Sufficiency of Evidence

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: United States of America v. Edward Boliaux

Case No.: 18-1322

Officials: WOOD, Chief Judge, and EASTERBROOK and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Sufficiency of Evidence

Between 2002 and 2008 Edward Boliaux operated EMC Automotive, a used-car dealership, in Joliet, Illinois. He borrowed money from three lenders, using inventory as security. Most loans were secured by the cars’ certificates of title, a device called floorplanning. Because there is supposed to be only one title certificate per car, the dealer cannot transfer good title to a customer without paying the lender. Although lenders may allow sales to precede payment, they demand that the money be held in trust until the loan is retired. But beginning in 2007 Boliaux persuaded state officials to issue duplicate certificates of title on the pretense that the originals had been lost. He used these to obtain multiple loans against single vehicles, exceeding the cars’ market value and leaving the lenders under secured. He also began to sell cars without using the proceeds to repay the loans. After one of the lenders detected this and impounded the collateral, Boliaux persuaded the custodian to release eight cars, which he sold for his own benefit.

Boliaux contends that the evidence was insufficient—on the wire fraud counts principally because he did not transmit anything by wire, and on the bank fraud counts principally because no one from the banks testified that the banks lost money. The district court addressed these and other contentions when denying Boliaux’s motion under Fed. R. Crim. P. 29:\.

The district judge did not abuse his discretion by permitting Brincat to testify. He did not describe any special features of AFC’s practices or any of the dealings between AFC and Boliaux. The jury surely understood Brincat to be testifying exclusively as an expert. We are surprised that the prosecutor would present Brincat as an expert, enabling the defense to paint a vital witness as biased, but puzzling decisions do not make evidence inadmissible. Boliaux presents a few additional arguments, which do not require discussion. They have been considered and are rejected.

Galvan established $1,000 as the presumptive fine for a violation of Circuit Rule 30 in a criminal case. 92 F.3d at 584– 85. See also, e.g., United States v. Evans, 270 F.3d 1076, 1085 (7th Cir. 2001). Adjusting for inflation, $1,000 in 1996 is equivalent to $1,597 today. This implies that the presumptive fine should become $1,600. Counsel has 14 days to show cause why he should not be fined $1,600, and reprimanded, for his violation of Circuit Rule 30(b) and his false statement under Circuit Rule 30(d). The judgment is affirmed, and an order to show cause will be issued.

Affirmed

Full Text

Derek A Hawkins is trademark corporate counsel for Harley-Davidson. Hawkins oversees the prosecution and maintenance of the Harley-Davidson’s international trademark portfolio in emerging markets.