Federal Defense Attorney John Teakell

In an effort to combat internet piracy theft, federal law makers in the House of Representatives recently approved legislation that would give federal law enforcement officials new tools to combat the theft of U.S.-owned intellectual property (IP), including copyrighted materials. The bill formally known as H.R. 4279, Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008 would significantly increase criminal and civil penalties for piracy and counterfeiting copyrighted materials.

If passed into law, the bill would establish an Intellectual Property Enforcement Division within the office of the United States Deputy Attorney General. The bill would also allow federal authorities to seize computers and hardware that has even one illegal file stored on it which authorities believe may have been downloaded from places such person to person file exchange sites. The bill is now slated for approval by the Senate.

Changes are Proposed

In addition to establishing an IP Enforcement Division, the bill also seeks to amend 18 U.S.C. §2320 by making the following changes:

(a) In General- Section 2320 of title 18, United States Code, is amended–

(1) in subsection (a)–

(A) by striking `Whoever’ and inserting `Offense-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Whoever’;

(B) by moving the remaining text 2 ems to the right; and

(C) by adding at the end the following:

`(2) SERIOUS BODILY HARM OR DEATH-

`(A) SERIOUS BODILY HARM- If the offender knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause serious bodily injury from conduct in violation of paragraph (1), the penalty shall be a fine under this title or imprisonment for not more than 20 years, or both.

`(B) DEATH- If the offender knowingly or recklessly causes or attempts to cause death from conduct in violation of paragraph (1), the penalty shall be a fine under this title or imprisonment for any term of years or for life, or both.’

If passed, the bill also instructs that the United States Sentencing Commission shall amend the Federal sentencing guidelines and policy statements applicable in any case sentenced under section 2B5.3.

Lawmaker’s Goals are more Prosecutions

According to statistics cited by lawmakers, counterfeiting and piracy have already cost Americans approximately 750,000 jobs and deprive U.S. businesses of almost $250 billion in revenue each year. Lawmakers hope to curb this trend by seeking more prosecutions of IP theft. The bill “is a step in the right direction for IP enforcement and the economy,” added Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), a cosponsor of the legislation. Smith said the Department of Justice filed only 217 cases for IP violations in the last fiscal year, less than 1% of the total number of criminal cases filed in fiscal 2007 “The more cases brought, the greater the deterrent effect and the stronger the economy will be,” he remarked.

If you have been accused of piracy or another white collar crime, contact piracy charges attorney in Dallas John Teakell.

In a pair of decisions issued on June 2, 2008, the United States Supreme Court narrowed the scope of the federal money-laundering statute, 18 U. S. C. §1956. According to reports, the federal government initiates money laundering cases against more than 1,300 people each year. The two decisions will significantly affect any future prosecutions and may impact a number of cases that are currently pending on appeal.

Cuellar v. United States

In the first case, Cuellar v. United States, Humberto Fidel Regaldo Cuellar was arrested on the Texas-Mexican border after agents searched his car and found $81,000 in cash bundled in plastic bags and duct tape. Cuellar was then tried, convicted and sentenced to 78 months in federal prison for his crime.

After an unsuccessful 28 U.S.C. §2255 petition to the district court, Cuellar appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. He claimed that the government did not meet its burden of proving that he possessed the money in an attempt to create the “appearance of legitimate wealth.” This argument was rejected and Cuellar then petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari and the Court agreed to hear the case.

Cuellar’s attorneys again asserted the claim to the Supreme Court that the transportation of the money must be undertaken in such a way as to create the appearance of legitimate wealth. The Court did not waste time on this argument and stated that Congress had broad intentions when it created the law, and making funds look legitimate is just one way to launder money. However, the Court found that merely concealing money while transporting it to Mexico was not sufficient evidence of money laundering in and of itself. If it was sufficient to gain a conviction in this manner, then even small-time criminals who put money in their shoe before heading across the border for a night on the town could be charged with breaking the law, the Court added. “How one moves the money is distinct from why one moves the money,” Justice Clarence Thomas wrote in his opinion.

United States v. Santos

In the second opinion, United States v. Santos, the Court held that the statute applies only to transactions involving criminal profits, not necessarily all criminal receipts. The case against Santos originated after he was arrested for conducting an illegal lottery operation in Indiana. A jury found Santos guilty on two gambling counts in addition to the three money laundering charges which the Supreme Court considered. Santos was given five years in prison for his participation in the illegal gambling operation and nearly 18 years more for money laundering.

In its opinion, the Supreme Court noted that Congress did not clearly define in the statue what it meant by “proceeds,” and that it was not the high court’s role to “play the part of mind reader.” The Court ultimately held that the Government’s position that the “profits” interpretation hinders effective enforcement of the law is exaggerated and that the Rule of Leniency applies. The Court concluded: “We interpret ambiguous criminal statutes in favor of defendants, not prosecutors.” Both decisions are considered to be major blows to the federal government’s attempts to battle organize crime and the war on drugs.

If you or a family member has been accused of money laundering, contact federal Dallas money laundering defense attorney John Teakell.

It seems that well known actor Wesley Snipes may be heading to prison after being convicted of tax evasion charges. On October 12, 2006, Wesley Snipes, Eddie Kahn, and Douglas Rosile were charged with one count of conspiring to defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371 and one count of knowingly making or aiding and abetting the making of a false and fraudulent claim for payment against the United States, under 18 U.S.C. § 287 and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Snipes was also charged with six counts of willfully failing to file Federal income tax returns by their filing dates under 26 U.S.C. § 7203.

The United States Attorney alleged that Kahn was the founder of American Rights Litigators, as well as a successor group that purported to help members legally avoid paying income taxes. Rosile, a former accountant who lost his licenses in Ohio and Florida, prepared Snipes’ paperwork. Snipes maintained in letters he wrote to the IRS that he was not obligated to pay taxes, using fringe arguments common to “tax protesters” who say the government has no legal right to collect.

The trial began on January 14, 2008 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida. Snipes sought to distance himself from his two tax-protesting co-defendants and claimed he was the victim of unscrupulous accountants and sincerely believed he didn’t have to pay taxes. Snipes chose to call no witnesses and after a two week trial the case went to the jury. A verdict was returned and Snipes was found guilty on three misdemeanor charges of failing to file tax returns - but jurors cleared him of the more serious felony charges of tax fraud and conspiracy. Snipes’ co-defendants, Rosile and Kahn, were not as fortunate and were convicted on both felony counts of which the actor was acquitted.

Sentencing was scheduled for April 24, 2008. The United States Attorney recommended that Snipes should receive the maximum sentence provided under law of three years. Snipes’ attorneys argued that the sentence was too stiff for a first-time offender convicted of three misdemeanors, and recommended he be given home detention and ordered to perform public service. United States District Judge William Terrell Hodges sided with the government and said Snipes exhibited a “history of contempt over a period of time” for U.S. tax laws. “In my mind these are serious crimes, albeit misdemeanors,” Hodges said. He then sentenced Snipes to three years in federal prison. Kahn, who refused to defend himself in court, was sentenced to the maximum 10 years, while Rosile received 4 1/2 years. Both will serve three years of supervised release.

Snipes is ordered to surrender to federal prison authorities on June 3, 2008, if he isn’t granted bail to appeal the three federal tax convictions. The government argues in a court filing that Snipes is a flight risk and should not be allowed to remain free. Judge Hodges has apparently taken the motion under advisement and will rule on it before the June 3, 2008, date when Snipes is scheduled to surrender to authorities.

If you or a loved one is being accused of federal tax evasion, contact Dallas federal tax evasion attorney

John Teakell.

Of all criminal charges, the most intimidating can be federal charges. This is especially true when one is dealing with a federal conspiracy charge. Some may ask just want exactly is a conspiracy? A conspiracy exists when two or more people form an agreement to do some act or refrain from doing some act. A conspiracy to commit a crime is a crime in and of itself, which means that conspiracy is charged as a separate offense and apart from the crime that the parties to the conspiracy conspired to commit. There are several reasons for a prosecutor to charge someone with conspiracy, and despite the fact that the law defines conspiracy as “agreement” between two or more persons, only one person need intend to commit a crime out of the conspiracy.

Most federal statutes require that the government prove at least one of the co-conspirators committed an overt act during the course and in furtherance of the unlawful agreement. For example, an overt act is required for a conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. §371 (to commit offense against or to defraud the United States), 18 U.S.C. §1117 (to commit murder); 18 U.S.C. §1201 (kidnapping); and 18 U.S.C. §1751 (Presidential assassination). However, an overt act is not required for 18 U.S.C. §241 (violate civil rights); 18 U.S.C. §2385 (advocate overthrow of government); 21 U.S.C. §846 (drugs); and 21 U.S.C. §963 (RICO).

In order to be convicted of a conspiracy the evidence must prove the defendant knew of the conspiracy, purposefully associated themselves with it and affirmatively cooperated in it, or at least agreed to cooperate in the objective of the conspiracy. However, the law is established that mere presence at a location, even with knowledge that a crime is being committed there, is not sufficient to establish that a defendant was a member of the conspiracy.

The punishment for conspiracy laws is generally the same as the punishment for the underlying crime agreed upon by the conspirators. However, many things can actually factor into the punishment. If the government believes that the conspiracy has been ongoing in nature, they may attempt to introduce evidence of all the prior acts of which they have knowledge. This is common in drug conspiracies where the quantities are often times added together to produce a much larger amount than may have actually been seized. Many times the government has obtained this information related to the conspiracy from a cooperating witness.

There are defenses to the crime of conspiracy. Thus, it is important to hire counsel who has experience in this area of the law.