Las Vegas Injury Lawyers Blog

Marilyn Stewart, 39, a former Las Vegas businesswoman, has been charged with federal conspiracy, mail fraud, wire fraud, money laundering, and lying to the FBI. According to the U.S. Attorney's office, Stewart who allegedly operated two bogus debt-relief companies in Las Vegas, pleaded not guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud, 15 counts of mail fraud, 12 counts of wire fraud, six counts of money laundering and one count of making a false statement to the FBI.

Pureasset Investment Corp. and Reviving American Dreams, owned by Stewart and her alleged co-conspirator, Henry Lee Stuckey, made claims to clients that the companies could help people obtain loans and reduce credit card, student loan, vehicle and mortgage debts. Clients were required to pay an advance fee for each debt program, and allegedly told that they would receive a refund if the debt reduction was successful. Clients also received a referral commission for anyone else they got to sign up for the programs.

Government officials say Stewart and Stuckey also allegedly made false statements to clients about whether their debts were being paid, and used client advance fees for the owners' personal expenses, such as rent, food, travel, entertainment and attorney fees.

All told, Stewart and Stuckey received more than $200,000 in advance fees from about 66 customers in various states, including Nevada, officials said.

If convicted, Stewart will face up to 20 years in prison on each conspiracy count and fraud count and up to 5 years in prison on the false statement count. She also could face fines up to $10.25 million. Stuckey was charged separately.

Under 18 U.S.C. § 1341: "Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or to sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute, supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or causes to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered by any private or commercial interstate carrier, or takes or receives therefore, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail or such carrier according to the direction thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation occurs in relation to, or involving any benefit authorized, transported, transmitted, transferred, disbursed, or paid in connection with, a presidentially declared major disaster or emergency (as those terms are defined in section 102 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122)), or affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both."

Under 18 U.S.C. § 1343: "Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, transmits or causes to be transmitted by means of wire, radio, or television communication in interstate or foreign commerce, any writings, signs, signals, pictures, or sounds for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both."

Under the Money Laundering Control Act of 1986, individuals are prohibited from engaging in a financial transaction with proceeds that were generated from certain specific crimes. Additionally, the law requires that an individual specifically intend in making the transaction to conceal the source, ownership or control of the funds. There is no minimum threshold of money, nor is there the requirement that the transaction succeed in actually disguising the money.

Continue reading "U.S. Attorney Charges Former Las Vegas Businesswoman with Fraud - Las Vegas Criminal Defense Attorney Andre Lagomarsino" »

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that what happens en route to Las Vegas creates jurisdiction in Las Vegas.

Gina Fiore and Keith Gipson, residents of Las Vegas, Nevada, took a gambling trip to Atlantic City, NJ and San Juan, Puerto Rico. On the way home, as they changed planes in Atlanta, Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents questioned Fiore and Gipson regarding the origins of the $97 thousand they were carrying. The DEA also brought a drug-detecting dog into their boarding area. When the dog pawed Gipson's bag, the DEA agents seized the $97 thousand as drug contraband. When Fiore and Gipson later produced receipts showing the legitimacy of the money, the DEA refused to return their cash.

The matter was forwarded to DEA headquarters, where a U.S. Attorney determined that the DEA agents had omitted information in their affidavit, in order to justify the money seizure. The U.S. Attorney offered to return Fiore and Gipson's funds in exchange for a release, presumably of legal claims, against the DEA. Though Fiore and Gipson refused, the DEA did eventually return the seized money. Fiore and Gipson still filed a Bivens action against the DEA alleging Fourth Amendment violations in Nevada. A Bivens action provides for damages remedies for constitutional violations committed by federal agents.
A district court dismissed the action, finding that there was not personal jurisdiction over the DEA in Nevada. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed noting that the DEA's actions were "performed with the purpose of having ... consequences felt by someone in Las Vegas." The Atlanta DEA knew Fiore and Gipson had no connection to Georgia, lived in Nevada, and were on an airplane headed home to Nevada. Further, even if the Atlanta DEA did not know the Nevada connections at the time the money was seized, the DEA learned of these connections at some point before providing the alleged false affidavit and referring the case for forfeiture proceedings.

Continue reading "En Route to Las Vegas? Then the Money Belongs to Las Vegas, not the DEA" »

The Secret Service and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Homeland Security Agents arrested 19 people on various racketeering charges last week. Five people were arrested in Las Vegas, with the remainder picked up in California, Florida, New York, Georgia, Michigan, New Jersey, Ohio, and West Virginia. More arrests are expected. According to U.S. Attorney Daniel Bogden, the Las Vegas-based identity theft and trafficking ring, which Bogden has dubbed "Operation Open Market," was a sophisticated racketeering organization involving at least 50 people nationwide.

The parties involved allegedly bought and sold pilfered debit and credit card information from sites such as PayPal and throughout Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and the U.S. They also allegedly tested and provided reviews of services including money laundering and trading counterfeit documents, such as fake identification documents. The organization worked online and encouraged members to operate through its websites, such as "Carder.su." The parties arrested face charges of conspiracy, racketeering, and production and trafficking in false identification documents and access device cards.

The federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) allows federal law enforcement agencies to indict individuals for any illegal activity that affects interstate commerce. The maximum punishment for an individual on a single RICO charge is imprisonment for twenty years and a fine of $250,000 or twice the proceeds of the offense. In addition, a person convicted of violating RICO laws may also have to forfeit any property that was gained through their illegal activities. Asset forfeiture could mean losing your car, house, bank accounts, and more.

Under federal conspiracy laws, the Supreme Court has explained that a "collective criminal agreement" is a greater potential threat to the public because it increases the likelihood that the criminal object will be successfully attained, generally attains ends more complex than those which one criminal could accomplish, and decreases the probability that the individuals involved will depart from their path of criminality. Individuals convicted of conspiracy are punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of not more than $250,000 (not more than $500,000 for organizations).

Continue reading "U.S. Agencies Arrest 19 for Racketeering" »

A Nevada lobbyist, accused of embezzling from his former partners, has filed a $180 million business lawsuit countersuit.

In 2004, F. Harvey Whittemore, a Nevada lobbyist, and an entity his family owed, sold 50% of their ownership in various companies to several entities owned by Thomas Seeno, a California developer. In 2005, Whittemore and Seeno transferred all their interests in these entities to two new entities - Wingfield Nevada Group Holding Company LLC and The Foothills at Wingfield, LLCs. In 2007, Seeno's son, Albert D. Seeno, Jr., bought a part of Whittemore's interest in Wingfield. The three men then executed an agreement appointing each of them as co-managers of Wingfield. The agreement also required any transactions over $5 thousand to be approved by all three owners.

In the fall of 2010, the Seenos noticed discrepancies in Whittemore's financial records. After they confronted him, Whittemore admitted and signed a written "confession" regarding his malfeasance. The "confession" stated, among other malfeasances, that
Whittemore had misappropriated Wingfield money for personal use, improper financial dealings, extra compensation, and political donations. Whittemore also acknowledged that he diverted Wingfield investment money and other company assets for his own personal use.

The Seenos, as co-owners of the new entities, filed a business litigation lawsuit on behalf of the new entities against Whittemore, his wife Annette, and various other entities that profited or may have profited from Whittemore's malfeasance. The suit, filed in the District Court of Clark County, Nevada in January 2012 alleges Whittemore engaged in a breach of his fiduciary duties, fraudulent concealment, civil conspiracy, breach of contract, tortuous breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, conversion, and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage.

Last week, Whittemore and his wife Annette filed a counter business lawsuit against the Seenos claiming the Seenos "are associated with organized crime networks, have associated with and are associating with known felons and are currently, along with the Doe defendants, under investigation by the FBI and IRS, and were raided by agents of the FBI, IRS, and the Secret Service." Whittemore also claims the Seenos are intentionally devaluing the assets of the new entities.

Whittemore also acknowledges that he has transferred personal assets to the Seenos, but claims the transfers were because the Seenos threatened Whittemore, his wife, and family with intimidation and bodily harm, and not because he is guilty of embezzlement, fraud, or any other criminal activity. The Whittemores demand punitive damages of $180 million for racketeering, contract, fraud, conspiracy and conversion.

The FBI is now investigating whether Whittemore funneled thousands of dollars in illegal campaign contributions through his family and business employees.

Continue reading "Nevada Lobbyist Files a Business Litigation Countersuit against Former Business Partners" »