United States v. Esquenazi

Decision Date16 May 2014
Docket NumberNo. 11–15331.,11–15331.
Citation752 F.3d 912
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff–Appellee, v. Joel ESQUENAZI, Carlos Rodriguez, Defendants–Appellants.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Kirby A. Heller, Nicola J. Mrazek, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, James M. Koukios, Wifredo A. Ferrer, Daren Grove, Kathleen Mary Salyer, Anne Ruth Schultz, U.S. Attorney's Office, Miami, FL, Aurora Fagan, U.S. Attorney's Office, West Palm Beach, FL, for PlaintiffAppellee.

Michael J. Rosen, Michael J. Rosen, PA, Arturo Virgilio Hernandez, Arturo V. Hernandez, P.A., Miami, FL, Rhonda Anne Anderson, Rhonda A. Anderson, PA, Richard J. Diaz, Law Offices of Richard J. Diaz, PA, Coral Gables, FL, Lauren Lisette Valiente, Foley & Lardner, LLP, Tampa, FL, Michael Alex Sink, Markus Funk, Perkins Coie, LLP, Denver, CO, James F. Cirincione, David W. Simon, Foley & Lardner, LLP, Milwaukee, WI, Jaime B. Guerrero, Pamela L. Johnston, Foley & Lardner, LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Kenneth Bruce Winer, Foley & Lardner, LLP, Washington, DC, for DefendantsAppellants.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. D.C. Docket No. 1:09–cr–21010–JEM–1.

Before MARTIN, JORDAN and SUHRHEINRICH,* Circuit Judges.

MARTIN, Circuit Judge:

Joel Esquenazi and Carlos Rodriguez appeal their convictions and sentences imposed after a jury convicted them of conspiracy, violating the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, and money-laundering. After careful review, and with the benefit of oral argument, we affirm.

I.

In December 2009, a grand jury indicted Messrs. Esquenazi and Rodriguez on 21 counts. Two of these were conspiracy charges that spanned November 2001 through March 2005: conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) and commit wire fraud, all in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371 (Count 1); and conspiracy to launder money, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (Count 9). Counts 2 through 8 charged substantive violations of the FCPA, 15 U.S.C. § 78dd–2. And Counts 10 through 21 charged acts of concealment money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(1)(B)(i).

A. Trial1

Messrs. Esquenazi and Rodriguez co-owned Terra Telecommunications Corp. (Terra), a Florida company that purchased phone time from foreign vendors and resold the minutes to customers in the United States. Mr. Esquenazi, Terra's majority owner, served as President and Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Rodriguez, the company's minority owner, served as Executive Vice President of Operations. James Dickey served as Terra's general counsel and Antonio Perez as the company's comptroller.

One of Terra's main vendors was Telecommunications D'Haiti, S.A.M. (Teleco). Because the relationship of Teleco to the Haitian government was, and remains, at issue in this case, the government presented evidence of Teleco's ties to Haiti. Former Teleco Director of International Relations Robert Antoine testified that Teleco was owned by Haiti. An insurance broker, John Marsha, testified that, when Messrs. Rodriguez and Esquenazi were involved in previous contract negotiations with Teleco, they sought political-risk insurance, a type of coverage that applies only when a foreign government is party to an agreement. In emails with Mr. Marsha copied to Messrs. Esquenazi and Rodríguez, Mr. Dickey called Teleco an “instrumentality” of the Haitian government.

An expert witness, Luis Gary Lissade, testified regarding Teleco's history. At Teleco's formation in 1968, the Haitian government gave the company a monopoly on telecommunication services. Teleco had significant tax advantages and, at its inception, the government appointed two members of Teleco's board of directors. Haiti's President appointed Teleco's Director General, its top position, by an executive order that was also signed by the Haitian Prime Minister, the minister of public works, and the minister of economy and finance. In the early 1970s, the National Bank of Haiti gained 97 percent ownership of Teleco. From that time forward, the Haitian President appointed all of Teleco's board members. Sometime later, the National Bank of Haiti split into two separate entities, one of which was the Banque de la Republique d'Haiti (BRH). BRH, the central bank of Haiti, is roughly equivalent to the United States Federal Reserve. BRH retained ownership of Teleco. In Mr. Lissade's expert opinion, for the years relevant to this case, Teleco belonged “totally to the state and “was considered ... a public entity.”

Mr. Lissade also testified that Teleco's business entity suffix, S.A.M., indicates “associate anonymous mixed,” which means the “Government put money in the corporation.” Teleco's suffix was attached not by statute, but “de facto” because “the government consider[ed] Teleco as its ... entity.” In 1996, Haiti passed a “modernization” law, seeking to privatize many public institutions. As a result, Haiti privatized Teleco sometime between 2009 and 2010. Ultimately, Mr. Lissade opined that, during the years relevant to this case, “Teleco was part of the public administration.” He explained: “There was no specific law that ... decided that at the beginning that Teleco is a public entity but government, officials, everyone consider[ed] Teleco as a public administration.” And, he said, “if there was a doubt whatsoever, the [anti-corruption] law [that] came in 2008 vanish[ed] completely this doubt ... by citing Teleco as a public administration” and by requiring its agents—whom Mr. Lissade said were public agents—to declare all assets to avoid secret bribes.

In 2001 Terra contracted to buy minutes from Teleco directly. At that time, Teleco's Director General was Patrick Joseph (appointed by then-President Jean–Bertrand Aristide), and the Director of International Relations was Robert Antoine. Mr. Antoine had two friends and business associates who played a role in this case: Jean Fourcand, a grocery-store owner, and Juan Diaz.

By October 2001, Terra owed Teleco over $400,000. So Mr. Perez testified, Mr. Esquenazi asked him to contact Mr. Antoine and negotiate an amortization deal or, alternatively, to offer a side payment. Mr. Perez met with Mr. Antoine, who rejected the idea of amortization but agreed to a side payment to ease Terra's debt. The deal, according to Mr. Perez, was that Mr. Antoine would shave minutes from Terra's bills to Teleco in exchange for receiving from Terra fifty percent of what the company saved. Mr. Antoine suggested that Terra disguise the payments by making them to sham companies, which Terra ultimately did. Mr. Perez returned to Mr. Esquenazi and told him the news and later shared details of the deal in a meeting with Messrs. Esquenazi, Rodriguez, and Dickey. The four discussed “the fact that Robert Antoine had accepted an arrangement to accept ... payments to him in exchange for reducing [Terra's] bills.” Mr. Perez testified: [Mr. Esquenazi] was happy, and both James Dickey and Carlos Rodriguez also congratulated me on a job well done.” 2

The following month, in November 2001, Terra began funneling personal payments to Mr. Antoine using the following subterfuge. Mr. Dickey, on Terra's behalf, drafted a “consulting agreement” between Terra and a company Mr. Antoine had suggested called J.D. Locator. J.D. Locator, an otherwise insolvent company, was owned by Mr. Antoine's friend Juan Diaz. During the course of the next several months, Messrs. Rodriguez and Esquenazi authorized payments to J.D. Locator via “check requests,” forms Terra used to write checks without invoices. Mr. Diaz testified that he knew the payments Terra made were not for legitimate consulting services and that he never intended to provide such services. Instead, Mr. Diaz retained ten percent of the funds Terra paid J.D. Locator and disbursed the remainder, usually either to Mr. Antoine or his business associate Mr. Fourcand. Mr. Fourcand testified that he knew he was receiving money from Terra (through J.D. Locator) that would ultimately go to Mr. Antoine and that Mr. Antoine asked him to be part of that deal. All told, while Mr. Antoine remained at Teleco, Terra paid him and his associates approximately $822,000. And, during that time, Terra's bills were reduced by over $2 million.

In April 2003, President Aristide removed Mr. Antoine and named Alphonse Inevil as his replacement. Mr. Inevil soon replaced Mr. Joseph as Director General, and Jean Rene Duperval replaced Inevil. Later that year, with Terra still behind on its bills, Mr. Esquenazi helped Mr. Duperval form a shell company, Telecom Consulting Services Corporation (TCSC), through which Esquenazi ultimately would make side payments to Mr. Duperval. TCSC's president was Margurite Grandison, Mr. Duperval's sister; its incorporator and registered agent was Mr. Dickey; and the company's principal business address was a post office box that named Mr. Duperval as the person empowered to receive mail through it. Ms. Grandison executed a “commission agreement” with Terra, which Mr. Esquenazi signed. And on November 20, Mr. Rodriguez authorized the first transfer, $15,000, to TCSC. Over the next five months, although Terra received no invoices to reflect money owed TCSC, Terra made six additional transfers to TCSC totaling $60,000. Each of these seven transfers is the subject of the substantive FCPA counts. Ms. Grandison then disbursed money from TCSC's account to Mr. Duperval and his associates. She made a number of transfers, twelve of which constitute the substantive money-laundering counts.

During the Internal Revenue Service's investigation of the case, Mr. Esquenazi admitted he had bribed Mr. Duperval and other Teleco officials. He and Mr. Rodriguez nonetheless pleaded not guilty, proceeded to trial, and were found guilty on all counts.3

B. Post-trial

Five days after the jury convicted Messrs. Esquenazi and Rodriguez, the government received from an attorney involved in Patrick Joseph's defense a declaration by the Haitian Prime Minister, ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
39 cases
  • United States v. Pon, No. 17-11455
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • 29 d1 Junho d1 2020
    ...finding errors, even serious errors, harmless, oftentimes because of overwhelming evidence of guilt. See United States v. Esquenazi, 752 F.3d 912, 931 (11th Cir. 2014), superseded by statute in non-relevant part, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956, 1957 (finding an error in the trial court's jury instructio......
  • United States v. Gross
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit
    • 12 d3 Outubro d3 2016
    ...States v. Demarest, 570 F.3d 1232, 1242 (11th Cir. 2009). Gross also quotes part of a sentence from our opinion in United States v. Esquenazi, 752 F.3d 912 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 293 (2014), for support. The full quote from Esquenazi is: "Conducting a criminal enterprise nece......
  • United States v. Harder
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • 2 d3 Março d3 2016
    ...EBRD falls within the FCPA's ambit is necessarily a “fact-bound question[ ]” properly decided by a jury. See United States v. Esquenazi, 752 F.3d 912, 925 (11th Cir.) (in case of first impression, noting that whether an entity constitutes an “instrumentality” is a “fact-bound question[ ]” a......
  • Dallas v. Dunn
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama
    • 14 d5 Julho d5 2017
    ...lies with the defendant, not the government. United States v. Stein, 846 F.3d 1134, 1145 (11th Cir. 2017); United States v. Esquenazi, 752 F.3d 912, 933 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 135 S. Ct. 293 (2014). "A prosecutor has no duty to undertake a fishing expedition in other jurisdictions in an......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
6 firm's commentaries
4 books & journal articles
  • Foreign corrupt practices act
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 60-3, July 2023
    • 1 d6 Julho d6 2023
    ...(issuers), 78dd-2(h)(2)(A) (domestic concerns), 78dd-3(f)(2)(A) (persons within U.S. territory). 143. United States v. Esquenazi, 752 F.3d 912, 925 (11th Cir. 2014), superseded by statute in non-relevant part , 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956–1957; see also Jury Instructions at 89, United States v. Lambe......
  • Foreign Corrupt Practices Act
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 59-3, July 2022
    • 1 d5 Julho d5 2022
    ...issuers), 78dd-2(h)(2)(A) (for domestic concerns), 78dd-3(f)(2)(A) (for persons within U.S. territory). 137. United States v. Esquenazi, 752 F.3d 912, 925 (11th Cir. 2014), superseded by statute in non-relevant part , 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956–1957; see also Jury Instructions at 89, United States v......
  • FOREIGN CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review No. 58-3, July 2021
    • 1 d4 Julho d4 2021
    ...issuers), 78dd-2(h)(2)(A) (for domestic concerns), 78dd-3(f)(2)(A) (for persons within U.S. territory). 138. United States v. Esquenazi, 752 F.3d 912, 925 (11th Cir. 2014), superseded by statute, 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956–1957; see also Jury Instructions at 89, United States v. Lambert, No. TDC-18-......
  • Federal Sentencing Guidelines
    • United States
    • Mercer University School of Law Mercer Law Reviews No. 66-4, June 2015
    • Invalid date
    ...(2014)).4. 765 F.3d 1291 (11th Cir. 2014).5. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2B1.1(b)(1).6. See 765 F.3d at 1296 & n.3.7. 752 F.3d 912 (11th Cir. 2014); see also U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2C1.1(b)(2).8. See 752 F.3d at 936; U.S. SENTENCING GUIDELINES MANUAL § 2C1.1(b)(2).9......

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