Case 16-898, Document 46, 07/13/2016, 1814922, Page1 of 25 16-898(L) 16-939 (CON) IN THE United States Court of Appeals FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT dUNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, —against— PAUL ROBSON, PAUL THOMPSON, TETSUYA MOTOMURA, TAKAYUKI YAGAMI, LEE STEWART, Defendants, ANTHONY ALLEN, ANTHONY CONTI, Defendants-Appellants. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BRIEF FOR AMICUS CURIAE NEW YORK COUNCIL OF DEFENSE LAWYERS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS-APPELLANTS GARY STEIN CARA DAVID SCHULTE ROTH & ZABEL LLP 919 Third Avenue New York, New York 10022 (212) 756-2000 Attorneys for Amicus Curiae New York Council of Defense Lawyers Case 16-898, Document 46, 07/13/2016, 1814922, Page2 of 25 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE............................................. 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ........................................ 2 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 5 I. DEFENDANTS’ WIRE FRAUD CONVICTIONS REST ON A NOVEL AND INSUPPORTABLE LEGAL THEORY THAT CONFLICTS WITH BEDROCK PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL FRAUD LIABILITY ....................................................................................... 5 A. The Theory of Prosecution Improperly Dispensed With the Fundamental Requirement of Proof of a Misrepresentation ................. 5 B. Otherwise Truthful Representations Cannot Be Transformed Into An Actionable Misrepresentation By Proof of Self-Interested Intent ............................................................... 9 C. Defendants Could Not Properly Have Been Found Guilty for Making an “Implied” Or “Effective” Misrepresentation .............. 14 D. The District Court’s Theory Threatens to Criminalize Legitimate Business Conduct and Offends Due Process Principles ............................................................................................. 17 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 20 - i - Case 16-898, Document 46, 07/13/2016, 1814922, Page3 of 25 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page(s) Fasulo v. United States, 272 U.S. 620 (1926) ............................................................................................ 13 L-7 Designs, Inc. v. Old Navy, LLC, 964 F. Supp. 2d 299 (S.D.N.Y. 2013) ............................................................... 16 McDonnell v. United States, __ S.Ct. __, 2016 WL 3461561 (U.S. June 27, 2016) .................................. 16, 19 McLaughlin v. Anderson, 962 F.2d 187 (2d Cir. 1992) ............................................................................... 13 Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1 (1999) .................................................................................................. 5 United States ex rel. O’Donnell v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., __ F.3d __, 2016 WL 2956743 (2d Cir. May 23, 2016) ..............................passim Skilling v. United States, 561 U.S. 358 (2010) ............................................................................................ 19 United States v. Allen, __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2016 WL 615705 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 16, 2016) .......................... 2 United States v. Autuori, 212 F.3d 105 (2d Cir. 2000) ............................................................................. 5, 7 United States v. Bass, 404 U.S. 336 (1971) ............................................................................................ 19 United States v. Morris, 80 F.3d 1151 (7th Cir. 1996) ................................................................................ 7 United States v. Muzii, 676 F.2d 919 (2d Cir. 1982) ............................................................................... 14 United States v. Rossomando, 144 F.3d 197 (2d Cir. 1998) ............................................................................... 15 ii Case 16-898, Document 46, 07/13/2016, 1814922, Page4 of 25 United States v. Rybicki, 354 F.3d 124 (2d Cir. 2003) ................................................................................. 5 United States v. Santos, 553 U.S. 507 (2008) ............................................................................................ 19 United States v. Weimert, 819 F.3d 351 (7th Cir. 2016) .............................................................................. 17 United States v. Whiteside, 285 F.3d 1345 (11th Cir. 2002) .......................................................................... 14 Venture Assocs. Corp. v. Zenith Data Sys. Corp., 96 F.3d 275 (7th Cir. 1996) ................................................................................ 16 Statutes 18 U.S.C. § 1343 ........................................................................................................ 5 Other Authorities Roadmap for ICE LIBOR, (Mar. 18, 2016), https://www.theice.com/publicdocs/ICE_LIBOR_Roadmap0316.pdf .............. 15 Restatement of Contracts § 474 (1932) ..................................................................... 7 iii Case 16-898, Document 46, 07/13/2016, 1814922, Page5 of 25 STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE1 The New York Council of Defense Lawyers (“NYCDL”) is a not-for- profit professional association of approximately 250 lawyers, including many former federal prosecutors, whose principal area of practice is the defense of criminal cases in the federal courts of New York. NYCDL’s mission includes protecting the individual rights guaranteed by the Constitution, enhancing the quality of defense representation, taking positions on important defense issues, and promoting the proper administration of criminal justice. NYCDL offers the Court the perspective of experienced practitioners who regularly handle some of the most complex and significant criminal cases in the federal courts. NYCDL files this amicus brief in support of Defendants-Appellants Anthony Allen and Anthony Conti (“Defendants”), urging reversal.2 NYCDL has a particular interest in this case because NYCDL’s core concerns include combatting the unwarranted extension of federal criminal statutes and promoting clear standards for the imposition of criminal liability. As shown below, the 1 Pursuant to Rule 29.1 of this Court’s Local Rules, NYCDL certifies that (1) this brief was authored entirely by counsel for NYCDL, and not by counsel for any party, in whole or part; (2) no party and no counsel for any party contributed money intended to fund preparing or submitting the brief; and (3) apart from NYCDL and its counsel, no other person contributed money intended to fund preparing or submitting the brief. 2 The Government and Defendants have consented to the filing of this amicus brief. Accordingly, this brief may be filed without leave of court, pursuant to Rule 29(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Case 16-898, Document 46, 07/13/2016, 1814922, Page6 of 25 unprecedented expansion of the wire fraud statute urged by the Government and approved by the District Court in this case raises precisely these concerns. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT The Government’s legal theory in this case was extraordinary. The Government charged that Defendants committed wire fraud by making false and fraudulent representations: namely, LIBOR submissions to the British Bankers’ Association (“BBA”) estimating the interest rates at which their employer, Rabobank, could borrow in the interbank market. Yet the Government presented no evidence at trial that Defendants’ LIBOR interest rate estimates were false, and instead took the position that it did not matter whether those estimates were accurate or whether the Defendants believed them to be accurate. The Government’s novel theory found an enthusiastic champion in the District Court, which crafted jury instructions that effectively relieved the prosecution of its burden of proving falsity. As the District Court explained in denying Defendants’ Rule 29 motions: “In the Court’s view, the relevant issue was not the accuracy or inaccuracy of defendants’ LIBOR submissions, but the intent with which these submissions were made.” (SPA39; emphasis added.)3 Alarm bells should go off when the “accuracy or inaccuracy” of the defendant’s representations in a fraud case – the very basis for the charge of fraud 3 The District Court’s decision is reported as United States v. Allen, __ F. Supp. 3d __, 2016 WL 615705 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 16, 2016). 2 Case 16-898, Document 46, 07/13/2016, 1814922, Page7 of 25 – is pronounced “[ir]relevant.” As the District Court’s remarkable assertion reveals, this was a fraud prosecution that lost sight of some of the most basic principles of criminal fraud liability. Instead of proving actionable misrepresentations, the Government sought, and the District Court allowed, conviction to be based solely on the “intent” with which Defendants allegedly made their LIBOR submissions. This holding improperly dispensed with an essential element of fraud liability – indeed, with the actus reus of the crime of fraud, which consists of the making of a false statement. Otherwise truthful representations cannot be transformed into fraudulent ones by the defendant’s purportedly improper “intent.” The District Court reasoned that Defendants’ convictions could be upheld on the ground that Defendants “effectively represented” that they acted “in good faith” in submitting LIBOR estimates. (SPA41.) But that rationale rests on the same untenable proposition that Defendants’ intent can substitute for proof of