United States v. Inniss
| Decision Date | 20 December 2019 |
| Docket Number | 18-CR-134 (KAM) |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. DONVILLE INNISS, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
A three-count second superseding indictment, dated August 1, 2019, charges defendants Donville Inniss ("Mr. Inniss" or the "defendant"), and two others, Ingrid Innes ("Ms. Innes"), and Alex Tasker ("Mr. Tasker") (collectively, "defendants") with conspiracy to commit money laundering (Count I), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h) and money laundering (Counts II and III), in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(2)(A). (ECF No. 50, Second Superseding Indictment (S-2) ("Indictment").)
These charges are based on the following allegations: From in or about and between August 2015 and April 2016, Mr. Inniss, using his position as the Minister of Industry and as a member of the Parliament of Barbados, engaged in a scheme to accept approximately $36,000 in bribes from Ms. Innes, then-CEO of the Insurance Corporation of Barbados Ltd. ("ICBL"), and Mr. Tasker, then-Senior VP of ICBL, in violation of Barbadian law, and laundered the proceeds of the bribes to and through the United States. (Id. ¶ 10.) Furthermore, the Indictment alleges that Mr. Inniss, using his official position as Minister of Industry, caused the Barbados Investment and Development Corporation ("BIDC"), an agency of the government of Barbados and over which Mr. Inniss exercised authority, to renew two insurance contracts with ICBL. (Id. ¶¶ 11 - 17.)
Specifically, the Indictment alleges that, in or about July 2015, Mr. Inniss caused the BIDC to renew an insurance contract with ICBL ("2015 Contract"), and that the 2015 Contract required the BIDC to pay a premium of approximately 661,469.30 Barbadian Dollars, or roughly $330,734.65, to ICBL. (Id. ¶ 12.) In return, ICBL employees, including the other two defendants, Ms. Innes and Mr. Tasker, allegedly agreed to pay a bribe of approximately $16,536.73 ("Bribe One") to Mr. Inniss, in consideration for his role in having caused the BIDC to renew the 2015 Contract. (Id. ¶ 13.) Bribe One represented five percent of the total premium that the BIDC owed to ICBL under the 2015 Contract. (Id.) The Indictment charges that, in concealment of the bribes, Mr. Inniss arranged to launder the bribes through a bank account in the Eastern District of New York in the name of the New York Dental Company ("New York Dental Company Bank Account") (Id. ¶ 14.) Payment was routed through a bank branch located in Brooklyn, New York. (Id.)
The Indictment also alleges that, in or about March 2016, Mr. Inniss caused the BIDC to renew another insurance contract with ICBL ("2016 Contract"). (Id. ¶ 16.) In return, ICBL employees, including the other two defendants, allegedly agreed to pay an additional bribe of approximately $20,000 ("Bribe Two") to Mr. Inniss, in consideration for having caused the BIDC to renew the 2016 Contract. (Id. ¶ 17.)
The Indictment further alleges the following transfers of funds: On or about August 17, 2015, a majority shareholder of ICBL ("Bermuda Company") transferred approximately $16,536.73 to the New York Dental Company Bank Account based on a false invoice provided by Ms. Innes, Mr. Tasker, and "ICBL Executive 1" for purported consulting services. (Id. ¶ 15.) On or about August 19, 2015, the New York Dental Company transferred approximately $16,000 to a bank account in the United States in the name of Mr. Inniss via a check made payable to Mr. Inniss. (Id.) Additionally, on or about April 18, 2016, the Bermuda Company transferred approximately $20,000 to the New York Dental Company Bank Account, based on a false invoice prepared by Ms. Innes, Mr. Tasker, and unnamed "ICBL Executive 1" for purported consulting services. (Id. ¶ 18.) On or about April 25, 2016, The New York Dental Company made transfers of approximately $9,000 and $8,000 to bank accounts in the United States, including at "Bank 1," in the name of Mr. Inniss, via checksmade payable to Mr. Inniss. (Id.) On or about April 27, 2016, the New York Dental Company transferred approximately $2,750 to a bank account in the United States in the name of Mr. Inniss, via a check made payable to Mr. Inniss. (Id.)
Pursuant to the April 3, 2019 Pretrial Scheduling Order ("Pretrial Scheduling Order"), the parties were required to file their pretrial motions by June 7, 2019, opposition papers by June 28, 2019, and reply papers by July 5, 2019. (ECF No. 37, Pretrial Scheduling Order.) Though the parties filed pretrial motions by June 7, 2019, they continued to submit filings, including additional motions, well outside of the court-ordered schedule. On August 23, 2019, the government filed a supplemental motion in limine and a motion to produce and find a document not protected by the attorney-client privilege. (ECF No. 53, Supplemental Motion in Limine; ECF No. 54, First Motion to Produce and find document not protected by a-c privilege.) On September 3, 2019, the government filed a supplement to its first motion in limine. (ECF No. 56, Letter re September 6, 2019 conference and supplemental motion in limine as to Donville Inniss.) On September 4, 2019, the government filed a motion to take a Rule 15 deposition, which the court granted on September 12, 2019. (ECF No. 62, Motion to Take Deposition; ECF No. 70, Memorandum and Order grantingMotion to Take Deposition.) Over two months after submitting his initial pretrial motions on June 7, 2019, Mr. Inniss filed a motion to strike a section of foreign law and to object to that portion of the proposed testimony of the government's expert witness, Thomas Durbin LLM ("Mr. Durbin"). (ECF No. 74, Letter Motion to Strike Section of Foreign Law and Objection to Proposed Expert Testimony ("Def. Mot. to Strike"), dated 9/16/2019.) The parties mutually agreed, with permission from the court, to adjourn the trial date from October 28, 2019 to January 13, 2020, in part to permit the court to consider the later-filed motions. (Dkt. Entry dated 10/14/2019.)
This Memorandum and Order addresses the government's eight motions in limine before the court ("Gov. Motions"). Pursuant to the Pretrial Scheduling Order, on June 5, 2019, the government timely submitted its initial five motions in limine, requesting that the court: (1) admit evidence concerning defendant's request to ICBL for a purported donation to the Corporation; (2) preclude defendant from introducing evidence or argument concerning Barbadian criminal law enforcement, including that Barbadian law enforcement has not, to date, charged defendant with any crimes; (3) preclude defendant from introducing evidence or argument that bribes are a custom or practice in Barbados; (4) preclude evidence or argument concerning defendant's prior commission of "good acts" or non-commission of other bad acts; and (5) preclude evidence or argument concerning defendant's family background, health condition, age, conditions of pretrial release, or any other personal factor unconnected to guilt. (ECF No. 39, First Motion in Limine by USA as to Donville Inniss.) On July 1, 2019, three days after the court-ordered deadline set forth in the Pretrial Scheduling Order, and without seeking an extension, defense counsel filed defendant's response to the government's initial motions in limine. (ECF No. 43, Response to Motion re First Motion in Limine.) On July 3, 2019, the government timely submitted its reply to defendant's response. (ECF No. 44, Notice Reply as to Donville Inniss re Response to Motion.)
On August 23, 2019, nearly two months after the deadline to file pretrial motions according to the Pretrial Scheduling Order, the government filed two pretrial motions, in addition to its first five motions: (6) a supplemental motion in limine, requesting that the court admit evidence of defendant's "financial motive to commit the charged offenses," either as direct evidence or pursuant to Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Evidence ("Rule 404(b)") (ECF No. 53, Supplemental Motion in Limine by USA as to Donville Inniss); and (7) a motion requesting that the court find that a document is not protected by the attorney-client privilege, permit the government to use the document in its prosecution of the case, and produce thedocument to Mr. Inniss in discovery. (ECF No. 54, First Motion to Produce and find document not protected by a-c privilege ("Privilege Motion").)
On September 5, 2019, Mr. Inniss filed his opposition to the government's supplemental motion in limine. (ECF No. 63, Response in Opposition re Supplemental Motion in Limine.) On September 3, 2019, counsel for Ms. Innes, Mr. John Joseph Rolecki, Esq., filed a notice of appearance, and Ronald DeWaard, Esq. and Gary Mouw, Esq. filed motions to appear pro hac vice on behalf of Ms. Innes (collectively, "Ms. Innes's counsel"). (ECF No. 57, Notice of Attorney Appearance: John Joseph Rolecki; ECF No. 58, Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Gary Mouw; ECF No. 59, Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Ronald DeWaard.) On September 3, 2019, Ms. Innes's counsel filed a letter requesting 10 additional days to respond to the government's Privilege Motion, which extension the court granted on September 5, 2019. (ECF No. 60, Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to First Motion to Produce and find document not protected by a-c privilege; Dkt. Order dated 9/5/2019.) On September 13, 2019, Ms. Innes's counsel filed its response in opposition to the government's Privilege Motion, including three exhibits that it provided to the court for in camera review. (ECF No. 73, Response to Motion re First Motion to Produce and find document not protected by a-c privilege ("Privilege Opp.").) OnSeptember 18, 2019, the government filed its reply brief in further support of its Privilege Motion.1 (ECF No. 75, Reply to Response to Motion re First Motion to Produce and find document not protected by a-c privilege (response to Doc #73)...
To continue reading
Request your trial