SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the don't-sleep-during-your-court-appearance dept.
Arthur T Knackerbracket has found the following story:
A call-center scammer has lost his appeal to overturn a $9m fine – after a court pointed out the crook had specifically waived the right to appeal when he pleaded guilty.
Viraj Patel was part of a large India-based criminal enterprise that conned tens of thousands of Americans out of hundreds of millions of dollars: the swindlers would cold-call citizens and pose as US government officials demanding payment for unpaid taxes.
The unlucky victims were threatened with fines, arrests, or deportation if they didn't cough up: one 85-year-old woman ended up paying the fraudsters $12,300 after she was threatened with a stretch behind bars for phony tax violations. More than 60 suspect con men were charged [PDF] with conspiracy to commit identity theft, false impersonation of an officer of the United States, wire fraud, and money laundering.
In 2018, Patel, then a 33-year-old loser living in California, reached a deal with prosecutors: in exchange for pleading guilty and avoiding a lengthy trial, he would spend up to 165 months, or about 14 years, in the clink followed by three years of supervised release, plus receive a court order kicking him out of America when his punishment is over – and, to top it all off, an $8.97m fine.
He admitted his crimes, specifically, one count of money laundering – since he is based the US, his job in the caper was to launder roughly $4m to $9m of victims' cash – and was sentenced.
But, it turns out that he wasn't listening very carefully to either his lawyers or the federal district judge who sentenced him in Texas, because Patel was seemingly convinced he was only going to have to pay $250,000. When he realized the real fine was actually $9m, he tried to undo his guilty plea, and appealed to the Fifth Circuit claiming a miscarriage of justice.
"He contends that his guilty plea was unknowing and involuntary because the district court did not advise him of its authority to order restitution," the appeals court notes in its judgment [PDF] earlier this week.
And, amazingly, Patel is right – in part at least. At his rearraignment, the Houston court "did not advise Patel of its authority to order restitution," the appeal judges ruled. Patel had picked up that the district court was only allowed to fine him a maximum of $250,000 – and seemed happy to take the hit.
As a man who clearly placed money above everything else, after learning that he'd only face a $250,000 fine when he had conned people out of millions, the crook stopped paying attention. And so he didn't notice when both his own lawyers and the court subsequently informed him that the real amount he would be on the hook for – thanks to the court's ability to force repayment of money stolen from others – was going to be much higher.
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Saturday September 21 2019, @12:17AM (1 child)
How can you possibly think this, given what I said? I think plea deals are unconscionable, and, if you are found not guilty, the government should pay not only all your legal fees, but shit like interest and whatever it took you to raise that money.
Maybe even enough percentage so if they have an iffy case they'll think twice about using their 2000 lb gorilla to sit on your 200 lb ass
And whomever said "insurance"? My property insurance doesn't cover legal fees unless someone gets hurt on my property. I get charged on some BS charge I had nothing to do with that didn't injure someone on my property? Yeah, good luck with that.
Full disclosure. From the been there done that dept that saw a relative go to prison because he couldn't afford a decent lawyer, and I'm 99.9% sure he was innocent.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Saturday September 21 2019, @12:56AM
You defended someone taking a plea deal as an alternative to fighting? That led me down the road to thinking you support such things.
Thanks for setting me straight. I agree. In fact, I think we should go farther than that. I suggested recently (I can't be arsed to go and look through my posting history to find it right now. Sorry about that) that prosecutors and cops should be punished (lost promotion opportunities, unpaid leave, even termination) for getting it wrong and prosecuting the wrong people.
I'll extend what I said about public defenders in my last comment as well. Public defenders should not only be available to everyone, they should have access to the *same resources* as prosecutors (at the state's expense) in preparing a defense.
Based on the above, I think it's clear how I feel about that.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr