United States v. Michael Licciardi
30 F.3d 1127, 94 Daily Journal DAR 10353, 94 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5841 (1994)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A conviction for conspiracy to defraud the United States requires proof that the defendant specifically intended to obstruct a lawful government function; intent to defraud a private party, which merely has the incidental effect of impairing a federal agency, is insufficient to establish the necessary mens rea. However, a conspiracy conviction with multiple illegal objects may be upheld if the evidence is sufficient to support at least one of those objects.
Facts:
- Michael Licciardi was a partner in Corvette Company, a grape brokerage business that sold almost exclusively to Delicato Vineyards.
- From 1987 to 1989, as the price of Zinfandel grapes soared, Licciardi conspired with growers Nick Bavaro and Gary Alfieri to sell cheaper, similar-looking grapes (like Grenache and Valdepena) to Delicato while misrepresenting them as expensive Zinfandel grapes.
- To execute the scheme, Licciardi arranged for the grapes to be delivered at odd hours when state inspectors were not present and without proper 'field tags,' which identify the grape variety.
- At Licciardi's direction, Alfieri created shell companies, Viviano & Klein (V & K) and F. Riana Enterprises, and set up a post office box in San Francisco to conceal the fraud and receive payments from Delicato.
- A check representing proceeds from the fraudulent grape sales was mailed to the V & K post office box.
- When questioned by officials from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) and the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA), Licciardi lied, claiming he had dealt with the non-existent principals of V & K and Riana.
- Licciardi also supplied false letters to Delicato for the purpose of forwarding them to the CDFA to cover up the scheme.
Procedural Posture:
- Michael Licciardi was charged in a multi-count indictment in a United States District Court.
- Before trial, Licciardi moved to dismiss the conspiracy count (Count 1) as duplicitous, but the district court denied the motion.
- Following a jury trial, Licciardi was convicted of one count of conspiracy, two counts of mail fraud, and one count of making a false statement.
- The jury acquitted Licciardi on some charges and could not reach a verdict on others.
- The district court denied Licciardi's motion for a new trial and sentenced him to 51 months imprisonment.
- Licciardi appealed his convictions and sentence to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth 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:
Does a conviction for conspiracy to defraud the United States by obstructing a federal agency under 18 U.S.C. § 371 require proof that the defendant specifically intended to obstruct the federal agency, rather than merely intending to defraud a private party whose deception would incidentally affect the agency?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Noonan
Yes, a conviction for conspiracy to defraud the United States by impairing the functions of a federal agency requires proof that the defendant specifically intended to accomplish that object. The government failed to prove that Licciardi possessed the requisite mens rea to obstruct the BATF, as the 'target' of his conspiracy was to defraud Delicato Vineyards, a private entity, not the United States. The incidental effect of his actions on the BATF's regulatory function is insufficient. However, the conspiracy count also charged a second object: mail fraud. The evidence, including the establishment and use of a post office box to receive proceeds of the fraud, was sufficient to prove Licciardi conspired to commit mail fraud. Under Griffin v. United States, when a jury returns a general verdict of guilty on a multi-object conspiracy count, the conviction stands as long as the evidence is sufficient to support any one of the charged objects.
Concurring - Judge Fletcher
No, a conviction for conspiracy to defraud the United States does not require specific anti-federal intent in this circumstance. The majority misreads Tanner v. United States. The evidence was sufficient to prove the 'defraud the United States' object because Licciardi conspired to cause a third party, Delicato, to make misrepresentations to the BATF. This direct causal link, where the defendant knowingly causes false information to be submitted to the government through an intermediary, satisfies the requirement that the conspiracy 'target' the United States. Therefore, the conspiracy conviction could have been affirmed on the 'defraud the United States' object alone, without needing to analyze the mail fraud object.
Concurring-in-part-and-dissenting-in-part - Judge Reinhardt
Yes, a conviction for conspiracy to defraud the United States requires specific anti-federal intent, and I agree with the majority that the government failed to prove it. However, I dissent from upholding the conviction on the alternative mail fraud object. The government relied exclusively on two mailings that occurred nearly two years after the conspiracy began to prove the mail fraud object. This is insufficient to demonstrate that Licciardi foresaw and intended the use of the mails at the time he originally entered into the conspiracy to sell mislabeled grapes. Because the government failed to prove either charged object of the conspiracy, the conviction on that count should be reversed.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the mens rea requirement for the 'defraud clause' of the general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. § 371, reinforcing the Supreme Court's holding in Tanner v. United States. The court's decision limits the government's ability to federalize what is essentially a private fraud scheme by requiring proof that the conspiracy's 'target' was the United States itself. It serves as a check on prosecutorial overreach in using the broad conspiracy statute. The case also affirms the Griffin rule, highlighting that in a multi-object conspiracy charge, a conviction will stand even if one object is legally or factually insufficient, as long as another is adequately proven.
