Defendants' Motion to Prohibit Term Bribe or Kickback

Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728MARILYN E. BEDNARSKI (SBN 105322)KAYE, McLANE & BEDNARSKI, LLP128 North Fair Oaks AvenuePasadena, California 91103Telephone: (626) 844-7660Facsimile: (626) 844-7670mbednarski_kmb@earthlink.netAttorneys for Defendant P. GreenJEROME H. MOONEY III (SBN 199542)WESTON, GARROU, WALTERS & MOONEY12121 Wilshire Blvd. Ste. 900Los Angeles, Ca. 90025(310) 442-0072(310) 442-0899 jerrym@mooneylaw.comAttorneys for Defendant G. GreenUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTCENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAWESTERN DIVISIONUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,Plaintiff,v.GERALD GREEN AND PATRICIAGREEN,Defendants. ))))))))))))))) NO. CR 08-59(B)-GWDEFENDANTS’ JOINT MOTION

IN LIMINE

TO PRECLUDE THEPROSECUTORS’S USE OF THETERM “BRIBE” OR ITSSYNONYMS AT TRIAL EXCEPTDURING OPENING STATEMENT,CLOSING ARGUMENT;DECLARATION OF MARILYN E.BEDNARSKIHearing Date: July 23, 2009Hearing Time: 8: 00 a.m.Defendants, Patricia Green and Gerald Green, jointly and by and throughtheir respective attorneys of record, hereby move this Honorable Court for an order precluding the prosecutors from using the term “bribe,” “bribery, kickback or their synonyms at trial except during opening statement (with limitations), closingargument and instructions. This motion is made pursuant to the Fifth Amendment’s

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282Due Process Clause, Rules 701 and 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Thismotion is based upon the attached memorandum of points and authorities,Declaration of Marilyn E. Bednarski, all files and records in this case, and anyfurther evidence as may be adduced at the hearing on this motion.Respectfully submitted,KAYE, McLANE & BEDNARSKI, LLPDATED: July 12, 2009 By_______/S/____________________ MARILYN E. BEDNARSKIAttorneys for Patricia GreenRespectfully submitted,WESTON, GARROU, WALTERS & MOONEYDATED: July 12, 2009 By__________/S/__________________ JEROME H. MOONEY IIIAttorneys for Gerald Green

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627283MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIESI.SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTThe twenty-eight count Second Superceding Indictment, upon which thedefendants Gerald and Patricia Green will be tried alleges that the defendantsconspired to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act-Bribery (hereinafter “FCPA”), 18 U.S.C. 371 and 15 U.S.C. § 78dd-2(a)(1); Transported Funds toPromote Bribery and Transacted In Criminally Derived Funds, 18 U.S.C. §§1956(a)(2)(A) and 1957; Obstructed Justice (only Gerald Green), 18 U.S.C. § 1519;Subscribed to False Tax Returns (only Patricia Green), 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1); andForfeiture, 18 U.S.C. 981.The essential issue at trial for the bribery, money laundering and false taxfiling counts is whether there is credible proof that the defendants had a “corrupt purpose” in sending the monies they sent to Thailand. The FCPA prohibits U.S. persons and businesses from "corruptly" making use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce so as to offer, pay, promise, or authorize to pay, either directly or indirectly, money or anything of value to any foreign officialor political party "in order to assist . . . in obtaining or retaining business for or with,or directing business to, any person." 15 U.S.C. §§ 78dd-1, et. seq.The FCPA, money laundering and conspiracy counts require thegovernment to prove the underlying crime alleged i.e., bribery under the FCPA andthe false tax filing counts require the government to prove that Patricia Green knewthat the returns she subscribed to which took commissions paid by SASO and FFMas deductions included bribes and were not legitimate deductions.Thus, corrupt intent –the mental state that is a prerequisite to a bribe is anecessary element of all these counts. Because “bribery” within the context of theFCPA has a specific legal meaning, and that specific legal meaning must be met by

of 00

Leave a Comment