United States v. Weigand, 5:17-cr-00556
| Decision Date | 14 April 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. 5:20-cr-00248,No. 5:17-cr-00556,5:17-cr-00556,5:20-cr-00248 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. JASON WEIGAND |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
The Government's Motion in Limine to Admit Evidence of "JH's" Prior Drug Use, ECF No. 85 in 5:17-cr-00556; ECF No. 11 in 5:20-cr-00248—GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part
Defendant's Motion in Limine to Bar Use of Terms Related to State Crimes, ECF No. 86 in 5:17-cr-00556; ECF No. 12 in 5:20-cr-00248—DENIED
Defendant's Motion to Compel Production, ECF No. 87 in 5:17-cr-00556; ECF No. 13 in 5:20-cr-00248—DENIED
In this consolidated criminal action, Defendant Jason Weigand has been charged with multiple counts of bank fraud, wire fraud, computer fraud, securities fraud, and identify theft, stemming from his alleged misappropriation of client funds and related conduct while acting as a financial advisor. The operative indictment in the first-filed action, criminal case number 5:17-cr-0056, which charges twenty-four offenses for conduct occurring between 2005 and 2014, has been consolidated with the indictment in the later-filed action, criminal case number 5:20-cr-00248, which charges six offenses for conduct occurring between 2016 and 2019. The consolidated action has been scheduled for trial, and both Defendant and the Government have filed several pre-trial motions. Defendant has filed a motion to partially dismiss and/or strike portions of the operative indictment in case number 5:17-cr-0056, a motion in limine to bar the use of certain terms at trial, and a motion to compel the production of certain grand jury materials. The Government has filed three motions in limine to admit certain evidence at trial. Each of the parties' motions is opposed. The following Opinion addresses five of the six pending motions.1
On October 12, 2017, a grand jury sitting in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania returned a 20-count Indictment against Defendant. See ECF No. 1.2 The Indictment alleged a series of schemes in which Defendant, while acting as a licensed financial advisor, misappropriated the money of several particular clients—"AR," "BG," "WK," "JH," and "RH"—for personal use between 2005 and 2012. See id. In particular, the Indictment alleged that Defendant set up accounts without his clients' knowledge and made unauthorized deposits and withdrawals from both authorized and unauthorized accounts. See id. As part of these schemes, the Indictment alleged that Defendant frequently forged client signatures on checks, and that in 2012, Defendant stole client AH's identity by impersonating AH when making telephone calls to financial institutions, calls which were captured and recorded by the financial institutions. See id. The Indictment further alleged that to conceal his conduct, Defendantfabricated and provided to his clients false financial statements and engaged in several acts of money laundering. See id.
On October 21, 2017, Defendant made his initial appearance, at which time he was released on bail, subject to conditions that he "have no contact with . . . potential witness[es] in this case," and that he not commit any "Federal, State, or local crime during the period of release." ECF Nos. 5 - 6.
On March 7, 2019, a grand jury sitting in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania returned a 21-count Superseding Indictment against Defendant. See ECF No. 35. The Superseding Indictment retained all of the charges from the original Indictment and added one additional charge of bank fraud. See id. The new charge pertained to Defendant's alleged misappropriation of the funds of his client "WP" in 2013 and 2014. See id.
On July 25, 2019, a grand jury sitting in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania returned a 24-count Second Superseding Indictment against Defendant, which remains the operative Indictment in case number 5:17-cr-0056. See ECF No. 44. The Second Superseding Indictment retains all of the pending charges from the First Superseding Indictment and adds three new bank fraud charges. See id. The new charges pertain to Defendant's alleged misappropriation of the funds of clients JH and RH in 2013 and 2014. See id.
In March 2019, Defendant contacted JH and RH, in violation of the condition of his release that he "have no contact with . . . potential witness[es] in this case." Thereafter, the Government filed a motion to revoke Defendant's bail, see ECF No. 45, a hearing on which was held on September 19, 2019, see ECF No. 57. The Government's motion to revoke bail was subsequently granted, and Defendant was remanded pending trial. See ECF No. 61.
On August 18, 2020, a grand jury sitting in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania returned a six-count Indictment in case number 5:20-cr-00248, charging Defendant with mail fraud, wire fraud, and interstate transportation of stolen securities, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1343, and 2314. See ECF No. 1 in 5:20-cr-00248. These charges are based on Defendant's alleged misappropriation and misuse of the funds of client "AH." In particular, the Indictment charges that between June and August 2017, while out on bail in case number 5:17-cr-00556, Defendant induced AH to invest in what he represented to be a profitable and safe investment opportunity, when in reality he misappropriated AH's money for his own personal use. See id. The Indictment further alleges that Defendant failed to inform AH that he had surrendered his state investment licenses, that he was under state investigation, that he had been federally indicted, and that he was out on bail. See id.
On August 25, 2020, Defendant filed a motion to consolidate the Second Superseding Indictment in case number 5:17-cr-00556 with the Indictment in case number 5:20-cr-00248 for purposes of trial and to continue the trial date due to the COVID-19 pandemic. See ECF No. 71 in 5:17-cr-00556. After a hearing held on September 16, 2020, the Court granted Defendant's unopposed motion to consolidate and to continue trial in the consolidated matter. See ECF No. 78 in 5:17-cr-00556; ECF No. 7 in 5:20-cr-00248. Trial in the consolidated matter has been continued two additional times due to the ongoing nature of the COVID-19 pandemic, and is currently scheduled to commence June 28, 2021. See ECF Nos. 95 and 101 in 5:17-cr-00556; ECF Nos. 19 and 27 in 5:20-cr-00248.
a. Defendant's arguments
Defendant raises multiple arguments in its motion to dismiss and/or strike portions of the Second Superseding Indictment in case number 5:17-cr-0056. First, Defendant contends that "the majority of the allegations in Count 1 are time barred," because Count One recites numerous instances of banking activity which occurred outside of the relevant 10-year statute of limitations. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss ("Def. Mot. 1"), ECF No. 80, at 10. Relatedly, Defendant contends that Count One is duplicitous, because it references multiple time-barred allegations of unlawful conduct, and, as a consequence, "there will be a challenge to jury instructions with regard to the execution element." Id. Defendant moreover contends that Counts Two and Three are multiplicitous, because, "as a whole, these two Counts combined with Count 1 for three executions of basically the same scheme." Id. at 11. Finally, Defendant argues that "[t]he First Superceding [sic] Indictment and the Second Superceding [sic] Indictment considerably broadened the 'bank fraud' allegations against Mr. Weigand as originally set forth in Count 1," id. at 13, and as such, for statute of limitations purposes "the government does not enjoy the benefit of the filing date of the original indictment," id. at 14.
b. The Government's arguments
In opposition, the Government argues that Defendant's "entire motion is founded on a fundamental misconception of the law governing statutes of limitation." Government's Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss ("Gov't. Opp'n. 1"), ECF No. 82, at 5. The Government observes that "Count One [of the Second Superseding Indictment] charges a singleexecution of a bank fraud scheme premised on Weigand's presentation and deposit of false, fraudulent, and forged checks to Wells Fargo Bank." Id. at 8. This scheme took place from "on or about June 24, 2005 through on or about November 1, 2007." Id. at 6. November 1, 2007, was the date of the final alleged execution of the scheme—that is, when Defendant allegedly deposited forged check number 1021 in the amount of $370, drawn on the Fidelity account that Defendant had opened in his client BG's name, into a Wells Fargo Bank account of Defendant's own entity.3 Id. at 9. The Government contends that because at least one of the alleged executions of the bank fraud scheme occurred within ten years of the date of filing of the initial Indictment—October 12, 2017—the scheme as charged in Count One has been timely brought. Id. "The fact that much of the conduct alleged in [Count One], and that will be proved at trial, antedates the limitations period is irrelevant because that conduct is part of the charged scheme and will be used to prove its existence and Weigand's intent." Id. at 13.
The Government also contends that the only change between the initial Indictment and the superseding Indictments "is the addition of the description of a bank that is neither implicated nor otherwise mentioned in Count One" as initially charged, and as such, Defendant "was on notice and [ ] Count One is not materially broader or substantially amended" in the superseding Indictments. Id. at 10.
Lastly, the Government contends that...
To continue reading
Request your trial