Farrell v. United States
Decision Date | 17 September 1963 |
Docket Number | No. 18241.,18241. |
Citation | 321 F.2d 409 |
Parties | David FARRELL and Oliver J. Farrell Appellants, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED
James A. Poore and Robert G. Clinnin, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant David Farrell.
Gould & Aronson and Paul Augustine, Jr., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant Oliver J. Farrell.
Francis C. Whelan, U. S. Atty., Thomas R. Sheridan, Asst. U. S. Atty., Chief, Criminal Section, Edward M. Medvene, Sp. Asst. to U. S. Atty., and J. Brin Schulman, Asst. U. S. Atty., Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before JERTBERG and BROWNING, Circuit Judges and BURKE, District Judge.
Following trial to a jury, the appellants David Farrell and Oliver J. Farrell brothers, were convicted on thirty-two counts of a thirty-four count indictment. Upon the close of the government's case, the District Court dismissed Counts 3 and 33 on motion of the government.
Counts 1, 2, and 4 through 17, inclusive, 16 counts charge offenses under Section 17(a) (1) of the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. § 77q(a) (1)), which in pertinent part provides:
Counts 18 through 32, inclusive, 16 counts charge offenses under the Mail Fraud Statute (18 U.S.C. § 1341), which in pertinent part provides:
"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, * * * 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 Post Office Department, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail 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 not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."
Count 34 charges a conspiracy to violate the Securities Act and the Mail Fraud Statute in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, which in pertinent part provides:
"If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, * * * and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. * * *"
The first count alleges that appellants and one Stanley C. Marks acquitted by jury verdict on all counts, devised a scheme to defraud investors in the sale of securities investment contracts, promissory notes, and evidence of indebtedness issued by Trust Deed Mortgage Exchange (TD&ME), a California corporation, Los Angeles Trust Deed and Mortgage Exchange (LATD&ME), a California corporation, Trust Deed and Mortgage Markets (TD&MM) a California corporation, and Colorado Trust Deed and Mortgage Markets (CTD&MM), a Colorado corporation, in connection with an investment plan or program designated by appellants as a secured 10% earnings program, secured 10% earnings reinvestment program and secured 10% earning accounts, based on the sale to investors of discounted trust deeds and mortgages covering units of real estate situated within the State of California. The first count describes the scheme to defraud, in detail.
Counts 2, and 4 to 17 inclusive, allege a separate violation of the quoted section of the Securities Act and incorporate by reference the allegations made in Count 1.
Counts 18 to 32, inclusive, incorporate the statement of the scheme to defraud as set forth in Count 1, except that the instruments through which the scheme was accomplished are not described as securities.
The 34th Count alleges and incorporates by reference the allegations made in Count 1 as constituting elements of conspiracy, and sets forth numerous other overt acts accomplished in furtherance of the conspiracy.
The case comes before us on a large record. The trial consumed over 27 trial days; over 2000 documents were received in evidence, and the reporter's transcript of testimony exceeds 4400 pages.
The appellant, David Farrell, did not specify as error, nor does he assert as error, the insufficiency of the evidence to sustain the jury verdicts returned against him "simply in recognition of the limited role a reviewing Court has in such a situation." Opening Brief, p. 13. In this connection this appellant states: "While it is true it cannot be said as a matter of law there was no evidence nor inference drawable therefrom supporting the verdict, the evidence was weak and attenuated on the one real issue involved in the whole long trial — intent." ibid. pp. 13-14. Furthermore this appellant states: ibid. p. 16. This appellant's assignment of errors is as follows:
The appellant, Oliver J. Farrell, adopts the assignment of errors made by his co-appellant, and in addition assigns as error solely on his own behalf, insufficiency of the evidence "on all counts as a matter of law to sustain the judgment of conviction on all counts." This appellant concedes that "in the prosecution of this case the government presented an extremely thorough case, establishing how the Los Angeles Trust Deed and Mortgage Exchange had engaged in a course of conduct which violated the Securities Act of 1933 and engaged in Mail Fraud."
We will first consider the separate assignment of error of the appellant, Oliver J. Farrell, whose basic contention under this assignment is Opening Brief, p. 12.
Thus, there is presented to us a narrow issue under this assignment.
The record discloses that this appellant was vice-president, secretary, a director and the sales manager of LATD&ME from the inception of the Secured 10% Earnings Program in late 1957 until June 1, 1960. He was also vice-president and a director of TD&MM. His compensation as sales manager for that period exceeded $250,000.00. As sales manager he employed, trained and supervised all local LATD&ME salesmen, and conducted weekly meetings throughout California, instructing salesmen in effective sales techniques. All branch managers took their orders from him and were directly responsible to him. He edited literature that was mailed out to investors. He furnished to investors false and misleading information concerning the liquidation policy of LATD&ME. He instructed the regional sales managers that the salesmen, in selling the 10% Earnings Programs, should resort to sham references in reassuring investors that their investments could be quickly liquidated. He assisted in drafting brochures sent to salesmen and investors which falsely represented the value and stability of subordinate trust deeds that were created against undeveloped subdivisions or vacant trust of land. He instructed salesmen to represent that funds of LATD&ME were being used to purchase trust deeds for inventory, whereas, the funds of investors were being used for that purpose. He instructed salesmen to "play down" the issues and scope of litigation hereafter mentioned, initiated by the Securities & Exchange Commission against him, the corporations above mentioned, his co-appellant and others. He had some knowledge that his co-appellant enjoyed profits under some participation agreements with subdividers on land on which investors purchased subordinated trust deeds. He instructed salesmen to represent to investors that the subdividers who created trust deeds for LATD&ME against vacant tracts of land had made large cash investments in the subdivision, whereas, in some instances no investment had been made by the subdivider.
From the foregoing summary, and other evidence in the record which we have not mentioned, and upon inferences which might reasonably be...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State v. Brewer
...but such proof is essential to recovery by a private investor." 672 F.2d 766, 770 (9th Cir.1982) (partially quoting Farrell v. United States, 321 F.2d 409, 419 (9th Cir.1963) which involved a criminal prosecution for fraudulent acts concerning securities). In accord with Kramas, other opini......
-
Securities and Exchange Commission v. Crofters, Inc.
...Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78c (10); also see Tcherepnin v. Knight, 398 U.S. 332, 88 S.Ct. 548, 19 L.Ed.2d 564 (1967); Farrell v. United States, 321 F.2d 409 (C.A.9, 1963), cert. den. 375 U.S. 992, 84 S.Ct. 631, 11 L.Ed.2d 478 (1968); Anderson v. Francis I duPont & Co., 291 F.Supp. 705 (D.Min......
-
Wilcox v. First Interstate Bank of Oregon, N.A.
...criminal conviction under section 1341, it need not prove that anyone was defrauded or that anyone suffered a loss. Farrell v. United States, 321 F.2d 409, 419 (9th Cir.1963), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 992, 84 S.Ct. 631, 11 L.Ed.2d 478 The jury in these consolidated cases rendered general verd......
-
U.S. v. Carman
...States v. Livengood, 427 F.2d 420, 424 (9th Cir. 1970); Carroll v. United States, 326 F.2d 72, 75 (9th Cir. 1963). In Farrell v. United States, 321 F.2d 409 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 375 U.S. 992, 84 S.Ct. 631, 11 L.Ed.2d 478 (1963), we quoted at length the jury instructions given on the de......
-
SECURITIES FRAUD
...of the 1933 Act). See generally Kramas v. Sec. Gas & Oil Inc., 672 F.2d 766, 770 (9th Cir. 1982) (quoting Farrell v. United States, 321 F.2d 409, 419 (9th Cir. 1963)) (stating that “[p]rosecutions and enforcement actions involve interests and procedures different from those involved in priv......
-
Securities Fraud
...Government is not ‘required to prove that anyone was defrauded or that any investor sustained a loss’” (quoting Farrell v. United States, 321 F.2d 409, 419 (9th Cir. 1963))). 1270 AMERICAN CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW [Vol. 60:1245 investor bringing a Rule 10b-5 claim can rely on a rebuttable presum......
-
Securities fraud.
...or that any investor sustained a loss, but such proof is essential to recovery by a private investor'" (quoting Farrell v. Untied States, 321 F.2d 409, 419 (9th Cir. (169.) United States v. Schaefer, 299 F.2d 625, 629 (7th Cir. 1962) (holding no crime occurred when alleged misrepresentation......
-
Securities Fraud
...of the 1933 Act). See generally Kramas v. Sec. Gas & Oil Inc., 672 F.2d 766, 770 (9th Cir. 1982) (quoting Farrell v. United States, 321 F.2d 409, 419 (9th Cir. 1963)) (stating that “[p]rosecutions and enforcement actions involve interests and procedures different from those involved in priv......