US v. Dazey
403 F.3d 1147 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A conviction for conspiracy can be sustained by circumstantial evidence of a defendant's conduct, role within an enterprise, and communications, which collectively demonstrate a willful agreement to participate in the unlawful scheme, even if the defendant claims to have been a true believer in the enterprise's legitimacy.
Facts:
- Robert Gerald Craft led an investment company called Wealth-Mart, which solicited over $14 million from investors.
- Wealth-Mart promised extremely high, guaranteed returns from a purported international "prime bank" debenture trading program, which was entirely fictitious.
- Roy Mathew, a CPA, created Wealth-Mart's founding documents, served as its financial manager, and helped create a shell bank to receive investor funds.
- Dennis Dean Dazey was presented at seminars as an international financier named "Wooly West," who lectured on international finance to lend credibility to the scheme.
- Diane Lenore Griffith was a leading salesperson who recruited numerous investors, including her own friends and family.
- None of the investor money was invested; Craft diverted the funds for personal use, including luxury cars, real estate, and a Caribbean cruise for employees.
- When investors began complaining about not receiving returns, Mathew and Griffith devised a "re-entry" plan to falsely inform investors their earnings were being successfully reinvested.
- Griffith repeatedly offered preposterous excuses to suspicious investors to delay their complaints, such as funds being frozen by the CIA or delayed by Princess Diana's death.
Procedural Posture:
- A federal grand jury indicted Robert Gerald Craft, Roy Mathew, Dennis Dean Dazey, and Diane Lenore Griffith on charges including conspiracy, wire fraud, securities fraud, and money laundering.
- The defendants were tried before a jury in the U.S. District Court (trial court).
- The jury convicted Craft on all counts; Mathew on conspiracy and money laundering; Dazey on conspiracy, wire fraud, and money laundering; and Griffith on conspiracy and wire fraud.
- The jury acquitted Mathew and Griffith of securities fraud charges and Dazey of one wire fraud count.
- The district court sentenced all four defendants to prison terms.
- Craft, Mathew, Dazey, and Griffith (appellants) appealed their convictions, and Mathew and Dazey appealed their sentences, to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is circumstantial evidence of a defendant's actions, communications, receipt of benefits, and central role in placating victims sufficient to prove they willfully entered into a conspiracy to commit wire fraud, even when the defendant claims to have believed in the legitimacy of the fraudulent scheme?
Opinions:
Majority - McConnell, J.
Yes. A defendant's knowing and willful participation in a conspiracy can be proven by circumstantial evidence, and a jury is entitled to infer intent from a defendant's actions and the implausibility of their claims. The court affirmed the conspiracy convictions for all four defendants, finding the government presented sufficient evidence for a rational jury to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. For Craft, his control over the bank accounts and personal use of investor funds demonstrated his knowledge of the fraud. For Mathew, his role in creating the company, making presentations, and devising the stalling tactics went beyond mere association. For Dazey, his presentations as a fake expert, his receipt of $2.2 million, and his providing cell phones for the scheme supported his conviction. For Griffith, the court distinguished her case from precedents involving unwitting participants; her central role in communicating false promises and implementing the deceptive "re-entry" plan, despite knowing investors were not being paid, was sufficient for a jury to conclude she intentionally participated in the fraud, regardless of her claim to be a "true believer."
Analysis:
This case strongly affirms the principle that direct evidence of an agreement is not necessary to secure a conspiracy conviction. It illustrates how courts analyze the totality of the circumstances, including a defendant's specific role, to infer knowledge and intent. The court's detailed analysis of Diane Griffith's involvement is particularly significant, as it establishes a high bar for defendants who claim they were merely duped participants. The decision demonstrates that active, sustained participation in lulling victims and perpetuating a fraud, especially when promises repeatedly prove false, can defeat a "good faith" defense and be treated as sufficient circumstantial evidence of criminal intent.
Unlock the full brief for US v. Dazey