US v. Giles, 91 Cr. 0360 (RWS).
| Decision Date | 15 July 1991 |
| Docket Number | No. 91 Cr. 0360 (RWS).,91 Cr. 0360 (RWS). |
| Citation | 768 F. Supp. 101 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES of America v. Eric GILES, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
SENTENCING OPINION
Defendant Eric Giles ("Giles") was convicted following a jury trial on June 13, 1991 on one count of laundering of a monetary instrument in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(a)(3). For the reasons set forth below, Giles will be sentenced to a term of 18 months of imprisonment followed by a two year term of supervised release, subject to the sentencing hearing now set for July 16, 1991. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3013, a special assessment of $50.00 is mandatory.
Giles is a fifty-four year old British citizen who resides in Wales in the United Kingdom. He has no criminal record and no history of encounters with legal authorities. He and a partner operate a small financial brokerage firm in Wales.
In early April 1991, Giles flew to New York from England to meet with George Malina ("Malina") and to receive $100,000 from Malina to invest in Europe. During several meetings with Malina and an undercover FBI agent, Giles was told that the money, which was all in cash, was derived from the sale of cocaine. Giles discussed possible methods for getting the money out of the country, ultimately agreeing to take it on board his return flight to England in a briefcase. On April 10, Malina and the agent gave Giles the money and drove him to the airport, where he was arrested and charged with money laundering.
At trial, Giles asserted several defenses: first, that Malina had entrapped him into committing the crime, second, that because of prior business dealing between Giles and Malina, Malina was aware that Giles was in severe financial circumstances, and that his behavior based on that knowledge amounted to outrageous government conduct, and third, that Giles never intended to take the money onto the airplane, but was merely waiting until he got into the airport where he would be able to turn the money over to Customs Officers and explain the situation. Notwithstanding these defenses, Giles was convicted by a jury on June 13, 1991.
The Presentence Report prepared by the U.S. Probation Office grades the charges against Giles under the United States Sentencing Guidelines (the "Guidelines") at a total offense level of 25 and assigns him a Guidelines criminal history category of I. The Sentencing Table provides for an imprisonment range of 57 to 71 months for an offender with Giles's numerical sentencing characteristics.
The Government seeks a two-point enhancement under § 3C1.1 of the Guidelines, based on its claim that Giles committed perjury at trial when he testified that he was not aware prior to his arrival in New York that the money which Malina intended to deliver to him was drug-related. Such an enhancement is not warranted under these circumstances, as Giles did not deny that he was informed of the source of the money after he had arrived in New York, and the jury might well have believed his testimony that he was unaware of this information before arriving and convicted him anyway. Thus there is insufficient support for the conclusion that this testimony constituted perjury or obstruction of justice.
Giles seeks a downward departure from the Guidelines based on his claims of entrapment and outrageous government conduct. In order to determine whether a departure is appropriate, it is necessary to consider in detail the events leading up to the offense. While many of these details have been supplied by Giles, neither the evidence at trial nor the Government has contradicted them.
In 1990, shortly after Giles and his partner had set up their brokerage firm, they began to deal with a person named Steve Dobson ("Dobson"). Eventually, they invested over $30,000 in a series of projects which Dobson claimed to be organizing, and after Dobson disappeared with the money, Giles and his partner were forced to repay their clients out of their own pockets. As a result, Giles was forced to mortgage his home and he ended up on Government Income Support, the equivalent of welfare. After several months, Giles reestablished contact with Dobson, now located in Texas, who claimed that others in his company had been responsible for the loss of Giles' firm's money. Eventually, Dobson put Giles in contact with Malina.
Unknown to Giles, Malina had...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
U.S. v. Garza-Juarez
...court ruled that jury's rejection of battered-woman defense precluded application of section 5K2.12); see also United States v. Giles, 768 F.Supp. 101, 103 (S.D.N.Y.) (granting downward departure based on "the manner in which [defendant] was set up for this crime by the Government's agent,"......
-
U.S. v. Jackson, 1082
... ... Frank JACKSON, Defendant-Appellee ... No. 1082, Docket 91-1664 ... United States Court of Appeals, ... Second Circuit ... Argued ... ...
-
U.S. v. Robinson
...Robinson offers to support his argument were properly deemed insufficient by the district court. See, e.g., United States v. Giles, 768 F.Supp. 101, 103 (S.D.N.Y.1991) (§ 5K2.12 p.s. departure available when government engaged in outrageous behavior), aff'd, 953 F.2d 636 (1991), cert. denie......
-
US v. Vargas, 92 Cr. 245 (VLB).
...there is a reasonable likelihood that it might have done so." Vargas assumes that such leeway is novel because announced in United States v. Giles, 768 F.Supp. 101, aff'd 953 F.2d 636 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 112 S.Ct. 1509, 117 L.Ed.2d 647 (1992), but ignores the fact that th......