United States v. Tagliaferri
820 F.3d 568 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A criminal conviction for investment adviser fraud under Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 requires proof of intent to deceive, but does not require proof of intent to harm clients.
Facts:
- James Tagliaferri was the founder of an investment advisory firm, TAG Virgin Islands, and had primary investment authority over approximately $252 million in client assets.
- Starting in 2007, Tagliaferri invested his clients' assets in a racehorse company, International Equine Acquisition Holdings (IEAH).
- In return for these investments, IEAH paid Tagliaferri over $1.7 million in fees, which he did not disclose to his clients, contrary to his firm's compliance policy and SEC filings.
- Tagliaferri later attempted to recharacterize these secret payments as 'consulting fees' by creating post-receipt invoices and asking IEAH to alter its records.
- Tagliaferri engaged in 'cross-trades,' selling one client's poorly performing investments to another client without disclosing the nature of the transaction to either party.
- Tagliaferri invested over $5 million of client money in a company called National Digital Medical Archive (NMDA), mischaracterizing the equity investment as a loan to his clients.
- He then created and deposited fictitious 'sub-notes' into client accounts to represent these non-existent loans and used cross-trades to pay off clients who demanded repayment.
Procedural Posture:
- The U.S. Government charged James Tagliaferri in a superseding indictment in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York with investment adviser fraud, securities fraud, wire fraud, and Travel Act violations.
- At trial, defense counsel requested a jury instruction stating that a conviction required proof of 'intent to harm' in addition to 'intent to deceive'.
- The District Court denied the request and instructed the jury that 'intent to defraud' in this context means 'to act knowingly and with the intent to deceive'.
- A jury convicted Tagliaferri on twelve counts, including investment adviser fraud.
- Tagliaferri (Appellant) appealed his conviction to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, arguing that the District Court's jury instruction was erroneous.
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 criminal conviction for investment adviser fraud under Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 require the government to prove that the defendant had a specific intent to harm their clients?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
No, a criminal conviction for investment adviser fraud under Section 206 of the Investment Advisers Act does not require proof of intent to harm. The statute's requirement that a violation be 'willful' means the defendant must have acted with knowledge that their conduct was unlawful and with an intent to deceive; it does not add an element of intent to cause financial injury. The court reasoned that the Act was designed to be construed flexibly to effectuate its remedial purpose of eliminating conflicts of interest in the fiduciary relationship between advisers and clients. Citing precedents like SEC v. Capital Gains and Aaron v. SEC, the court noted that subsections of Section 206 focus on the deceptive effect of conduct (i.e., if it 'operates as a fraud') rather than the defendant's ultimate motive. Therefore, a good-faith belief that clients would not ultimately lose money is not a defense to a charge based on intentional deception. Proof that the defendant intended to deceive his clients is sufficient to establish the requisite mens rea for a criminal conviction.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the mens rea (mental state) required for a criminal conviction under the Investment Advisers Act, aligning it with the standard used in civil enforcement actions and other securities fraud statutes. By explicitly rejecting the need to prove 'intent to harm,' the ruling lowers the prosecutorial burden in cases against fraudulent investment advisers. The focus is squarely on the adviser's breach of fiduciary duty through intentional deception, regardless of whether the adviser hoped for a positive financial outcome for the client. This strengthens the Act's preventative and remedial purposes by punishing the deceptive act itself, reinforcing that an adviser's primary duty is one of utmost good faith and full disclosure.
Unlock the full brief for United States v. Tagliaferri