748 F.2d 74 (2nd Cir. 1984), 140, United States v. Gonzalez

Docket Nº:140, Docket 84-1153.
Citation:748 F.2d 74
Party Name:UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Rufo GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Case Date:November 01, 1984
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Page 74

748 F.2d 74 (2nd Cir. 1984)

UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,


Rufo GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 140, Docket 84-1153.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

November 1, 1984

Argued Sept. 11, 1984.

Page 75

Dominic F. Amorosa, New York City, (Cheryl L. Baratta, New York City of counsel), for defendant-appellant.

Michael S. Feldberg, Asst. U.S. Atty., New York City (Rudolph W. Giuliani, U.S. Atty. for the Southern Dist. of New York, Marc J. Gottridge, Asst. U.S. Atty., New York City, of counsel), for appellee.

Before LUMBARD, MANSFIELD, and KEARSE, Circuit Judges.

LUMBARD, Circuit Judge:

Rufo Gonzalez appeals from an April 24, 1984 judgment of the District Court for the Southern District, Charles S. Haight, Jr., Judge, convicting him, following a February 15, 1984 jury verdict, of thirteen counts of wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1343 (1982) and one count of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1341 (1982). Gonzalez also appeals from Judge Haight's April 11, 1984 order denying his motion for a new trial pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 33 because of newly discovered evidence. Judge Haight sentenced Gonzalez on April 24, 1984 to prison terms of three years on each of fourteen counts, the sentences to run concurrently. Gonzalez alleges: 1) that he should be granted a new trial because of newly discovered evidence; 2) that his convictions should be reversed because the trial court, in violation of Fed.R.Evid. 408, admitted statements Gonzalez made during negotiations to settle a potential civil claim and because the court erroneously admitted other evidence obtained in violation of French law; 3) that his conviction on Count Fourteen for mail fraud should be reversed because insufficient evidence supports it; and 4) that his conviction on Count One for wire fraud against Banco Hispano should be reversed because of a violation of the Speedy Trial Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3161(b) (1982). Finding no merit in Gonzalez's first three claims, we affirm his convictions on Counts Two through Fourteen. Because his trial on Count One for wire fraud against Banco Hispano violated the Speedy Trial Act, we reverse that conviction.

Gonzalez was arrested June 17, 1983 on a complaint charging him with wire fraud in connection with his solicitation of a loan from the Madrid office of Banco Hispano Americano (Banco Hispano), a Spanish bank. On June 30 the government filed an indictment charging Gonzalez with two counts of wire fraud based on his solicitation

Page 76

of a $5 million loan from the Paris office of Banco Pinto & Sotto Mayor (Banco Pinto), a Portuguese bank. The indictment alleged that Gonzalez had devised "a scheme and artifice to defraud, and for obtaining money and property by means of false and fraudulent pretenses," but it did not mention Gonzalez's actions in allegedly defrauding Banco Hispano. On January 10, 1984, the government filed a superseding indictment charging Gonzalez with thirteen counts of wire fraud and one count of mail fraud in connection with Gonzalez's solicitation of loans from both Banco Hispano and Banco Pinto.

At trial, Angel Paez, former President of Corporacion Para el Desarrollo de la Pequena y Mediana Industria 1 (Corpoindustria), testified that in 1980 Corpoindustria hired Rufo Gonzalez and his companies, Venezuelan-American Company, Limited and its United States representative, Venamco Management Corp., to act as an international broker arranging, for Corpoindustria, $46.5 million in loans from eight banks. According to Paez, Gonzalez arranged these loans, and Corpoindustria, an entity owned by the Venezuelan government, repaid the borrowed funds at maturity in early 1981. According to other testimony, both Banco Pinto and Banco Hispano were asked to participate in that loan package.

Paez also testified that Corpoindustria did not renew its loan program in 1981 and did not reemploy Gonzalez...

To continue reading