United States v. Seeman

• Citation: 115 F.2d 371
• Decision Date: 12 November 1940
• Docket Number: No. 102.,102.
• Parties: UNITED STATES v. SEEMAN et al.
• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)

115 F.2d 371 (1940)

UNITED STATES v. SEEMAN et al.

No. 102.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

November 12, 1940.

Henry Gallop, of Brooklyn, N. Y., and Clark, Gagliardi & Cunningham, of White Plains, N. Y., (Charles T. Murphy, of White Plains, N. Y., of counsel), for Solly Seeman, defendant-appellant.

John T. Cahill, U. S. Atty., of New York City (John C. Walsh, Asst. U. S. Atty., of New York City of counsel), for the United States of America, plaintiff-appellee.

Before L. HAND, SWAN, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.

AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judge.

The defendant Solly Seeman was convicted of conspiring with other defendants to violate Section 415 of Title 18 of U.S. C.A., which provides for the punishment of: "Whoever shall transport or cause to be transported in interstate or foreign commerce any goods, wares, or merchandise, securities, or money, of the value of $5,000 or more theretofore stolen or taken feloniously by fraud or with intent to steal or purloin, knowing the same to have been so stolen or taken * * *."

Solly Seeman and Morris Pollock were found guilty after a trial by a jury, and six of the other defendants pleaded guilty. Solly Seeman alone has appealed.

The record amply established that $27,500 worth of Consolidated Farm Loan Bonds were stolen from Union Trust Company of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on March 22, 1938, and that $10,000 of these bonds were brought by Robert Singerman, one of the defendants, to W. Bansen & Co., a bond house in the Southern District of New York. On July 28, 1938, Singerman was given sterling currency and a check in payment for $2,000 of these bonds and on July 29, 1938, was given sterling currency and a check in payment for $3,000 of them. The remaining $5,000 of the bonds were sold in the same way on August 2, 1938.

It is argued on behalf of the appellant Solly Seeman that he had no knowledge that any of the bonds dealt with were stolen and particularly that he had no knowledge of or connection with a plan for their transportation in interstate commerce.

We think that the proof was sufficient to show an arrangement in which Solly Seeman was an active participant to have stolen bonds transported in interstate commerce and that the judgment of conviction ought therefore to be affirmed.

As evidence of Solly Seeman's guilty knowledge it appears from the testimony of Singerman that in June 1938 he saw Solly in the room of Solly's brother Jack; that later in July there was a discussion between the Seemans and the defendant Steinberg about disposing of Federal Farm Loan Bonds; that in that conversation it was questioned whether the bond house through which the bonds were to be sold by Singerman would not get suspicious of the Federal Loan bonds and fear was expressed as to having Singerman handle them. After Singerman received the Federal Loan bond for $5,000 from Jack Seeman and disposed of it on August 2, Jack and Solly said they thought he had made a mistake in selling it, apparently because it was of such a large amount as to arouse suspicion. On an earlier occasion Singerman had a conversation with the Seemans in which they asked him whether the proceeds of certain stolen securities had been "got away with" by two of the other defendants. There was evidence that Solly was to share in the proceeds of sale of these and other stolen securities. While it is argued that proof that Solly Seeman dealt with other stolen securities was incompetent because it did not tend to show that there was any knowledge on his part of a purpose to cause the securities covered by the indictment to be transported in interstate commerce, we can see no reason why proof of dealing in stolen goods was not competent to show a guilty knowledge in respect to the bonds in question even though proof of an intent to cause them to be transported in interstate commerce has to be supplied from other sources.

If other evidence was necessary to establish an intent that the Farm Loan Bonds were to be transported in interstate commerce, nevertheless proof of the receipt of other stolen goods are thus transported would tend to support the government's case pro tanto. A complete identity of all the factors in the case at bar and in the other cases was not necessary to render the proof competent. Nakutin v. United States, 7 Cir., 8 F.2d 491, certiorari denied, 269 U.S. 585, 46 S.Ct. 201, 70 L.Ed. 425. Accordingly Solly's sales of the stolen certificate of 100 shares of Reynolds Tobacco B stock, and of the bonds stolen from the Surrogates Court, and of the stolen National Steel bonds were competent evidence of his guilty knowledge and intent to participate in the conspiracy alleged (pp. 502, 346).

But there was also proof of similar acts in which transportation in interstate commerce was involved. On July 19, 1938, Solly personally delivered to one Mahler a $5,000 United States Treasury Note that had been stolen in Nebraska on May 23, 1938, from the Omaha National Bank and was disposed of in Syracuse. Likewise about August 12, 1938, Solly delivered to Mahler a $5,000 Consolidated Federal Loan bond, which was other than the Consolidated Federal Loan bond heretofore mentioned. This bond was stolen from the Union Trust Company of Pittsburgh on May 22, 1938.

That similar acts may be proved in order to show guilty knowledge is settled in this circuit. United States v. Brand, 79 F.2d 605, 606; Workin v. United States, 260 F. 137; Sapir v. United States, 174 F. 219.

Solly threatened Steinberg for not giving him a proper share of the avails of stolen securities. He said at a meeting with Steinberg and Jack Seeman in New York on July 14, 1938: "This is an affair we split, * * * I was not putting up money to make up shortages and running around and coming in on all the deals, and * * * on all these conversations, for the love of it." After this conversation it was arranged to procure more stolen securities, and a few days later Jack and Solly Seeman said to Steinberg...