Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Business Crimes Hotline

By ALM Staff | Law Journal Newsletters |
May 02, 2015

CALIFORNIA

Ex-Nixon Peabody Partner's Prison Term Upheld by Ninth Circuit

A federal appeals court has affirmed a former Nixon Peabody partner's prison term of seven years, clarifying for the first time that lawyers convicted of covering up their clients' crimes could face additional enhancements to their sentences.

David Tamman was convicted in a 2012 bench trial of back-dating securities documents for a former client, John Farahi, founder of Newpoint Financial Services Inc. in Beverly Hills, CA, which federal prosecutors claimed was a $22 million Ponzi scheme. He is serving his sentence at a federal prison in Lompoc, CA.

On appeal, Tamman challenged U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez's application of two enhancements ' a four-level “broker-dealer” enhancement and a two-level “special skill” enhancement ' as impermissible under general sentencing guidelines against “double counting.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit disagreed. Taking up an issue of first impression, the panel found that the enhancements dealt with separate conduct.

“As this court has long acknowledged, the sentencing guidelines ' expressly prohibit the dual application of sentencing guidelines that account for the same harm,” wrote U.S. District Judge David Ezra of Hawaii, sitting by designation, in the panel's opinion in April. “However, we hold that this rationale does not apply in cases like the one at hand, where the broker-dealer enhancement reflects the behavior of the principal and the special skill enhancement reflects separate and distinct behavior of the defendant-accessory.”

The ruling is unlikely to have broad impact on criminal cases against lawyers, but it could apply in limited circumstances in which, like Tamman, an attorney is convicted of being an accessory to his or her client's crimes, said Assistant U.S. Attorney Paul Stern in Los Angeles, who prosecuted the case.

“What this case was saying is in that circumstance, this prohibition on double counting is inapplicable because you're dealing with the conduct of two different people,” he said.

Farahi was charged with defrauding investors, primarily from the Iranian-American Jewish population in Los Angeles, by convincing them to purchase corporate bonds purportedly backed by the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Farahi, who used the money to buy a yacht and Beverly Hills mansion, pleaded guilty and is serving 10 years in prison.

The panel also rejected Tamman's arguments that Gutierrez erred in calculating his sentence based on investor losses of more than $20 million and victims totaling more than 50. Tamman also failed to convince the panel that Gutierrez should have probed further when he admitted that he might have been “under the influence” of medication when agreeing to waive a jury trial. ' Amanda Bronstad, National Law Journal

CALIFORNIA

Ex-Nixon Peabody Partner's Prison Term Upheld by Ninth Circuit

A federal appeals court has affirmed a former Nixon Peabody partner's prison term of seven years, clarifying for the first time that lawyers convicted of covering up their clients' crimes could face additional enhancements to their sentences.

David Tamman was convicted in a 2012 bench trial of back-dating securities documents for a former client, John Farahi, founder of Newpoint Financial Services Inc. in Beverly Hills, CA, which federal prosecutors claimed was a $22 million Ponzi scheme. He is serving his sentence at a federal prison in Lompoc, CA.

On appeal, Tamman challenged U.S. District Judge Philip Gutierrez's application of two enhancements ' a four-level “broker-dealer” enhancement and a two-level “special skill” enhancement ' as impermissible under general sentencing guidelines against “double counting.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit disagreed. Taking up an issue of first impression, the panel found that the enhancements dealt with separate conduct.

“As this court has long acknowledged, the sentencing guidelines ' expressly prohibit the dual application of sentencing guidelines that account for the same harm,” wrote U.S. District Judge David Ezra of Hawaii, sitting by designation, in the panel's opinion in April. “However, we hold that this rationale does not apply in cases like the one at hand, where the broker-dealer enhancement reflects the behavior of the principal and the special skill enhancement reflects separate and distinct behavior of the defendant-accessory.”

The ruling is unlikely to have broad impact on criminal cases against lawyers, but it could apply in limited circumstances in which, like Tamman, an attorney is convicted of being an accessory to his or her client's crimes, said Assistant U.S. Attorney Paul Stern in Los Angeles, who prosecuted the case.

“What this case was saying is in that circumstance, this prohibition on double counting is inapplicable because you're dealing with the conduct of two different people,” he said.

Farahi was charged with defrauding investors, primarily from the Iranian-American Jewish population in Los Angeles, by convincing them to purchase corporate bonds purportedly backed by the Troubled Asset Relief Program. Farahi, who used the money to buy a yacht and Beverly Hills mansion, pleaded guilty and is serving 10 years in prison.

The panel also rejected Tamman's arguments that Gutierrez erred in calculating his sentence based on investor losses of more than $20 million and victims totaling more than 50. Tamman also failed to convince the panel that Gutierrez should have probed further when he admitted that he might have been “under the influence” of medication when agreeing to waive a jury trial. ' Amanda Bronstad, National Law Journal

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.

Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.

'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers Image

In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.

Fresh Filings Image

Notable recent court filings in entertainment law.

The Article 8 Opt In Image

The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.