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

August 30, 2024

MEMORANDUM OPINION

COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY United States District Judge.

On April 26, 2023, a jury convicted Defendant Prakazrel Michel (“Michel”) of ten (10) counts related to his conduct in three (3) schemes involving conduit contributions witness tampering, and foreign lobbying. See ECF No 273 (verdict form). Before the Court is Michel's [310] Motion for New Trial (“Motion” or “Mot.”). Michel moves under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure (“Rule”) 33(a) for a new trial, arguing that a myriad of errors undermine the jury's verdict. Mot. at 10. The Government opposes the Motion in its entirety. See Gov't's Opp'n, ECF No. 321. After holding an evidentiary hearing and upon careful consideration of the briefing, relevant legal authorities, and the record as a whole, the Court shall DENY Michel's [310] Motion for New Trial.^[1]

I. BACKGROUND

The Court detailed the factual allegations 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. The Court shall also provide a summary below.

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 Superseding Indictment, 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) acting as an Unregistered Agent of a Foreign Principal and Aiding and Abetting (Count 8); (7) acting as an Agent of a Foreign Government (Count 10); and (8) Conspiracy to Make False Statements to Banks (Count 12). See generally id.

Michel's trial began with jury selection on March 27, 2023, and the jury returned guilty verdicts on all ten counts on April 26, 2023. ECF No. 273 (verdict form). Following the return of the guilty verdicts, 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 Motion on October 16, 2023. See ECF No. 310. The Government filed its opposition on November 6, 2023, ECF No. 321, and Michel filed his reply on November 13, 2023, ECF No. 326. In January 2024, the Court held an evidentiary hearing on Michel's claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel, which began on January 10th and concluded on January 12, 2024. See, e.g., Minute Entry (Jan. 10, 2024). The Court also obtained the official transcripts of the proceedings. See, e.g., ECF No. 318; ECF No. 325; ECF No. 347; ECF No. 349.

In addition to filing the pending Motion for New Trial, Michel simultaneously filed a Motion for Judgment of Acquittal, arguing that the evidence at trial was insufficient as a matter of law to sustain his convictions as to eight counts (Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, and 12). See ECF No. 309. Upon consideration of the evidence at trial, this Court concluded that the evidence was sufficient to withstand a motion for judgment of acquittal under Rule 29. See generally United States v. Michel, No. 19-148-1, 2024 WL 1603362 (D.D.C. Apr. 12, 2024). The Court detailed in that opinion evidence presented at trial and incorporates those discussions herein. See generally id. As demonstrated below, the evidence at Michel's trial was voluminous.

To begin, Counts 1 through 6 pertained to an alleged conduit scheme (Counts 1, 2, 3, 4) and corresponding witness tampering (Counts 5 and 6). For instance, Count 1 of the operative indictment charged Michel with Conspiracy to Defraud the United States and to Make Illegal Foreign and Conduit Contributions. See ECF No. 84 ¶¶ 20-74. This count alleged that Michel conspired with Low Taek Jho (“Low”) to, inter alia, make foreign contributions. Id. ¶ 21. With respect to the 2012 conduit scheme, there was no dispute that Low wired millions of dollars to Michel or that Michel used portions of those funds to make campaign contributions to help Low and “to get [him] into the [campaign] event.” 4/18/2023 PM Trial Tr. at 66:13-20; see also id. at 88:4-5 (Michel testifying that “[Low] sent me my money. He sent me money for me to help him, again, get him a photo.”). There was substantial evidence that the conduit scheme arose from Low's desire to obtain a personal audience with President Barack Obama and to make contributions to President Obama's reelection campaign-even though Low's status as a foreign national prohibited him from doing the latter. See, e.g., Gov't's Ex. 290 (J. Rousseau email to Low, stating, “They also guarantee you a maximum 15 minute audience with the President (one on one) that's huge brother[.]”); 4/3/2023 AM Trial Tr. at 92:22-93:11. The jury was also informed that federal law prohibits foreign nationals (like Low) from contributing to political campaigns. See, e.g., 3/31/2023 PM Trial Tr. at 13:8-24 (E. Feigenbaum testimony on how “federal law prohibits foreign nationals from contributing to the campaign”); see 52 U.S.C. § 30121. Knowing Low could not legally contribute to the presidential campaign, Michel decided to “help [Low]” by contributing to the Obama campaign with funds that originated from Low. 4/18/2023 PM Trial Tr. at 66:13-68:11; id. at 88:6-8. After Michel reached his personal contribution limit, he provided tens of thousands of dollars per person (ranging from $30,000 to $40,000) to others, who in turn contributed to the Obama campaign in their names. See, e.g., 3/31/2023 AM Trial Tr. at 110:5-14 (J. Toussaint testifying that he received $40,000 from Michel to contribute to the campaign and attend the fundraising event); id. at 128:17-21 (T. Wright testifying that Michel gave her the funds because “he had reached his contribution cap, I believe, or max contribution, the amount he could make”); 4/18/2023 PM Trial Tr. at 82:5-14 (Michel confirming that he provided money to others “to make contributions in their names”).

Count 1 of the operative indictment also alleged that Michel conspired with Low to make conduit contributions (i.e., contributions made in the name of another). See ECF No. 84 ¶ 21. The jury heard testimony that federal law prohibits conduit contributions. See 3/31/2023 PM Trial Tr. at 14:7-20; see also 52 U.S.C. § 30122. Michel confirmed that he provided money to various people he knew so that they would make contributions to the Obama campaign in their names. 4/18/2023 PM Trial Tr. at 82:5-7. Despite receiving these funds from Low, Michel never revealed that Low was the source of the funds and actively sought to conceal this fact. See, e.g., Gov't's Ex. 294 at 2 (email string between E. Tan and J. Rousseau with Tan stating “one of them whom you know who is a Malaysian citizen. Pls keep name off e-mails. (to meet with the main guy + be at the event)”); 4/18/2023 PM Trial Tr. at 69:16-70:5 (Michel testifying that “[t]he money came from Jho Low”); Gov't's Ex. 245 (Michel declaration to the FEC, claiming he was the “true source” of the donations to Black Men Vote (“BMV”)). This evidence (and more) supported the charges alleged in the Superseding Indictment as it pertains to the conduit scheme (Counts 1, 2, 3, and 4).

Next Michel was also charged for his conduct in two (2) lobbying schemes and associated money laundering and false statements to banks (Counts 7, 8, 10, and 12). For instance, Count 10 of the Superseding Indictment charged Michel with acting as an Agent of a Foreign Government- specifically, the government of the People's Republic of China (“PRC”). See ECF No. 84 ¶¶ 15455. The evidence at trial-including Michel's own testimony-demonstrated that Michel (and others) met with the PRC Vice Minister of Public Security, Sun Lijun, on various occasions related to the PRC's desire to extradite a Chinese national, Guo Wengui, to China. See, e.g., 4/19/2023 AM Trial Tr. at 36:23-37:4 (testimony that Michel met with Vice Minister Sun in China); id. at 38:2-7 (testimony that Michel met with Vice Minister Sun in New York). Michel conceded on cross-examination that Vice Minister Sun asked for his (and others') help, and that he specifically agreed to help Vice Minister Sun. See id. at 37:8-11 (“Q: And Vice Minister Sun asked you and Mr. Broidy and Ms. Lum Davis to help him get meetings with U.S. Government officials. Right? A: Correct.”); id. at 37:20-38:1 (“Q: You, Mr. Broidy, and Ms. Lum Davis agreed to help try to set up the meetings for Vice Minister Sun. Right? A: Well, my help is in connecting and relaying the information back and forth. Yes. Q: To help Vice Minister Sun? A: Right, because he was supposed to meet with FBI Director Comey.”). The evidence at trial showed that Michel agreed to assist the PRC government by facilitating Guo's extradition. See id. at 69:5-9 (Michel confirming that he sent himself an email “with the information that Low had given [him] from the Chinese government about Guo”); 4/19/2023 AM Trial Tr. at 73:21-74:7 (Michel stating Vice Minister Sun gave him a letter addressed to Attorney General Jeff Sessions from the Chinese ambassador). To do so, Michel enlisted the help of...