U.S. v. Singh
| Decision Date | 08 February 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. 06-4883.,No. 06-4338.,No. 06-4812.,06-4338.,06-4812.,06-4883. |
| Citation | 518 F.3d 236 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Surendra D. SINGH, a/k/a Sam; Dilipkumar Somabhai Patel, a/k/a Dan; Jalaram, Incorporated, Defendants-Appellees. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dilipkumar Somabhai Patel, a/k/a Dan, Defendant-Appellant. United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Surendra D. Singh, a/k/a Sam, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Thomas E. Johnston, United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, Katharine Goepp, Asset Forfeiture and Money Laundering Section, United States Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., for Appellant/Cross-Appellee. Timothy M. Monahan, Offit & Kurman, Owings Mills, Maryland; Robert C. Stone, Jr., Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee/Cross-Appellant Surendra D. Singh.
Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, dismissed in part, and remanded by published opinion. Judge KING wrote the opinion, in which Judge MICHAEL and Judge MOTZ joined.
These appeals arise from a criminal proceeding in the Northern District of West Virginia in which defendants Surendra "Sam" Singh, Dilipkumar "Dan" Patel ("Patel"), and Jalaram, Incorporated (collectively, the "Defendants"), were convicted by jury of a total of fourteen offenses, including conspiracy to violate the Mann Act, in contravention of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (the "Mann Act conspiracy"), ten counts of violating the Mann Act, in contravention of 18 U.S.C. § 2422(a) (the "Mann Act counts"), conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) (the "money laundering conspiracy"), and two money laundering offenses, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(A)(i) (the "money laundering counts"). More specifically, each of the Defendants was convicted of eight offenses:
• Singh was convicted of the Mann Act conspiracy (Count 1), five Mann Act counts (Counts 2 through 6), the money laundering conspiracy (Count 12), and a money laundering count (Count 13); and
• Patel and Jalaram were each convicted of the Mann Act conspiracy (Count 1), five Mann Act counts (Counts 7 through 11), the money laundering conspiracy (Count 12), and a money laundering count (Count 14).
The jury also made a criminal forfeiture award to the Government against the Defendants, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982(a)(1) and § 2253, of $670,720.36, plus two motels in Martinsburg, West Virginia.
Each of the fourteen offenses of conviction arose from the Defendants' involvement in an interstate prostitution scheme. After the jury's April 2005 verdict, the court, on August 1, 2005, vacated the Defendants' convictions on the money laundering conspiracy and money laundering counts and awarded them a new trial on these charges. See United States v. Singh, No. 3:05-cr-00006-WCB (N.D.W.Va. Aug. 1, 2005) (the "August 1 Order"). Additionally, the August 1 Order vacated Jalaram's convictions on the Mann Act conspiracy and Mann Act counts and granted it a new trial on these charges as well.1 This Order also vacated the jury's forfeiture award as it related to Jalaram. On March 15, 2006, after the Government sought reconsideration of the August 1 Order, the court granted reconsideration in part and denied it in part. See United States v. Singh, No. 3:05-cr-00006-WCB (N.D.W.Va. Mar. 15, 2006) (the "March 15 Order"). The March 15 Order supplanted the new trial award to the Defendants on the money laundering conspiracy and money laundering counts with entry of judgments of acquittal. By this Order, the court declined to reconsider its new trial award to Jalaram on the Mann Act conspiracy and Mann Act counts.
The Government has appealed the post-trial rulings made against it by the district court in the August 1 Order and the March 15 Order, seeking reinstatement of those aspects of the verdict that were set aside and replaced with judgments of acquittal and a new trial. Singh and Patel have also appealed, seeking relief from their convictions and sentences on the Mann Act conspiracy and Mann Act counts. As explained below, we reverse the post-trial rulings being challenged in the Government's appeal, and we reject the appeals of Singh and Patel. We thus reinstate the verdict as to Singh and Patel on the money laundering conspiracy and money laundering counts, and as to Jalaram on the Mann Act conspiracy, the Mann Act counts, the money laundering conspiracy, and the money laundering counts. We affirm the convictions of Singh and Patel on the Mann Act conspiracy and Mann Act counts, reinstate the forfeiture award as to Jalaram, and remand.
From 2000 to 2003, a prostitution ring known as the "Gold Club" operated out of the Economy Inn and Scottish Inn motels in Martinsburg, West Virginia.2 The Gold Club was operated by Susan Powell, who has pleaded guilty to a federal tax offense and who testified at trial on behalf of the Government. During the Gold Club's two-and-one-half years of operation, Powell employed approximately fifty prostitutes, using as many as nine motel rooms per day on peak days, and four or five rooms on average days. All together, the Gold Club received proceeds from its operations that totalled more than $670,000. Powell recruited female prostitutes for the Gold Club from West Virginia and the neighboring states of Maryland and Virginia by advertising in newspapers in the three states. Each of the out-of-state prostitutes who testified acknowledged that, when she travelled to work in West Virginia, she did so for the purpose of engaging in prostitution.
The Gold Club began operating out of the Martinsburg Economy Inn in approximately March 2000. Powell negotiated a deal in that regard with Singh, the owner and manager of the Economy Inn and a Gold Club customer. The basic agreement was that the Economy Inn would rent rooms to Gold Club prostitutes at a discounted rate of $40 per day, with the understanding that the rooms would be vacated by 8:00 or 9:00 p.m. each evening. This arrangement allowed Singh to rent these rooms again, to legitimate overnight customers who arrived late in the evening. On some occasions, the Economy Inn would rent the same room to two different prostitutes on the same day — one working early in the day and the other coming in later. Powell would usually communicate with Gold Club prostitutes about their upcoming appointments by telephoning them through the Economy Inn's switchboard. Singh normally operated the switchboard himself and, before connecting Powell to a prostitute's room, would discuss with Powell the appointments of the day.
Initially, the foregoing arrangement between Singh and Powell was satisfactory to everyone involved with the Gold Club. As the Gold Club's operations progressed, however, several prostitutes complained to Powell about paying the Economy Inn for rooms on days when they had no customers. To mitigate this financial burden, Powell began to delay booking rooms at the Economy Inn until after customers made appointments. These delays caused scheduling problems for Singh, who needed to know how many rooms to set aside for the Gold Club's business on a given day. Accordingly, Singh sought and secured from Powell a modification of the Gold Club's rental arrangement: on days the Gold Club's prostitutes had no customers, they did not have to pay for their rooms, provided they did not disturb the rooms and left them in rentable condition; on days that prostitutes had at least one customer, they would pay after the first customer departed. Pursuant to this revised arrangement, which became standard practice, the first daily customer would pay a prostitute in cash for her services (generally $150 an hour), and the prostitute would in turn pay $40 to Singh for an Economy Inn room for the balance of the day, regardless of how many additional customers she had.
In 2001, Powell decided to transfer the Gold Club's operations from the Economy Inn to a new location. Patel, another regular Gold Club customer, was the manager of the Scottish Inn, a motel in Martinsburg owned by Jalaram. While Singh was travelling, Powell visited the Scottish Inn to discuss moving the Gold Club's operations there. Suresh Patel was present, identified himself as the Scottish Inn's owner, and talked with Powell about the Gold Club.3 Powell explained to Suresh that she ran an "adult entertainment company" and was looking for rooms to rent for that purpose. Suresh advised Powell that she should address the issue with Patel, the Inn's manager, and scheduled a meeting between Powell and Patel for the next day.
At the meeting the next day, Patel and Powell discussed the Gold Club's arrangement with the Economy Inn, specifically that Singh gave the Gold Club's prostitutes a discounted rate of $40 per day at the Economy Inn and waived the daily fee when a prostitute had no customers. Patel and Powell discussed the matter further, and then agreed that the Scottish Inn would match the Economy Inn's terms with the Gold Club. As a result, Powell moved the Gold Club's operations to the Scottish Inn. When Singh learned of the Scottish Inn's arrangement with the Gold Club, he urged Powell to return its business to the Economy Inn, but she declined.
Powell ran the Gold Club's operations at the Scottish Inn as she had at the Economy Inn. She communicated with the prostitutes through the Inn's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Giles v. United States
...from an illegal activity; and (3) that the defendant knowingly and voluntarily became part of the conspiracy. United States v. Singh, 518 F.3d 236, 248 (4th Cir. 2008) (citing United States v. Alerre, 430 F.3d 681, 693 (4th Cir. 2005)). The elements of marijuana distribution conspiracy are:......
-
United States v. Pertuset
...offense are supported by the evidence, the motion must be denied.” Blankenship , 2015 WL 8731688, at *1 (quoting United States v. Singh , 518 F.3d 236, 246 (4th Cir.2008) ). “This standard of review is the same whether the trial was before a jury or before the court.” United States v. Witas......
-
U.S. v. Basham
...___ U.S. ___, 129 S.Ct. 41, 172 L.Ed.2d 20 (2008). An error of law is, by definition, an abuse of discretion. United States v. Singh, 518 F.3d 236, 251 (4th Cir.2008). We will not "`vacate a conviction unless we find that the district court judge acted arbitrarily or irrationally' in admitt......
-
United States v. Grayson Enters., Inc.
...agent has acted for his own benefit as well as that of his employer.’ " Oceanic Illsabe , 889 F.3d at 195 (quoting United States v. Singh , 518 F.3d 236, 250 (4th Cir. 2008) ). As the district court explained, "Gire requested the H-2B visa workers for Grayson Enterprises." Regardless of wha......
-
CORPORATE CRIMINAL LIABILITY
...rea to establish criminal liability; a forbidden act.” Actus Reus, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (11th ed. 2019). 25. See United States v. Singh, 518 F.3d 236, 250 (4th Cir. 2008) (“[L]iability arises if the employee or agent has acted for his own benefit as well as that of his employer.”); Unite......
-
Corporate Criminal Liability
...(holding a corporation can be held responsible for illegal act of authorized employee of company). 13. See, e.g. , United States v. Singh, 518 F.3d 236, 250 (4th Cir. 2008); United States v. Potter, 463 F.3d 9, 26 (1st Cir. 2006). 14. See, e.g. , Baena v. KPMG LLP, 453 F.3d 1, 7 (1st Cir. 2......
-
Corporate Criminal Liability
...criminal liability; a forbidden act.” Actus Reus , BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (11th ed. 2019). 22. See, e.g. , United States v. Singh, 518 F.3d 236, 250 (4th Cir. 2008) (“[L]iability arises if the employee or agent has acted for his own benefit as well as that of his employer.”); United States......
-
Trials
...a determination of whether the agents were acting for the benefit of the corporation”). 74. See , e . g ., United States v. Singh, 518 F.3d 236, 249 (4th Cir. 2008). 75. See United States v. Fla. W. Int’l Airways, 853 F. Supp. 2d 1209, 1237 (S.D. Fla. 2012). 76. See 15 U.S.C. § 1 (only “con......