United States v. Michel

1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. PRAKAZREL MICHEL (1), Defendant.

CRIMINAL No. 19-148-1 (CKK)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

April 12, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION

COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

On April 26, 2023, a jury convicted Defendant Prakazrel Michel (“Michel”) of ten counts related to his conduct in three schemes involving conduit contributions, witness tampering, and foreign lobbying. See ECF No. 273 (verdict form). Before the Court is Michel's [309] Motion for Judgment of Acquittal (“Motion” or “Mot.”). Michel moves under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 (“Rule 29”) for a judgment of acquittal on eight counts-Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, and 12-arguing that the evidence at trial was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain his convictions as to those counts. See generally Mot. The Government opposes this motion in its entirety. See Gov't's Resp. ECF No. 320. Upon careful consideration of the briefing relevant legal authorities, and record as a whole, the Court shall DENY Michel's [309] Motion for Judgment of Acquittal.^[1]

I. BACKGROUND

The Court detailed the factual background of this case at length in previous opinions and incorporates those discussions herein. See, e.g., United States v. Michel No. 19-148-1, 2022 WL 4119774, at *1-5 (D.D.C. Sept. 9, 2022); United States v. Michel, No. 19-148-1, 2023 WL 2388501, at *1-2 (D.D.C. Mar. 6, 2023). The Court refers the reader to those opinions for further background information.

In summary, on June 10, 2021, a superseding indictment charged Michel with ten counts related to his conduct involving three schemes between June 2012 and January 2018. See ECF No. 84. Specifically, Michel was charged by indictment with: (1) Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and to Make Illegal Foreign and Conduit Contributions (Count 1); (2) Concealment of Material Facts (Count 2); (3) two counts of Making a False Entry in a Record (Counts 3 and 4); (4) two counts of Witness Tampering (Counts 5 and 6); (5) Conspiracy to Serve as an Unregistered Agent of a Foreign Principal and a Foreign Government and to Commit Money Laundering (Count 7); (6) Unregistered Agent of a Foreign Principal and Aiding and Abetting (Count 8); (7) Agent of a Foreign Government (Count 10); and (8) Conspiracy to Make False Statements to Banks (Count 12). See generally id.

Trial began on March 27, 2023, and a jury returned guilty verdicts on all counts on April 26, 2023. ECF No. 273. At the conclusion of the Government's case on April 17, 2023, counsel for Michel orally moved for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29. 4/17/2023 AM Trial Tr. at 42:510. Defense counsel filed a written memorandum in support of the motion that same day. See ECF No. 268. The Court held the motion in abeyance, “pending further order of the Court, and at least until the return of a verdict in this case.” Minute Order (Apr. 17, 2023). Following the return of the guilty verdicts on April 26, 2023, the Court ordered Michel to file “his supplemental Rule 29 motion and any other post-trial motion” by June 9, 2023. Minute Order (Apr. 26, 2023). After a series of extensions, Michel filed the pending Rule 29 motion on October 16, 2023. See ECF No. 309. The Government filed its opposition on November 6, 2023, ECF No. 320, and Michel filed his reply on November 13, 2023, ECF No. 328. The Court requested supplemental briefing from the parties in February 2024, see Minute Order (Feb. 14, 2024), which the parties filed in February and March 2024, see ECF No. 351; ECF No. 352; ECF No. 353. With the Motion fully briefed, the Court turns to its resolution.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29(a) provides, in relevant part, that “[a]fter the government closes its evidence or after the close of all the evidence, the court on the defendant's motion must enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(a). “To succeed on a Rule 29 motion, a defendant must clear a ‘very high' hurdle.” United States v. Hale-Cusanelli, 628 F.Supp.3d 320, 324 (D.D.C. 2022) (TNM) (quoting United States v. Pasha, 797 F.3d 1122, 1135 n.9 (D.C. Cir. 2015)). Granting a defendant's Rule 29 motion “is appropriate only when there is no evidence upon which a reasonable juror might fairly conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Weisz, 718 F.2d 413, 438 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (citing United States v. Reese, 561 F.2d 894, 898 (D.C. Cir. 1977)). Judgment of acquittal is inappropriate where “any reasonable factfinder could conclude that the evidence, viewed most favorably to the government, satisfied each element [of the offense] beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Slatten, 865 F.3d 767, 781 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (citing United States v. Kayode, 254 F.3d 204, 212 (D.C. Cir. 2001)).

In essence, a motion for judgment of acquittal should be granted only when, in “viewing the evidence most favorably to the government and according the government the benefit of all legitimate inferences therefrom, a reasonable juror must necessarily have had a reasonable doubt as to the defendant's] guilt.” Weisz, 718 F.2d at 437-38 (citing United States v. Singleton, 702 F.2d 1159, 1162-63 (D.C. Cir. 1983)). In ruling on a Rule 29 motion, the Court “must presume that the jury has properly carried out its functions of evaluating the credibility of witnesses, finding the facts, and drawing justifiable inferences.” United States v. Campbell, 702 F.2d 262, 264 (D.C. Cir. 1983).

III. DISCUSSION

Michel contends that the Government's evidence at trial did not meet the Rule 29 standard for eight of the ten counts for which he was convicted. See generally Mot. Michel does not contest the sufficiency of the evidence as it relates to Counts 5 and 6, which involved witness tampering. See id. For the following reasons, the Court concludes that the Government's evidence at trial was sufficient to support each guilty verdict at issue and therefore each disputed jury verdict shall stand.

A. Count 1: Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and to Make Illegal Foreign and Conduit Contributions

To begin, Count 1 of the operative indictment charged Michel with Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and to Make Illegal Foreign and Conduit Contributions, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 371. See ECF No. 84 ¶¶ 20-74. It alleged that, from June 2012 to June 2015, Michel and Low Taek Jho (“Low”) “knowingly conspired with each other and with others” to:

(a) knowingly defraud the United States by impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful functions of a department or agency of the United States; to wit, the FEC's [(Federal Election Commission's)] ability to administer federal regulations concerning source and dollar restrictions in federal elections, including the prohibitions applicable to foreign nationals and straw donors (also known as “conduits” or “straw contributors”); (b) knowingly and willfully make foreign contributions directly and indirectly, aggregating to $25,000 and more in a calendar year, in violation of [52 U.S.C.§§ 30121, 30109(d)(1)(A)]; and

(c) knowingly and willfully make contributions to a candidate for federal office in the names of other persons, aggregating to $25,000 and more in a calendar year, in violation of [52 U.S.C. §§ 30122, 30109(d)(1)(A), (D)].

See id. ¶ 21. The Federal Election Campaign Act (“FECA”) proscribes foreign contributions (i.e., contributions made by a foreign national), 52 U.S.C. § 30121, and conduit contributions (i.e., making a contribution “in the name of another person”), id. § 30122. Count 1, in brief terms, charged Michel with a 2012 conspiracy with Low (and others) to make foreign and conduit contributions, and to obstruct the lawful functions of the Federal Election Commission (“FEC”). See ECF No. 84 ¶ 21.

Michel concedes that the evidence at trial showed that Low “wired millions of dollars” to Michel, and that Michel used a “portion of that money to make campaign contributions.” Mot. at 12; see Reply at 1 (“[T]here was abundant evidence that Low wired funds to Michel, and that Michel then gave the funds to others to donate to the Obama campaign[.]”). Michel, however, claims that there was “no evidence of an agreement between Low and Michel to make illegal campaign contributions” or that Michel “would use straw donors to make these contributions.” Mot. at 12. Michel further contends that there was no evidence that Low “knew that the donations would violate campaign finance laws,” and therefore Low could not have conspired with Michel to violate those laws. Id. at 16.

To prove conspiracy under Section 371, the Government was required to establish that Michel and Low made an agreement to violate campaign finance laws-by making foreign and conduit contributions-and that both Michel and Low intentionally joined in that agreement. See United States v. Treadwell, 760 F.2d 327, 333 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (“To establish a criminal conspiracy under section 371 the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that: (1) two or more persons formed an agreement either to commit an offense against or defraud the United States; (2) the defendant knowingly participated in the conspiracy with the intent to commit at least one of the offenses charged or to defraud the United States; and (3) at least one overt act was committed in furtherance of the common scheme.”). Direct evidence of the conspiratorial agreement, however, is not required; the jury can infer a “conspiratorial agreement from the circumstances and the defendant's knowledge.” United States v. Moore, 651 F.3d 30, 97 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (citing United States v. Childress, 58 F.3d 693, 710 (D.C. Cir. 1995)); see United States v. Gatling, 96 F.3d 1511, 1518 (D.C....