Defendant Moved for Acquittal and New Trial
Post 4863
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gRp7qaSV, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gfRvh_z6 and at https://lnkd.in/gv53E37K and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4850 posts.
Defendant Chiagoziem Kizito Okeke (“Okeke”) was charged with two counts: conspiracy to commit wire fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering. He was convicted by a jury and moved the court for acquittal or a new trial in United States v. Chiagoziem Kizito Okeke, No. 4:21-CR-253(29), the United States District Court, E.D. Texas (August 21, 2024) ruled on the motion.
FACTS
The government charged Okeke participated in a multitude of fraudulent schemes to unlawfully obtain money from their victims, including online romance scams, business email compromise and investor fraud, healthcare and prescription fraud, and unemployment insurance fraud. Further it charged that Okeke, along with others, “did knowingly and willfully combine, conspire, confederate, and agree to commit wire fraud against the United States”. Additionally, the Second Superseding Indictment asserted that Okeke, along with others, not only coordinated how to receive money from victims, but also how to disguise, disburse, and launder that money once victims were defrauded.
Okeke orally moved for a judgment of acquittal after the United States rested. The Court denied Okeke’s oral motion. Following a thirteen-day jury trial, the jury returned its verdict and found Okeke guilty on both Count One and Count Two.
Motion for Acquittal
A Rule 29 motion for judgment of acquittal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to convict. The issue is whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational finder of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense charged beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact finder is free to choose among reasonable constructions of the evidence and it retains the sole authority to weigh any conflicting evidence and to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses.
Motion for New Trial
The court may vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires. Generally, motions for new trial are disfavored and must be reviewed with great caution. A new trial is proper only where the defendant’s “substantial rights” have been harmed-either based on a single error or the cumulative effect of multiple errors.
ANALYSIS
Although the United States introduced several bank accounts belonging to Okeke at trial, he claimed that “no evidence [was] presented to the jury that any money from any victim entered his bank accounts.” Further, Okeke asserts that no text messages or WhatsApp chats “prove[d] beyond a reasonable doubt that he had an agreement with his brother or anyone else to commit wire fraud.” Additionally, Okeke contended that two witnesses (and co-defendants) for the United States, testified that Okeke did not commit any illegal activity. Finally, Okeke stated that he testified in his own defense, as a credible witness, that he did not agree (with anyone) “to commit the offense of wire fraud”.
The United States presented evidence regarding the discrepancy between Okeke’s total net bank deposits and income reported to the Internal Revenue Service. The Court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to support the guilty verdict. Okeke’s motion argued that the evidence presented does not establish beyond a reasonable doubt a scheme to defraud and a specific intent to defraud. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, the Court determined that the jury could find Okeke guilty based on the evidence presented.
The United States claimed that a new trial was not appropriate for several reasons. The United States claims that it consistently and diligently provided discovery pursuant to its obligations.
The Court’s denial of Okeke’s motion for continuance does not warrant a new trial because Okeke has not shown that he experienced a specific and compelling or serious prejudice. A claim of prejudice to a party from the denial of a motion for continuance requires specific contentions of prejudice.
Although Okeke claims that he experienced “irreparable harm” from his inability to formulate a defense he has not identified any specific defensive measures he would have taken. Okeke has not offered specific contentions of prejudice from the Court’s denial of his motion for continuance.
It was therefore ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Acquittal and Motion for New Trial were denied.
ZALMA OPINION
Fraud perpetrators, by definition, have chutzpah (unmitigated gall) and cannot believe they were arrested, let alone taken to trial and verdict. The jury convicted him on all counts charged and, with the money obtained from his fraud, moved the court to set aside the verdict of the jury. Fraud hurting the elderly as well as insurers deserves a sentence that requires time in prison and restitution of the victims of his crimes.
(c) 2024 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe or Subscribe to my substack at https://lnkd.in/gmmzUVBy
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk &videos at Rumble.com at https://lnkd.in/gRthzSnT
Jury’s Findings Interpreting Insurance Contract Affirmed
Post 5105
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gPa6Vpg8 and at https://lnkd.in/ghgiZNBN, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc. (“Madelaine Chocolate”) appealed the district court’s judgment following a jury verdict in favor of Great Northern Insurance Company (“Great Northern”) concerning storm-surge damage caused by “Superstorm Sandy” to Madelaine Chocolate’s production facilities.
In Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc., d.b.a. The Madelaine Chocolate Company v. Great Northern Insurance Company, No. 23-212, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (June 20, 2025) affirmed the trial court ruling in favor of the insurer.
BACKGROUND
Great Northern refused to pay the full claim amount and paid Madelaine Chocolate only about $4 million. In disclaiming coverage, Great Northern invoked the Policy’s flood-exclusion provision, which excludes, in relevant part, “loss or damage caused by ....
Failure to Name a Party as an Additional Insured Defeats Claim
Post 5104
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gbcTYSNa, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggmDyTnT and at https://lnkd.in/gZ-uZPh7, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Contract Interpretation is Based on the Clear and Unambiguous Language of the Policy
In Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. v. Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd., No. 23-CV-10400 (MMG), United States District Court, S.D. New York (June 16, 2025) an insurance coverage dispute arising from a personal injury action in New York State Supreme Court.
The underlying action, Eduardo Molina v. Venchi 2, LLC, et al., concerned injuries allegedly resulting from a construction accident at premises owned by Central Area Equities Associates LLC (CAEA) and leased by Venchi 2 LLC with the USDC required to determine who was entitled to a defense from which insurer.
KEY POINTS
Parties Involved:
CAEA is insured by Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. ...
Exclusion Establishes that There is No Duty to Defend Off Site Injuries
Post 5103
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/geje73Gh, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gnQp4X-f and at https://lnkd.in/gPPrB47p, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Attack by Vicious Dog Excluded
In Foremost Insurance Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan v. Michael B. Steele and Sarah Brown and Kevin Lee Price, Civil Action No. 3:24-CV-00684, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (June 16, 2025)
Foremost Insurance Company (“Foremost”) sued Michael B. Steele (“Steele”), Sarah Brown (“Brown”), and Kevin Lee Price (“Price”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Foremost sought declaratory relief in the form of a declaration that
1. it owes no insurance coverage to Steele and has no duty to defend or indemnify Steele in an underlying tort action and
2. defense counsel that Foremost has assigned to Steele in the underlying action may withdraw his appearance.
Presently before the Court are two ...
ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 10
The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gK_P4-BK and at https://lnkd.in/g2Q7BHBu, and at https://zalma.com/blog and at https://lnkd.in/gjyMWHff.
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ You can read the full issue of the May 15, 2025 issue at http://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ZIFL-05-15-2025.pdf
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
Health Care Fraud Trial Results in Murder for Hire of Witness
To Avoid Conviction for Insurance Fraud Defendants Murder Witness
In United States of America v. Louis Age, Jr.; Stanton Guillory; Louis Age, III; Ronald Wilson, Jr., No. 22-30656, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (April 25, 2025) the Fifth Circuit dealt with the ...
Professional Health Care Services Exclusion Effective
Post 5073
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-f6Tjm5 and at https://lnkd.in/gx3agRzi, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
This opinion is the recommendation of a Magistrate Judge to the District Court Judge and involves Travelers Casualty Insurance Company and its duty to defend the New Mexico Bone and Joint Institute (NMBJI) and its physicians in a medical negligence lawsuit brought by Tervon Dorsey.
In Travelers Casualty Insurance Company Of America v. New Mexico Bone And Joint Institute, P.C.; American Foundation Of Lower Extremity Surgery And Research, Inc., a New Mexico Corporation; Riley Rampton, DPM; Loren K. Spencer, DPM; Tervon Dorsey, individually; Kimberly Dorsey, individually; and Kate Ferlic as Guardian Ad Litem for K.D. and J.D., minors, No. 2:24-cv-0027 MV/DLM, United States District Court, D. New Mexico (May 8, 2025) the Magistrate Judge Recommended:
Insurance Coverage Dispute:
Travelers issued a Commercial General Liability ...
A Heads I Win, Tails You Lose Story
Post 5062
Posted on April 30, 2025 by Barry Zalma
"This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud that explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is designed to help everyone to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime."
Immigrant Criminals Attempt to Profit From Insurance Fraud
People who commit insurance fraud as a profession do so because it is easy. It requires no capital investment. The risk is low and the profits are high. The ease with which large amounts of money can be made from insurance fraud removes whatever moral hesitation might stop the perpetrator from committing the crime.
The temptation to do everything outside the law was the downfall of the brothers Karamazov. The brothers had escaped prison in the old Soviet Union by immigrating to the United...
