|
TRAINING
Association of Certified Fraud Examiners
"Contract & Procurement Fraud"
Ft. Lauderdale, FL
January 20-21, 2005
16 CPE hours, $575
Tampa Bay Chapter
Chapter dinner meetings are a great way to network while enjoying a
meal. At $15, it is also an easy and affordable way to obtain an
hour of CPE.
Dinner Meetings
January 11, 2005
"Mail Fraud"
February 8, 2005
"White Collar/Economic Crime"
March 8, 2005
"Consumer Fraud"
April 12, 2005
"Auditing for Financial Fraud"
6th Annual Fraud & Computer
Crimes Seminar
May 10 - 11, 2005
FDLE Headquarters
4211 N. Lois Avenue
Tampa, Florida 33614
2004 - 2005
OFFICERS &
DIRECTORS
PRESIDENT
Penny Borjas, CFE, CIA
TriCenturion
(727) 786-8840 x15718
VICE PRESIDENT
Steve
Hooper, CIA, CFE, CCSA
Clerk of the Circuit Court
Hillsborough County, FL
(813) 276-2029 x7648
SECRETARY
Roland Rodriguez, CFE, CBA
Bank of America
(813) 224-5211
TREASURER
Laura Krueger Brock, CFE, CPA
Cherry, Bekaert, Holland, LLP
(727) 822-8811
DIRECTOR
Mark Dubina,
CFE
Florida Department of
Law Enforcement
(813) 878-7366
DIRECTOR
Wayne Boytim,
CFE
City of Tampa
Internal Audit
(813) 274-7167
DIRECTOR
Ellen Wilcox, CFE
Florida Department of
Law Enforcement
(727) 298-2482
CHAPTER TRAINING
Wayne Boytim, CFE
City of Tampa
Internal Audit
(813) 274-7167
JOIN THE TAMPA BAY CHAPTER
Membership in the Tampa Bay Chapter costs only $20
to $25. There are four categories of members: CFE, ACFE Associate,
Chapter Affiliate and Student. For more info, visit our web
site.
ADVERTISE YOUR BUSINESS or JOB OPPORTUNITY
We have two pages of our web site devoted to
publicizing members' businesses and career opportunities. If you are
interested in advertising with us, visit the pages to see what is
offered and send your copy to TampaCFE@
TampaBayCFE.org. |
The Mail Fraud Statute
UNITED STATES CODE ANNOTATED
TITLE 18. CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE
PART I--CRIMES
CHAPTER 63--MAIL FRAUD
§ 1341. Frauds and swindles
Whoever, having devised or intending to devise any scheme or
artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of
false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises, or to
sell, dispose of, loan, exchange, alter, give away, distribute,
supply, or furnish or procure for unlawful use any counterfeit or
spurious coin, obligation, security, or other article, or anything
represented to be or intimated or held out to be such counterfeit or
spurious article, for the purpose of executing such scheme or
artifice or attempting so to do, places in any post office or
authorized depository for mail matter, any matter or thing whatever
to be sent or delivered by the Postal Service, or deposits or causes
to be deposited any matter or thing whatever to be sent or delivered
by any private or commercial interstate carrier, or takes or
receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to
be delivered by mail or such carrier according to the direction
thereon, or at the place at which it is directed to be delivered by
the person to whom it is addressed, any such matter or thing, shall
be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or
both. If the violation affects a financial institution, such
person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not
more than 30 years, or both. |
Mail fraud e mail and report guide
Understand how e mail and mail fraud
operate, and how your fraud report can lead to
a court order and convictions
for the bad guys.
Mail fraud shows many of the characteristics common to wire
fraud, especially the use of the federal postal or communication
systems in order to carry out an attempt to defraud innocent
persons. E mail fraud reflects unauthorized entry into personal or
corporate networks, taking over an e mail address and then sending
out messages purporting to be from the true owner operator of that
e mail account or address.
 In a typical mail fraud report, the US Post investigative team
catalogues the documents supporting the underlying fraud scheme.
The documents will not be used in order to assert mail fraud based
on the accuracy of the contents, rather that the intent to defraud
can be proven.
A mail order fraud case reflects circumstances where the victim
(as buyer) has provided money to an alleged seller, say, through
the mail or that the underlying order will be fulfilled for
delivery via the US Postal Service. In the event that no delivery
ensues, then a case for mail order fraud forms. It's critical that
the victim provides mail fraud reporting to her or his local post
office officials so that they can turn the matter over to their
mail fraud investigative unit, which aggressively pursues
convictions where evidence supports such as recommendation.
E fraud mail report typically originates as a request for
service or a query regarding outgoing e mail messages. In certain
instances an e fraud mail report rides along with related evidence
of financial fraud associated with identity theft. The key to
unraveling an e fraud mail report is to establish a “back
tracking” electronically, where the procedure includes either
reading the hard drive of the corrupted PC or via internet
“cookies” record the steps taken and origins of the mail fraud
perpetrator.
Mail fraud convictions are only possible under Federal law if
the defendant can be shown to have planned to defraud innocent
persons by intentionally deceiving or misrepresenting alleged
facts in order to obtain money, services or personal data which
could be used to victimize. Furthermore, to establish a clear cut
mail fraud conviction, the prosecutors must also prove intent to
create fraud. The legal standard regarding obtaining a mail fraud
conviction does not include the requirement to show harm or to
prove that any person was “ripped off” or lost money or data. In
its simplest form mail fraud law is a federally enforced
prohibition against using the postal system for any criminal
enterprise. Mail fraud criminals, go at your own peril.
To avoid becoming an e fraud mail victim and to ensure
potential convictions to those persons who would defraud you, you
need to install security system software or utilize encryption
software to deflect e mail fraud attacks. The success of e mail
fraud depends entirely on commandeering your passwords, logons,
PIN numbers, or other access codes which you may have casually
left open.
Source:
http://www.investment-fraud-us.gb.com/mail-fraud.html |
Criminal Resource Manual 971 - Sufficiency of Indictment -- Generally
Generally, Rule 7(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure requires an indictment to provide "a plain, concise and
definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the
offense charged." United States v. Yefsky, 994 F.2d 885, 893
(1st Cir. 1993) ("The Supreme Court has instructed that an
indictment is sufficient if it contains the elements of the offense
charged, fairly informs the defendant of the charges against which
he must defend, and enables him to enter a plea without fear of
double jeopardy.") (citing Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S.
87, 117 (1974)); see also Collins v. Markley, 346 F.2d
230, 232 (7th Cir.) (en banc) ("The sufficiency of an indictment is
to be measured by certain guide lines. First, the indictment
standing alone must contain the elements of the offense intended to
be charged, and it must be sufficient to apprise the accused of the
nature of the offense. Second, after conviction, the record of the
case must be sufficient so that the accused can plead the judgment
in bar of any subsequent prosecution for the same offense."),
cert. denied, 382 U.S. 946 (1965).
 Accordingly, a mail fraud or wire fraud indictment should
contain a reasonably detailed description of the particular scheme
the defendant is charged with devising to ensure that the defendant
has sufficient notice of the nature of the offense. See
Yefsky, 994 F.2d at 893 ("The indictment may incorporate the
words of the statute to set forth the offense, but the statutory
language '"must be accompanied with such a statement of the facts
and circumstances as will inform the accused of the specific
offense, coming under the general description, with which he is
charged."'") (quoting Hamling, 418 U.S. at 117-18 (quoting
United States v. Hess, 124 U.S. 483, 487 (1888))); cf.
United States v. Nance, 533 F.2d 699, 702 (D.C. Cir. 1976)
(noting with approval mail fraud count that specifies
misrepresentations); United States v. Curtis, 506 F.2d 985,
990 (10th Cir. 1974) (citations omitted) (dismissing mail fraud
indictment that excludes false pretenses).
In Yefsky, the court held that the indictment was
defective in that it did not provide the defendant with adequate
notice of the charge (conspiracy to commit mail fraud) against him.
994 F.2d at 993 ("Where guilt depends so crucially upon . . . a
specific identification of fact, . . . cases have uniformly held
that an indictment must do more than simply repeat the language of
the criminal statute.") (citing Hamling, 418 U.S. at 118).
In Curtis, the court stated the following in considering
the sufficiency of the allegations contained in an indictment
charging mail fraud:
|
|
Mere evidential matters or detail more appropriate in bills of
particular need not be pleaded in an indictment based upon 1341.
[citations omitted] But as these cases demonstrate, some
substantial indication of the nature or character of any scheme
or artifice to defraud, or to obtain money or property by means
of false pretenses, representations or promises is requisite.
And it is not sufficient in this regard to merely plead the
statutory language. [citations omitted] A reference to the cases
cited first above will disclose that in each instance the nature
of the schemes or artifices is identified or described,
including the particular pretenses, representations or promises
claimed to have been false.
506 F.2d at 989-90 (holding that the indictment, which pleaded
little more than the statutory language without any fair indication
of the nature or character of the scheme or artifice relied upon, or
the false pretenses, misrepresentations or promises forming a part
of it, was fatally defective); see also United States v.
Crummer, 151 F.2d 958 (10th Cir. 1945) ("While the particulars
of the scheme are matters of substance and therefore must be
described with a degree of certainty sufficient to show its
existence of character, and fairly to acquaint the defendant with
the particular fraudulent scheme charged against him, still the
scheme itself need not be pleaded with all the certainty in respect
of time, place, and circumstance requisite in charging the mailing
of the letter or other matter.") (allegations of the scheme held to
be sufficient), cert. denied, 327 U.S. 785 (1946); cf.
United States v. Azad, 809 F.2d 291, 295 (6th Cir. 1986)
("What distinguishes this indictment from the indictment found
defective in [Curtis], . . . is the clear and specific
description of the fraudulent scheme found in the present
indictment. The indictment before us does provide some 'substantial
indication of the nature or character' of the scheme involved, and
'the scheme itself need not be pleaded with all the certainty in
respect of time, place, and circumstance requisite in charging the
mailing of the letter or other matter.'" ) (quoting Curtis,
506 F.2d at 990), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1004 (1987);
United States v. Adamo, 534 F.2d 31, 35 (3d Cir.) ("The
Curtis indictment was so vague that trial might have proceeded
upon an entirely different concept of the scheme than that
contemplated by the grand jury when it returned the indictment. By
contrast, the indictment in this case explicitly outlines the
elements of the fraudulent plan."), cert. denied, 429 U.S.
841 (1976).
Source:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/foia_reading_room/usam/title9/43mcrm.htm |
Chapter News
CFE Exam Study Resources
The “CFE Exam Coach” Program was launched recently
to assist those that are using the “Exam Prep Course” to attain
certification as a CFE. It was developed to make the study process
as comprehensive as possible and has three modules/components to
match an individual’s study needs. To get a more in-depth look at
the “Coaching” program go to:
http://www.cfenet.com/cfe/CFEExamResources.asp
All those that purchased the CFE Exam Prep Course
were supposed to be automatically signed up to receive the “Exam
Coach e-newsletter.” However, if you were not, you can still sign up
on the web page to obtain the newsletter, at no cost. If you need
study help using the “Exam Prep Course” this appears to be an
excellent resource. |
Dinner Meeting News
|
 January
11th Dinner Meeting
Our next dinner meeting is scheduled for January 11, 2005. Linda
Walker, U.S. Postal Inspection Services, is scheduled to speak on
"Mail Fraud." Linda holds a degree in Business Administration from
Methodist College, Fayetteville, NC. Originally from North Carolina,
Linda spent 3 years in the U.S. Army before going to work for the
United States Postal Service in 1990. In 1994, Linda was hired as a
Postal Inspector and has worked a variety of cases involving
internal and external crime, including mail theft, credit card fraud
and identity theft. Linda is currently the Public Information
Officer and the Child Exploitation Specialist for the Tampa Field
Office covering the northern half of Florida.
Postal Inspector Linda Walker will provide a brief history of the
United States Postal Inspection Service and discuss the Postal
Inspection Service's ongoing battle to fight Mail Fraud. Topics of
discussion will include: the federal mail fraud statute; what
schemes generate the most complaints; tip-offs to phone fraud; and
what can be done to protect yourself.
The dinner meeting will be held at the Park Plaza Tampa Airport
Westshore, located at 5303 West Kennedy Blvd., 11th Floor. The hotel
is just west of Westshore Plaza on the north side of Kennedy Blvd. Evenings will begin with a social at 6:00 P.M.,
followed by a buffet dinner at 6:30 and a presentation at 7:00. The
cost remains only $15.
To make your reservation, please use the following link Chapter
Meeting Reservation and complete the form at the bottom of
the page. You can also make your reservation by emailing Wayne
Boytim or calling him at (813) 274-7167 by the Friday before the
meeting date. Reservations will be accepted after that date and
walk-ups are always welcome. Please remember that cancellations are
accepted up to the afternoon of the meeting. No shows will be billed
after the second missed meeting. Please help us keep our costs down
by letting us know if you are unable to attend. |
History of Mail Fraud
Early History
![[Picture of Charles II]](images/1204-3.jpg)
The first concerns about mail fraud date back to 1660, when King
Charles II of England first issued orders regarding postal carriers.
Some corrupt letter carriers had taken to pocketing the money which
was supposed to pay for the letter's transport, and transporting the
letter anyway (since they were making the rounds anyway, it was an
easy scam.) A system of inspectors was set up to guard against this
- the inspectors eventually became responsible for other
"depredations of the mail" as well, including criminal acts that
were commited via mail or using mail.
(Charles II was also well-known for his leadership in the English
Civil War, his restoration of the Church of England to religious
supremacy, his abolition of the feudal rights of knight service,
warship and purveyance, and a war with the Netherlands that netted
England, ta da, the colony of New York.)
![[Benjamin Franklin in the 1750s]](images/1204.4.gif) Benjamin
Franklin was the first postal inspector in America, appointed in
1737. He was very concientious, too: in 1753, he managed to visit
all of the post offices in America with the
exception of the one in Charleston, South Carolina. (Considering the
difficulties which attended travel at that time, it was a pretty
amazing feat!)
Franklin, by all accounts, did a good job, but was fired by the
Crown in 1774, for protesting (of all things) the Stamp Act. He was
rehired as the first postmaster general by the Continental Congress
a year later, though, and formed the first set of American postal
inspectors.
The Nineteenth Century
The modern idea of mail fraud enforcement comes through Section
1341, Title 18, which was originally passed in 1872 to stem the
growing tide of post-Civil War swindles which were flooding the
country. Even former President Grant was taken in a complicated bank
fraud scheme, whose instigator fled to Canada with nearly a million
dollars in ill-gotten gains.
One Congressional sponsor of the mail fraud bill said: "Thus all
through the country thousands of innocent and unsophisticated
people, knowing nothing about the ways of these city thieves and
robbers are continually fleeced and robbed, and the mails are made
use of for their nefarious designs."
Perhaps the most famous postal inspector was dry-goods-magnate
turned guardian-of-public-morals Anthony Comstock. Comstock is
perhaps best known for his crusades against gambling and obscene
books. Political pressure forced the Post Office to give him an
inspector-ship in 1873, and much to their embarassment, he hung onto
it and trumpeted it to his death.
The nineteenth century was therefore not immune from mail fraud -
in fact, some of the more ingenious scams have their origins in that
time period. Authorities in England estimated that in the 1830s,
some mail fraud operators made upwards of a thousand pounds a year
(the average was about two hundred and fifty pounds a year - about
ten times what an average honest working man made!) One particularly
successful thief, "Blind William" had his own clerks working for him
at fifty pounds a year, writing out the letters, and frequently
hired messengers and fast carriages to bring his missives directly
to the mark. The typical English mail fraud letter was a "sob story"
directed at a member of the upper class, who would feel obliged to
send 'a little something' to the scammer. Charles Dickens wrote a
masterful expose on the frauds in 1850,
"The Begging-Letter Writer" for the Morning Chronicle.
In 1839, Scotsman James Grant also wrote about the "impostors who
ply their avocation by the means of letters and...who by the
assumption of distress which they do not actually feel, endeavour...to
enlist the sympathies of the charitable and humane in their behalf."
So people have used the mail for crime for centuries - today, the
USPS continues to guard against this.
Source:
http://cobweb.scarymonsters.net/~corleyj/fraud/mailfraud.html |
Relevant Criminal Laws
for Fraud in the United States
Consumer protection laws are designed to protect all consumers,
the gullible as well as the shrewd. The fact that a false statement
may be obviously false to those who are trained and experienced does
not change its character or take away its power to deceive others
less experienced. Our consumer protection laws were enacted for the
protection of the people, many who are trusting and naive about the
wolves of the business world who come dressed in lambs' clothing.
Enforcement
The Department of Justice conducts both criminal and civil
litigation in combating telemarketing fraud. United States
Attorneys' Offices throughout the country, as well as the Fraud
Section of the Criminal Division of the DOJ, have successfully
prosecuted many criminal cases against fraudulent telemarketers.
The Office of Consumer Litigation of the Civil Division of the
Department, which conducts both civil and criminal litigation in
consumer-related cases, has also prosecuted telemarketing fraud
cases.
Under federal law, state Attorneys General have been given broad
power by the U.S. Congress to combat telemarketing fraud. For
example, a state Attorney General can file lawsuits in federal court
and shut down fraudulent telemarketers through national injunctions
so as to prevent companies from moving on under a different name
after being banned in one state.
Federal mail and wire fraud charges, which had a five-year
maximum penalty, now carry an additional five years for
telemarketing fraud or an additional ten years if ten or more senior
citizens are targeted.
In a typical telemarketing fraud indictment that a federal grand
jury would return, the Department of Justice includes charges under
criminal statutes such as wire fraud (18
U.S.C. sect; 1343), mail fraud (18
U.S.C. sect; 1341), and conspiracy to engage in wire and mail
fraud (18
U.S.C. sect; 371). Each of these statutes carries a maximum term
of imprisonment of five years.
The court holds that to sustain a conviction for wire fraud, a
fraudulent telemarketer need not personally call victims to incur
criminal liability for a "co-schemer's" use of telephones to cheat
them.
Mail and wire frauds have a unique characteristic in that each is
complete when the mail or wire has been used. Just the existence of
the scheme plus the use of the mail or an interstate wire to further
the scheme will suffice. Each completed call is therefore a
separate, completed fraud offense, even if the money was not sent
in.
The White-Collar-Crime Victim Protection Act; (
Paraphrased )
The Florida Senate beefed up its laws to dissuade scammers in that
state with 2001 SB 540 which took effect July 1, 2001.
Due to the frequency with which victims, particularly elderly
victims, are deceived and cheated out of large sums by criminals who
commit nonviolent frauds and swindles, frequently through the use of
the Internet, they enhanced the sanctions imposed for such.
(4) A person commits an aggravated white-collar crime, punishable
as provided in section
775.082, section
775.083, or section
775.084, Florida Statutes, if the person, in committing a
white-collar crime, obtains or attempts to obtain $100,000 or more
and victimizes:
(a) Ten or more elderly persons,
(b) Twenty or more persons; or
(c) Any state agency or political subdivision of the state.
In addition to a sentence otherwise authorized by law, a person
convicted of an aggravated white-collar crime shall pay a fine of
$500,000 or double the value of the pecuniary gain or loss,
whichever is greater.
A defendant convicted of an aggravated white-collar crime is
liable for all court costs and shall pay restitution to each victim
of the crime, regardless of whether the victim is named in the
information or indictment.
The court shall hold a hearing to determine the identity of
qualifying victims and shall order the defendant to pay restitution
based on his or her ability to pay.
Notwithstanding any other law, the court may order continued
probation for a defendant convicted under this section for up to 10
years or until full restitution is made to the victim, whichever
occurs earlier.
The court retains jurisdiction to enforce its order to pay fines
or restitution.
If a communication to defraud was sent across jurisdictional
lines the person charged may be tried in the county in which the
dissemination originated, in which it was made, or in which any act
necessary to consummate the offense occurred. As such a
communication made by or through the use of the Internet is deemed
to have been made in every county of the state.
Source:
http://www.crimes-of-persuasion.com/Laws/US/criminal_laws.htm |
A Message from our President
|
|
Well, the rest of our year is shaping up to be one of our best
ever. We now have 159 local chapter members - another record. We
have 4 dinner meetings left and our annual Fraud & Computer Crimes
Seminar. If you haven't taken a look at the tentative schedule, go
to
http://tampabaycfe.org/seminar.htm to see what is planned. Steve
Hooper has done an outstanding job securing speakers. As soon as the
schedule is final, we will begin marketing the program. No where can
you get such a bargain for CPE. I hope you had a very happy
holiday and best wishes for the New Year. Penny Borjas |
|
