauderdale.

Now that Rothstein has entered a guilty plea, there is no doubt that federal law enforcement agencies and prosecutors will target others purportedly involved in the scheme. Court documents revealed that other members of the now disbanded law firm have criminal culpability for their involvement with Rothstein. Many of those suspected of being involved have retained Broward and Miami criminal attorneys should the hammer fall. Among those being looked at by investigators include Stuart Rosenfeldt and Russell Adler, Rothstein's former law partners and David Boden, Rothstein's former chief counsel. Anyone indicted in the case will face the similar charges of money laundering, wire fraud and mail fraud. If sentences are imposed against any of these individuals, they are not likely to exceed that Rothstein receives in May in light of the fact that he appears to be the mastermind behind the scheme.

Fort Lauderdale Attorney Pleads Guilty in Billion Dollar Ponzi Scheme, PR Newswire, January 27, 2010.