Richard Maike, Doyce Barnes and Faraday Hosseinipour are trying to weasel out of being found guilty.
Following their conviction by jury in September, the trio have filed for an acquittal and retrial.
Maike (right) filed the acquittal and new trial motions on September 21st. The DOJ filed their response on November 4th.
Issues raised in favor of acquittal and a new trial include:
- testimony from several DOJ expert witnesses, with respect to “the legal definition of a pyramid scheme” and being “unqualified to offer an opinion about pyramid schemes”;
- testimony from a retired FBI Special Agent (retired December 2021 but worked on the case from beginning to end), that is alleged to have not been “first-hand personal knowledge” when it was;
- testimony from an IRS Revenue Agent (Maike argues an expert witness should have testified on tax fraud instead of the Agent);
- the jury not being instructed to find that the Infinity2Global defendants “knew that i2G was operating as a pyramid scheme” (the DOJ argues there’s no requirement for this);
- there was “insufficient evidence” presented to show that Infinity2Global’s $5000 Emperor positions constituted a security;
- evidence submitted pertaining to defendants’ involvement in the BidXcel Ponzi scheme and manipulation of I2G income positions was improper (despite the court overruling objections raised during trial)
- generally speaking, “the evidence produced at trial was insufficient to support defendants’ convictions”
- jury instructions pertaining to Maike withholding information from his accountants does not appear on “jury instruction on tax evasion” (this pertains to Maike’s “good faith” argument, essentially trying to shift blame to his accountants);
- issues with statutes of limitations on the then alleged fraudulent acts;
It should be noted that the DOJ called up “over 30 witnesses” throughout the Infinity2Global trial. Whereas not explicitly clarified above, the DOJ has pushed back on all of the raised arguments above.
I haven’t covered them in detail because it’s mostly legal procedural issues being argued, the specifics of which aren’t particularly interesting.
In addition to the above issues, Faraday Hosseinipour (right) has thrown her lawyers under the bus.
This is from the DOJ’s response filing;
Hosseinipour complains that trial counsel failed to adequately assist in plea negotiations.
Here, the United States met with Hosseinipour in-person for four hours to discuss “the pending charges” and “possible paths forward.”
During the meeting, the United States “extensively went over the terms of the [proposed] plea agreement . . . and how the process would work if Hosseinipour decided to accept the plea agreement.”
Hosseinipour refused the agreement because the United States “would not offer me anything less than a felony, and I had previously expressed that I did not want to plead guilty to a felony.”
The record shows no evidence of a failure to convey a plea offer or conduct plea negotiations.
Trial counsel’s actions resulted in Hosseinipour going to trial rather than taking a plea.
Instead, the record shows that Hosseinipour and the United States reviewed the plea offer for four hours, and that Hosseinipour decided not to accept it.
Like any defendant convicted at trial, Hosseinipour now wishes she would have pled guilty, but that remorse is insufficient for granting a new trial.
The Strickland Standard is a long-standing Supreme Court ruling that “established the standard for determining when a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel is violated by that counsel’s inadequate performance.”
The particulars aren’t relevant to this article but if you do want more information it’s available at Strickland v. Washington on Wikipedia.
Hosseinipour also complains that trial counsel provided ineffective assistance at trial because he “failed to present certain arguments,” showed an “inability to make appropriate objections,” and “left a key witness, Anzalone, unimpeached.”
Hosseinipour alleges a laundry list of errors—that trial counsel failed to “conduct discovery, object to the admission of evidence, interview witnesses, review necessary documents, file motions with actual merit, produce exhibits, impeach biased witnesses, properly examine witnesses, focus on the trial, return Hosseinipour’s calls and emails, observe the attorney-client privilege, and present or even look into exculpatory evidence.”
Given the lack of specificity of Hosseinipour’s claims — her motion does not include a single citation to the trial record — it is difficult to apply the Strickland test here.
Moreover, to the extent Hosseinipour does include specific complaints, the trial record undermines them.
Despite having failed to specifically identify any evidence or argument to support her motion for ineffective assistance, Hosseinipour requests an evidentiary hearing.
The Court should deny this request, as Hosseinipour has provided insufficient evidence of ineffective assistance of counsel in her motion.
Given all the delays in the lead up to the Infinity2Global trial and the abundance of evidence presented, Maike’s Barnes’ and Hosseinpour’s motions come off as desperate.
I’m not expecting any push back from the court but as of yet a ruling on the motions have yet to be made.
Maike, Barnes and Hosseinipour are otherwise scheduled for sentencing on December 12th. We’ll keep you posted.