US v. Benjamin

Decision Date09 January 2001
Docket NumberNo. 00-1059,00-1059
Citation252 F.3d 1
Parties(1st Cir. 2001) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. LYNDON BAINE BENJAMIN, Defendant, Appellant. Heard
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

[Hon. Reginald C. Lindsay, U.S. District Judge.]

[Copyrighted Material Omitted] Colleen E. Carafotes, with whom S. Vanessa M.G. Von Struensee was on brief for appellant.

Jennifer Hay Zacks, Assistant United States Attorney, with whom Donald K. Stern, United States Attorney, was on brief for appellee.

Before Selya, Circuit Judge, Coffin, Senior Circuit Judge, and Lipez, Circuit Judge.

LIPEZ, Circuit Judge.

Lyndon Benjamin appeals his convictions for one count of bank fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344, and two counts of engaging in transactions over $10,000 with property derived from a specified unlawful activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957(a) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. Benjamin asserts six arguments on appeal. We reject each of his arguments and affirm his convictions.

I. Background

We briefly describe the facts of this case, in the light most favorable to the verdict, discussing the details more fully in our consideration of Benjamin's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.

In February 1998, Benjamin obtained a Massachusetts photo identification card using the false name "Ralph Chapel" and an unauthorized social security number. He also filed a business certificate with the City of Boston for a business called Eastside Motorsports. On March 31, 1998 Benjamin used the false identification card to open a bank account at Fleet Bank in the name of "Ralph Chapel d/b/a Eastside Motorsports" (Eastside Motorsports account). He made a deposit of $100 to open the account.

On April 9, 1998, a man identified as Ian DeCosta deposited two checks totaling approximately $202,000 into the account recently opened by Benjamin. Frank Maggelet, a fraud investigator employed by Fleet Financial Group, testified that these deposits were made with deposit slips issued by the bank and pre-printed with the account information for the Eastside Motorsports account that Benjamin had just opened.1 These checks were made payable to Stratus Computer, Incorporated. Testimony at trial indicated that these checks were intended to go to a post office box for processing, and that Stratus did not authorize the deposit of the checks into the Eastside Motorsports account.

Benjamin made large withdrawals from the account the same day that DeCosta made the deposit of over $200,000. Specifically, he wrote two checks, for $25,000 each, to Prime Speed, an auto parts business. Benjamin wrote a third check for $30,000 to Unique Creations hair salon. Additional draws on the account totaling $18,700 were made with checks written to cash and signed by Ralph Chapel on April 13, 14, 28, and 30, 1998. Surveillance photographs indicated that Benjamin was the person cashing all of these checks.

On April 16, 1998, Benjamin purchased a bank check for $10,900 from Citizens Bank. This check was made payable to Benjamin, and the name "Ralph Chapel" was noted on the line of the check marked "memo." Benjamin purchased a second bank check for $17,000 from Bank Boston on April 17, also made payable to "Lyndon Benjamin." Benjamin used these checks to purchase a 1998 Lexus in his own name.

On May 11, 1998, two checks totaling approximately $180,000 were deposited into the Eastside Motorsports account. Surveillance photos from the bank indicated that Benjamin made these deposits. One of the checks, in the amount of approximately $170,000, was made payable to Ben & Jerry's, and the other check, in the amount of approximately $10,000, was made payable to Clearmount Corporation. Representatives from these companies testified that Benjamin was not authorized to obtain these funds or deposit them into the Eastside Motorsports account.

During this time, Benjamin, as Ralph Chapel, also cashed six checks from Prime Speed, the auto parts business to which he had written two checks of $25,000 each on the day that DeCosta first deposited large sums of money into the Eastside Motorsports account. These six checks, ranging in amount from $2,000 to $19,900, were all made payable to Ralph Chapel, doing business as Eastside Motorsports. The checks were cashed by Benjamin using the name Ralph Chapel and his Massachusetts identification card. Kevin Primus, the owner of Prime Speed, testified that these checks were refunds to Benjamin of deposits he had made for auto parts that Primus was subsequently not able to obtain from his suppliers.

A nine-count indictment was returned against Benjamin on September 23, 1998. Count one charged him with bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. Counts two through seven charged him with money laundering in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i).2 Counts eight and nine charged Benjamin with engaging in monetary transactions over $10,000 with property derived from a specified unlawful activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957(a) and aiding and abetting that offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2. Following a six-day trial in April 1999, a jury convicted Benjamin of counts one, eight, and nine. He was sentenced in November 1999 to three years in prison and ordered to make restitution to Fleet Bank of approximately $160,000.

Benjamin makes the following arguments on appeal: 1) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; 2) the district court improperly instructed the jury; 3) there was a variance between the allegations in the indictment and the proof offered at trial; 4) the government failed to disclose exculpatory evidence; 5) African-Americans were under represented on Benjamin's jury venire; and 6) he was denied effective assistance of counsel. Benjamin has not appealed his sentence or the order that he pay restitution. We reject his claims and affirm his convictions.

II. Sufficiency of the Evidence

Following the close of the government's evidence, and at the end of the trial, Benjamin moved unsuccessfully for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 29. In considering Benjamin's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, we view the evidence and draw all inferences in the light most favorable to the prosecution. See United States v. Baldyga, 233 F.3d 674, 678 (1st Cir. 2000). "The evidence is legally sufficient so long as, taken as a whole, it warrants a judgment of conviction." Id. We examine both direct and circumstantial evidence in making this evaluation. Id.

A. Bank Fraud

In Count One of the indictment, the government charged that Benjamin

did knowingly execute and attempt to execute a scheme and artifice to defraud Fleet Bank, a federally insured financial institution, and to obtain money owned by and under the custody and control of Fleet Bank, by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises, in that he deposited into a fraudulently opened account at Fleet Bank checks he knew to be stolen and to contain forged endorsements; and then withdrew or otherwise transferred out of the account a portion of the monies so deposited and credited to the fraudulent account.

"To prove bank fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1344,3 the prosecution must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant (1) engaged in a scheme or artifice to defraud, or made false statements or misrepresentations to obtain money from; (2) a federally insured financial institution; and (3) did so knowingly." United States v. Brandon, 17 F.3d 409, 424 (1st Cir. 1994). See also United States v. Kenrick, 221 F.3d 19, 30 (1st Cir. 2000). A scheme or artifice to defraud is "any plan, pattern or course of action, including false and fraudulent pretenses and misrepresentations intended to deceive others in order to obtain something of value." United States v. Blasini-Lluberas, 169 F.3d 57, 65 (1st Cir. 1999) (quotations omitted). The prosecution must prove that the scheme involved a material falsehood, and that the defendant had an intent to defraud the bank. See Kenrick, 221 F.3d at 30. We have defined "intent to defraud" as "an intent to deceive the bank in order to obtain from it money or other property." Id.

We find ample evidence of Benjamin's intent to deceive Fleet Bank. Maggelet testified that Benjamin opened an account at Fleet under a false name and social security number, and that the business, Eastside Motorsports, in whose name the account was opened, did not actually exist. An employee of Stratus Computer testified that neither DeCosta nor Benjamin was authorized to cash or deposit the two checks totaling over $200,000, made payable to Stratus Computer, into the Eastside Motorsports account. Notwithstanding Benjamin's contention that he did not know the money deposited by DeCosta was stolen, the jury could have inferred Benjamin's awareness of this fraudulent transaction, and acquiescence to it, from DeCosta's use of the pre-printed deposit slip for the Eastside Motorsports account (presumably issued to Benjamin, as Ralph Chapel, after he opened the account) and the fact that Benjamin wrote three checks totaling $80,000 withdrawing money from the account later that same day. Surveillance photos at the bank indicated that Benjamin himself deposited two large checks into the account on May 11, 1998. Employees of the companies to which those checks were made payable testified that Benjamin was not authorized to deposit those checks, with fraudulent endorsements, into the Eastside Motorsports account.

The jury could have found further that this deception and DeCosta's deposit were intended to obtain something of value from the bank because the Eastside Motorsports account was credited for over $370,000 as a result of the deposits Benjamin and DeCosta made. Benjamin benefitted further from the scheme through his withdrawal from the account of large amounts of the stolen funds h...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • U.S.A v. Steven Warshak, No. 08-3997
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 14 d2 Dezembro d2 2010
    ...also true that Harriet could be inferred to know that the $1 million gift involved the proceeds of that fraud. See United States v. Benjamin, 252 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir. 2001) ("Benjamin's conviction for bank fraud provided evidence that he realized the funds originally in the Eastside Motorspo......
  • U.S. v. Brandao
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • 8 d5 Setembro d5 2006
    ...on plain error when element of materiality was not introduced to the jury because evidence was so strong at trial); United States v. Benjamin, 252 F.3d 1, 9-10 (1st Cir.2001) (finding that record did not contain evidence that would have led a rational jury to reach a contrary finding on the......
  • U.S. v. 09–3176)
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit
    • 7 d1 Março d1 2011
    ...also true that Harriet could be inferred to know that the $1 million gift involved the proceeds of that fraud. See United States v. Benjamin, 252 F.3d 1, 8 (1st Cir.2001) (“Benjamin's conviction for bank fraud provided evidence that he realized the funds originally in the Eastside Motorspor......
  • Krowel v. Massad (In re Fiorillo)
    • United States
    • U.S. Bankruptcy Court — District of Massachusetts
    • 3 d1 Junho d1 2013
    ...a member of the enterprise, is federally insured. This allegation is enough to pass the interstate commerce test. Cf. U.S. v. Benjamin, 252 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir.2001) (FDIC insurance demonstrated impact on interstate commerce under 18 U.S.C. § 1957).The Pattern of Racketeering Activities and ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • MONEY LAUNDERING
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 58-3, July 2021
    • 1 d4 Julho d4 2021
    ...(1st Cir. 1999) (“A minimal effect on interstate commerce is suff‌icient to support a conviction.”); see also United States v. Benjamin, 252 F.3d 1, 9 n.5 (1st Cir. 2001) (interpreting the interstate commerce elements of §§ 1956 and 1957 very similarly). 105. See, e.g., United States v. Lau......
  • Money Laundering
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 60-3, July 2023
    • 1 d6 Julho d6 2023
    ...to support federal jurisdiction); United States v. Owens, 167 F.3d 739, 755 (1st Cir. 1999) (same); see also United States v. Benjamin, 252 F.3d 1, 9 n.5 (1st Cir. 2001) (construing the interstate commerce elements of §§ 1956 and 1957 similarly). 93. United States v. Laurenzana, 113 F.3d 68......
  • Money Laundering
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 59-3, July 2022
    • 1 d5 Julho d5 2022
    ...(1st Cir. 1999) (“A minimal effect on interstate commerce is suff‌icient to support a conviction.”); see also United States v. Benjamin, 252 F.3d 1, 9 n.5 (1st Cir. 2001) (construing the interstate commerce elements of §§ 1956 and 1957 similarly). 98. See, e.g. , United States v. Laurenzana......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT