U.S.A v. Rigas

Citation605 F.3d 194
Decision Date12 May 2010
Docket NumberNo. 08-3218.,08-3218.
PartiesUNITED STATES of America,v.John J. RIGAS; Timothy J. Rigas, Appellants.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Lawrence G. McMichael, Esq., (Argued), Matthew P. Faranda-Diedrich, Esq., Patrick M. Northen, Esq., Dilworth Paxson, Philadelphia, PA, Joseph U. Metz, Esq., Dilworth Paxson, Harrisburg, PA, for Appellants.

Alan Hechtkopf, Esq., Alexander P. Robbins, Esq., (Argued), United States

Department of Justice, Washington, DC, George J. Rocktashel, Esq., Office of United States Attorney, Williamsport, PA, for Appellees.

Before: McKEE, Chief Judge, SCIRICA, RENDELL, BARRY, AMBRO, FUENTES, SMITH, FISHER, CHAGARES, JORDAN, and HARDIMAN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

FUENTES, Circuit Judge, with whom McKEE, Chief Judge, and BARRY, AMBRO, SMITH, FISHER, and JORDAN, Circuit Judges, join:

Defendants John and Timothy Rigas (the Rigases) seek to prevent their federal trial in Pennsylvania for conspiracy to defraud the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371, and for substantive tax evasion violations. 1 The Rigases, who were convicted of conspiracy under the same statute in New York, claim that their reprosecution in Pennsylvania violates their right to be free from double jeopardy. Specifically, they contend that § 371 creates a single offense that can be violated in alternative ways, and that the Government cannot split a single conspiracy into two prosecutions. The Government, on the other hand, contends that § 371 creates separate and distinct crimes, and therefore the Rigases' prosecution in Pennsylvania presents no double jeopardy violation. We conclude that, under a plain and natural reading of § 371, the statute creates a single offense, and that the successive prosecution of the Rigases in this case may constitute a double jeopardy violation.

I. Background2

This appeal stems from the 2002 collapse of Adelphia Communications Corporation (“Adelphia”). John Rigas was the founder of Adelphia. Until 2002, he served as Adelphia's Chairman and Chief Executive Officer (“CEO”). His son, Timothy Rigas, was a board member and the Chief Financial Officer (“CFO”). Until its disastrous collapse in 2002, Adelphia was the sixth largest cable television provider in the United States. Although the Rigas family did not own a majority of Adelphia's outstanding common stock, they controlled a majority of Adelphia's shareholder votes.3 As a result, the Rigas family elected eight of Adelphia's nine directors and controlled all of Adelphia's corporate affairs.

In the late 1990s, Adelphia began a process of rapid expansion by acquiring other cable operators. It financed these acquisitions by issuing new corporate stock and taking on corporate debt. As a result of this process, Adelphia became highly leveraged. In order to avoid diluting their control of Adelphia, and to create the appearance that Adelphia was reducing its debt burden, the Rigases purchased large amounts of Adelphia stock and assumed Adelphia's debt. According to the Government, these transactions were a sham. When the true state of Adelphia's finances and operations became clear, Adelphia collapsed.

Prior to June 2002, Adelphia's stock was registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) and was publicly traded on the NASDAQ National Market System. In January 2002, Adelphia's stock traded at $31.85. By June 2002, Adelphia's stock was worth pennies a share and was delisted by NASDAQ.

In 2002, John and Timothy Rigas were indicted in the Southern District of New York. The New York Indictment charged, among other offenses, a wide-ranging conspiracy to loot Adelphia and to hide both the Rigases' plunder and Adelphia's weak financial condition from the public and the SEC, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. A jury subsequently convicted the Rigases on the conspiracy count, as well as a number of substantive fraud offenses. They were acquitted of wire fraud and one of the bank fraud counts.

In 2005, the Rigases were indicted in the Middle District of Pennsylvania and charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 by evading the taxes due on their ill-gotten gains. John and Timothy Rigas were also each charged with three counts of tax evasion for the tax years 1998 to 2000.4

A. The New York Action

In September 2002, a grand jury sitting in the Southern District of New York returned an indictment against John Rigas, Timothy Rigas, Michael Rigas (Adelphia's Executive Vice President of Operations and another son of John Rigas), and Michael Mulcahey (an Adelphia executive but not a member of the Rigas family). See United States v. Rigas, No. S1-02-cr-1236 (S.D.N.Y.). A Superseding Indictment, returned in July 2003, charged the defendants with conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. The objects alleged by the conspiracy count were numerous: securities fraud in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 78j(b) and 78ff and 17 C.F.R. § 240.10b-5; wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1346; making false and misleading statements in SEC filings in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 78ff; falsification of the books of a public company in violation of 15 U.S.C. §§ 78m(b)(2)(A), 78m(b)(5), and 78ff, and 17 C.F.R. § 240.13b2-1; and bank fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1344. The Rigases were also charged in twenty-two substantive counts of wire fraud, bank fraud, and securities fraud. The New York Indictment was supplemented by a Bill of Particulars on January 2, 2004.

After a four-and-a-half month trial, the jury found John and Timothy Rigas guilty of: (1) conspiracy to commit securities fraud, to make false statements to the SEC, to falsify Adelphia's books and records, and to commit bank fraud; (2) securities fraud in connection with the purchase or sale of Adelphia Class A stock, debentures, and notes; and (3) bank fraud. They were acquitted of wire fraud. The jury did not reach a conclusion about whether wire fraud was an object of the conspiracy. The Second Circuit reversed one of the two bank fraud counts, but affirmed the remaining convictions. Rigas, 490 F.3d at 236, 239.

John Rigas received a sentence of five years imprisonment on the conspiracy count, and an aggregate sentence of twelve years on all the counts. Timothy Rigas received a sentence of five years imprisonment on the conspiracy count, and a total combined sentence of seventeen years on all counts. Id. Financial penalties were governed by a Settlement Agreement between the Government and the Rigas family, including John Rigas, Doris Rigas, Michael Rigas, Timothy Rigas, James Rigas, and Ellen Rigas Venetis. The Settlement Agreement did not apply to any tax violations.

1. New York Conspiracy Count

Count One of the New York Indictment alleged a wide-ranging conspiracy (1) to create the false appearance that Adelphia's operating performance was strong and that Adelphia was reducing its debt burden, (2) to use Adelphia assets for the personal benefit of members of the Rigas family, and (3) to make false and misleading statements. We focus on the second aspect of the conspiracy, which most closely overlaps with the charges in the Pennsylvania Indictment.

The New York Indictment and Bill of Particulars alleged that the Rigases used Adelphia funds, [a]mong other things[,] ... to construct a golf course on land primarily owned by JOHN J. RIGAS; routinely used Adelphia's corporate aircraft for their personal affairs, without reimbursement to Adelphia; and used at least approximately $252,157,176 in Adelphia funds to pay margin calls against loans to the Rigas family.” New York Indictment ¶ 62. According to the Bill of Particulars: Adelphia purchased real estate from Rigas family members above market value without the property being conveyed to Adelphia; Adelphia purchased real estate for Rigas family members and paid to maintain and renovate that property; Adelphia paid the Rigases' property taxes and insurance premiums; Adelphia paid golf club membership dues for the Rigases, paid expenses related to Ellen Rigas's wedding, and purchased 100 pairs of slippers for Timothy Rigas. The New York Bill of Particulars also alleged that Adelphia made “charitable contributions” on behalf of the Rigases.

From about 1999 to 2002, “Adelphia advanced millions of dollars in cash to JOHN J. RIGAS, TIMOTHY J. RIGAS and MICHAEL J. RIGAS, in excess of their publicly disclosed compensation.” New York Indictment ¶ 169. Other unnamed family members also received “substantial amounts of cash.” Id. In about 2001, John Rigas began receiving monthly cash payments of about $1 million. In April 2001, the Rigases “caused Adelphia to file an amended annual report on Form 10-K, which falsely understated the total amount of compensation to [the Rigases and others] by failing to include the[se] cash advances.” Id. According to the New York Bill of Particulars, these cash advances totaled nearly $80 million.

In June 2001, the Rigases began constructing a golf course on land in Coudersport, Pennsylvania. Adelphia owned a small portion of the land, while John Rigas owned the rest. The Rigases used approximately $13 million in Adelphia funds on golf course equipment, development, and construction.

Adelphia operated three airplanes out of an airport in Wellsville, New York. The Rigases, “and other members of the Rigas family, routinely used the Adelphia Airplanes for personal travel” without reimbursing Adelphia. Id. ¶ 192.

The Rigases also took Adelphia stock without paying for it and used Adelphia assets to pay for their purchases of Adelphia stock. The Rigas family claimed that they were reducing Adelphia's debt by purchasing substantial amounts of Adelphia stock, but they never actually paid for that stock. Instead, Adelphia “purportedly was compensated for those securities by ‘assumptions'...

To continue reading

Request your trial
119 cases
  • United States v. Coburn
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • 14 Febrero 2020
    ...multiple prosecutions for the same conduct if Congress intended to impose multiple punishments for that conduct." United States v. Rigas , 605 F.3d 194, 204 (3d Cir. 2010). "Congressional intent dictates the proper unit of prosecution." United States v. Haddy , 134 F.3d 542, 548 (3d Cir. 19......
  • United States v. Menendez
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • 8 Octubre 2015
    ...voluntary participation in the conspiracy; and (3) the commission of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy." United States v. Rigas, 605 F.3d 194, 206 (3d Cir.2010) (internal citations omitted). "The agreement need not be shown to have been explicit." Iannelli v. United States, 420 ......
  • United States v. Taylor
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania
    • 2 Febrero 2017
    ..., 870 F.2d 109, 113 (3d Cir. 1989) ).United States v. Manfredi , 628 F.Supp.2d 608, 640 (W.D. Pa. 2009) ; cf. United States v. Rigas , 605 F.3d 194, 206–07 (3d Cir. 2010). " 'To conspire to defraud the United States means primarily to cheat the government out of property or money, but it al......
  • State v. Gallegos
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of New Mexico
    • 15 Junio 2011
    ...for the court to determine “whether there are two agreements or only one,” and hence several conspiracies or one. United States v. Rigas, 605 F.3d 194, 213 (3d Cir.2010) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); cf. United States v. Sasser, 974 F.2d 1544, 1549 n. 4 (10th Cir.1992). A......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • FEDERAL CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 58-3, July 2021
    • 1 Julio 2021
    ...Mancuso 718 F.3d 780, 792 (9th Cir. 2013).96. United States v. Cephus 684 F.3d 703, 706 (7th Cir. 2012); see also United States v. Rigas 605 F.3d 194(3rd Cir. 2010) (“Duplicitous counts may conceal the specif‌ic charges, prevent the jury from deciding guilt orinnocence with respect to a par......
  • Federal Criminal Conspiracy
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 60-3, July 2023
    • 1 Julio 2023
    ...718 F.3d 780, 792 (9th Cir. 2013). 95. United States v. Cephus, 684 F.3d 703, 706 (7th Cir. 2012); see also United States v. Rigas, 605 F.3d 194 (3d Cir. 2010); Burfoot , 899 F.3d at 337. 96. See Miller , 891 F.3d at 1230. 2023] FEDERAL CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY 819 charges against him. 97 If a d......
  • Federal Criminal Conspiracy
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 59-3, July 2022
    • 1 Julio 2022
    ...718 F.3d 780, 792 (9th Cir. 2013). 100. United States v. Cephus, 684 F.3d 703, 706 (7th Cir. 2012); see also United States v. Rigas, 605 F.3d 194 (3rd Cir. 2010) (“Duplicitous counts may conceal the specif‌ic charges, prevent the jury from deciding guilt or innocence with respect to a parti......
  • Review Proceedings
    • United States
    • Georgetown Law Journal No. 110-Annual Review, August 2022
    • 1 Agosto 2022
    ...indictment on double jeopardy grounds immediately appealable); U.S. v. Basciano, 599 F.3d 184, 196 (2d Cir. 2010) (same); U.S. v. Rigas, 605 F.3d 194, 203 & n.7 (3d Cir. 2010) (en banc) (same); U.S. v. Jones, 858 F.3d 221, 225 n.3 (4th Cir. 2017) (same); U.S. v. Sarabia, 661 F.3d 225, 228-2......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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