Quatloos! > Investment
Fraud > HYIP & Bank
Debentures > HYIP > U.S.
v Olson
1995.C10.1495 (10th Cir. 12/15/1995)
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS TENTH CIRCUIT
Filed 12/15/95
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
DELTON OWEN OLSON,Defendant-Appellee
Nos. 95-8006, 95-8019
(D.C. No. 94CR-31) (D. Wyoming)
ORDER AND JUDGMENT *fn1
Bef Baldockore BALDOCK, CMcWILLIAMS, REAVLEY*fn2, Circuit Judges.
Delton Owen Olson was convicted by a jury of conspiracy to launder money.
He was acquitted of wire fraud. Because of Olson's minimal participation in
the investment scheme, the district court granted his motion for downward departure
and sentenced him to 51 months imprisonment. We affirm.
Olson was charged in a multi-count indictment with Grady Hand*fn3 and
the Cross brothers -- Stewart and Stephen. The investment scheme undertaken
by the conspirators involved NorthStar Investment Trust, its successor company
SLM, and Cross & Associates. Olson and Stephen Cross were the manager and
trustee, respectively, for NorthStar.
In March of 1993, Olson and Stephen began marketing a "roll program" through
NorthStar to investors. This program was said to provide small investors with
the opportunity to invest or "piggyback" into the larger "roll
program" being conducted by Cross & Associates, a company comprised
of Hand and Stewart. The investors were informed that Hand and Stewart were
purchasing prime bank notes in the amount of 100 to 300 million dollars or
more. Cross & Associates, through its trader, was supposed to purchase
the notes at a discount from only the world's largest 100 banks. Cross & Associates
would then contract with an institution in the secondary market to purchase
these notes. This secondary market was described as pension funds, insurance
companies, and large corporations. The actual "roll" or "tranche" was
supposed to occur when Cross & Associates purchased the note from the bank
with cash and then sold the note to the secondary market. The difference between
the purchase and sale of these instruments was to result in a substantial profit
to Cross & Associates and their investors. The investors were informed
that because of bank and federal regulations the two parties were not able
to deal directly with the other, thus creating the need for Cross & Associates.
There was, in fact, no roll program.
Olson brought in the first investors, a divorced couple who still invested
together, in March of 1993. The couple invested $500,000 each. Investors were
paid the two to 4 per cent per month return from their investment principal.
The four conspirators looted much of the remaining money. In October of 1993
the investment scheme was ended by federal officials. In the end, Olson had
personally taken a total of $326,000 of the investors' 3.3 million dollars.
I. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Olson challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction.
He argues that the evidence does not establish that there was an agreement
between the alleged co-conspirators to launder money or that money laundering
occurred. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the government
to determine whether any rational trier of fact could find Olson guilty beyond
a reasonable doubt. United States v. Hanson, 41 F.3d 580, 582 (10th Cir. 1994).
Olson was charged with conspiracy to violate 18 U.S.C. 1956(a)(1)(A)(i)
and 1956(a)(1)(B)(i). Those sections provide:
(a)(1) Whoever, knowing that the property involved in a financial transaction
represents the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, conducts or attempts
to conduct such a financial transaction which in fact involves the proceeds
of specified unlawful activity--
(A)(i) with the intent to promote the carrying on of specified unlawful
activity; or
* * *
(B) knowing that the transaction is designed in whole or in part--
(i) to conceal or disguise the nature, the location, the source, the
ownership, or the control of the proceeds of specified unlawful activity .
. .
shall be sentenced to a fine of not more than $500,000 or twice the value
of the property involved in the transaction, whichever is greater, or imprisonment
for not more than twenty years, or both.
The "specified unlawful activity" alleged in the indictment
was mail or wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section(s) 1341 and 1343.
A. The Conspiracy
The government proceeded under the basic theory that Olson and others
conspired to violate Section(s) 1956(a)(1)(A)(i) or (B)(i). 18 U.S.C. 1956(h).
To prove a conspiracy, the government must prove: (1) the existence of an agreement;
(2) to break the law; (3) an overt act; (4) in furtherance of the conspiracy's
object; and (5) that a defendant willfully entered the conspiracy. Hanson,
41 F.3d at 582; 18 U.S.C. 371. "While all five of these elements must
be present, the essence of any conspiracy is `the agreement or confederation
to commit a crime.'" Id. (quoting United States v. Bayer, 331 U.S. 532,
542, 67 S.Ct. 1394, 1399, 91 L.Ed. 1654 (1947)). "The agreement need not
be shown to have been explicit. It can instead be inferred from the facts and
circumstances of the case." Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770, 777,
n. 10, 95 S.Ct. 1284, 1289-90, n. 10, 43 L.Ed.2d 616 (1975)
Olson's defense and his contention on appeal is that he was unaware of
the fraud being perpetrated by Cross & Associates. He insists that there
is no evidence of any agreement between him and any of the other co-conspirators.
The government relied on circumstantial evidence to establish the agreement
between the conspirators. In support of his argument, Olson notes that Stewart
Cross never informed him that the "roll program" did not exist, that
he received false reports concerning investor profits in the "roll program," that
he did not have access to or control over investor funds at any time, and that
he did everything in his power to assure investor monies were secure. Our inquiry
is not whether the Cross brothers knew Olson was aware of the object of the
conspiracy, but whether Olson knew of the object of the conspiracy and voluntarily
chose to participate in it. See United States v. Evans, 970 F.2d 663, 669 (10th
Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 1288 (1993) ("A defendant may be convicted
of conspiracy only if the government proves that the defendant had knowledge
of the conspiracy and voluntarily participated therein."); United States
v. Metropolitan Enters., 728 F.2d 444, 451 (10th Cir. 1984) ("A co-conspirator
need not know of the existence or identity of the other members of the conspiracy
or the full extent of the conspiracy.") Olson's actions and statements
to others indicate that Olson knew the roll program did not exist and chose
to participate in the overall objective of the conspiracy.
Olson began marketing the fictitious "roll program" in March
of 1993. In that month he received the program's first investment of 1 million
dollars, $500,000 each from the divorced couple. In April of 1993 the couple
received their first interest check of 3-1/2 per cent or $17,500 each. Also
in April the Securities and Exchange Commission inquired of Olson about NorthStar's
securities activities. In an effort to avoid detection, Olson and Stephen Cross
created a new entity called SLM. To further eliminate NorthStar's existence,
Olson replicated NorthStar's investor management agreements with SLM as the
new investment company. Olson created and sent a new agreement to each investor.
The new agreements were signed by Olson using a rubber stamp of Stephen Cross's
signature. The investors were then asked to sign the "new" agreements
and return the old NorthStar agreements. One could easily surmise this last
request was to eliminate any trace of NorthStar.
Olson met with an attorney in April to discuss the S.E.C. letter. As
a result of this meeting, Olson responded to the S.E.C. in June of 1993. In
that letter Olson specifically stated that "[t]here is not now nor has
there been any agreement between the trust and any entity for the promotion
and sale of any investment program, including a roll program." The letter
also noted that all NorthStar activity had ceased. It noted, "[t]here
will be no further activity in this area by the trust and the trust has had
no other contact with any other potential participant for the purchase and
sale of prime bank obligations." Further, Olson related to the S.E.C.
that "[a]t no time has there ever been any person or persons that have
invested in [NorthStar]." Contrary to his letter to the S.E.C., Olson
was still marketing a "roll program" through SLM. In a letter to
an investor in September of 1993, Olson wrote, "I am pleased to inform
you that we have further strengthened our piggybacking program with Cross & Associates.
To simplify the mechanics and to insure our longevity with Cross & Associates,
we're now piggybacking on Cross' large trading account at Paine-Webber." Olson
also made numerous false representations to investors concerning the program.
Olson represented that he had seen several accounts during his time at Anovest,
the brokerage company that controlled investor funds through Paine-Webber,
in excess of three million dollars. He assured investors that he had personally
seen trading confirmations. When one investor questioned Olson about possible
S.E.C. implications, Olson replied that "[w]e have a ruling, you know,
from an attorney or an opinion from an attorney stating that this does not
fall within the realm of the S.E.C.; therefore, it does not need to be regulated
through the S.E.C." During the month of April, Olson was aware that investors
were receiving interest checks for their investment through NorthStar. Olson's
attorney testified that Olson informed him in April there was no roll program
in existence. Contrary to this knowledge that the program did not exist, Olson
continued to promote, profit, and participate in the scheme during and after
the month of April. A rational jury could conclude from this evidence that
Olson had joined the conspiracy and had agreed to continue to market the nonexistent "roll
program."
B. Money Laundering
Olson also contends that the money he gained from the illegal activity
was spent personally, and therefore, does not constitute money laundering.
While he did use some of the money for himself, that is not the whole story.
Much of the money Olson received from NorthStar was spent to further promote
NorthStar or SLM. In fact, Olson himself testified that some of the money he
received was spent to pay the business expenses of NorthStar whose only apparent
business was to promote the "roll program." Additionally, Olson used
investor funds to pay other brokers who brought investors into the program.
A total of $54,920 was paid to these intermediate brokers.*fn4 The evidence
is sufficient to support a jury's conclusion that Olson used investor money
obtained illegally through wire fraud to continue to "promote" the
ongoing scheme. See 18 U.S.C. Section(s) 1956(a)(1)(A)(i).
C. Acquittal on Wire Fraud
Olson also argues that because the jury found him not guilty of wire
fraud, the evidence is insufficient to support the conspiracy charge. Even
assuming that the verdicts are inconsistent, Olson may not challenge the propriety
of his conspiracy conviction with the jury's action in the wire fraud count.
See United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57, 66, 105 S.Ct. 471, 477, 83 L.Ed.2d
461 (1984) ("The fact that the inconsistency may be the result of lenity,
coupled with the Government's inability to invoke review, suggests that inconsistent
verdicts should not be reviewable."); United States v. Abbott Washroom
Systems, Inc., 49 F.3d 619, 622 (10th Cir. 1995) (a corporate defendant cannot
use acquittal of employee co-defendant to challenge the corporate defendant's
conviction.)*fn5
II. The Decrease in Olson's Sentence
The government contends in a cross-appeal that the district court improperly
granted Olson a four-level decrease for "minimal participation" in
his adjusted offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines. See U.S.S.G. Section(s)
3B1.2(a). "A trial court' findings concerning a defendant's role in a
particular offense are treated by an appellate court as factual findings, which
are subject to deferential review under the clearly erroneous standard." United
States v. Santistevan, 39 F.3d 250, 253 (10th Cir. 1994). The finding will
not be disturbed unless it is without factual support in the record, or if
after reviewing the evidence we are left with a definite and firm conviction
that a mistake has been made. Santistevan, 39 F.3d at 253-254. Application
note one to section 3B1.2 states that the mitigating circumstance for minimal
participation is intended to cover defendants who are plainly among the least
culpable of those involved in the conduct of the group. Under this provision,
the defendant's lack of knowledge or understanding of the scope and structure
of the enterprise and of the activities of others is indicative of a role as
a minimal participant.
In determining Olson was only a minimal participant in the overall conspiracy,
the district court noted, I find that there was a great deal that [Olson] was
not aware of in this matter. And had he been aware, I would be speculating
on what might have happened. We don't know is the point. And it seems unfair
to me to, in effect, charge him with things -- with activities that clearly
were kept from him and were not disclosed and were significant in terms of
this operation from the very beginning because it was within a day or two of
the [couple's investment of one million dollars] -- around March 31, 1993 of
[their] investment that those funds were slipping away through loan transactions
with [Hand] that [Olson was] not aware of and through loans, dunning (sic)
loans to Stephen and to Cross & Associates.
The district court's ruling that Olson was plainly among the least culpable
of the conspirators is not clearly erroneous. The court's ruling is supported
by the actions of his co-conspirators in their acquisition of investor funds
without Olson's knowledge and their apparent attempt to keep much of the details
of the scam from Olson.
In March of 1993, Hand and the Cross brothers decided to "borrow" $300,000
of the divorced couple's investment funds from their brokerage account. The
three conspirators agreed to classify this transaction as a loan. As the months
passed more money would be "borrowed" from investor funds. Investor
funds were controlled by Cross & Associates in Atlanta, and investor statements
were prepared and mailed from Cross & Associates in Atlanta. The conspirators
in Atlanta perhaps attempted, although unsuccessfully, to keep Olson from discovering
that the "roll program" was a ruse. Hand and the Cross brothers all
misinformed Olson to further the investment scheme. While Olson was aware the
program was non-existent and participated in its overall objectives, thus making
him a member of the conspiracy, the district court did not clearly err in determining
Olson was a minimal participant because of the actions of his co-conspirators.
AFFIRMED.
Entered for the Court
Thomas M. Reavley, Circuit Judge
***** BEGIN FOOTNOTE(S) HERE *****
*fn1 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the
doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The
court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless,
an
order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of the court's
General Order filed November 29, 1993. 151 F.R.D. 470.
*fn2 The Honorable Thomas M. Reavley, United States Court of Appeals,
Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation.
*fn3 Grady Lewis Hand has filed a related opinion, No. 95-8007.
*fn4 The evidence indicates that much more money was supposed to be paid
to the other brokers, but, unbeknownst to the other co-conspirators Olson
kept the difference.
*fn5 This does not call into question the limited rule of consistency
that is applied to where all co-conspirators are acquitted but one. See
Abbott Washroom Systems, Inc., 49 F.3d at 622-623.