Tweet
The trials and convictions of Carlos Hill
Cash Plus boss jailed in 1990s for racketeering, mail fraud in US
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Hill. filed many appeals
Cash Plus boss Carlos Hill was convicted of racketeering, mail fraud and of making a false statement in the US in the 1990s and was sentenced to near 30 years in prison, court documents obtained by the Observer have shown.
Beginning in April 1990 when he pleaded guilty in the District Court of New Jersey to one count of racketeering conspiracy, Hill was at the centre of a long list of court proceedings during which he fired a court-appointed attorney but saw his appeals against his sentences for racketeering and mail fraud rejected by the Courts of Appeal in New Jersey and Texas.
A US District Court of New Jersey document signed by Hill as the defendant on April 26, 1990 shows that he entered a guilty plea saying that he "conspired with co-racketeers to commit fraud in interstate commerce regarding mortgages and other collateral instruments".
Yesterday, local handwriting expert Beverley East, whose firm Strokes and Slants does work for a number of Jamaica's leading private sector companies and law firms, examined the signature on the New Jersey District Court document and compared it with Hill's signature on a lawsuit he filed against the Observer last month and found them to be one and the same.
Hill filed the suit after the newspaper published a summary of a court case between the US Government and one Carlos Hill in the November 9 edition of the Observer's Caribbean Business Report.
The article accompanied another looking at issues relating to Cash Plus, one of the many alternative investment schemes that are now at the centre of controversy in Jamaica.
The New Jersey court document also listed Hill's birth date as 6/20/47, the same date of birth on the Cash Plus boss' TRN.
In the New Jersey Court document Hill named his lawyer at the time as Bradford Bury and declared that he (Hill) had "not been forced, coerced or threatened in any manner by any person to plead guilty". He also stated that he was not told that other persons would be prosecuted if he refused to plead guilty.
"I offer my plea of guilty freely and voluntarily and of my own in this application and in the certification of my lawyer which is attached to this application," the document signed by Hill said, adding that the statements made in the document are true.
In an interview published in the Sunday Gleaner on November 25, Hill admitted to running afoul of the US authorities but said it was nothing that he could not stand up and defend.
"My family migrated to the United States in 1967 where, at a young age, I ended up in banking," he told the newspaper. "I worked with one of the largest minority banks in New Jersey, where, later on, I would end up being the president. I eventually got bored and got my own company.
"We were doing portfolio loans and were very successful at it. We would later run into problems, in that, we loaned out too much money and weren't able to fulfil some of our obligations. I was in violation and the US Justice Department asked me if I would co-operate. The year was 1986. If you have never had a failure in life then you will never be able to appreciate what true success is."
He said he had learnt from that ordeal and was a much better person today. "The US authorities shocked me by giving me back my loan portfolio in the end, and I have made good use of it," he added.
But according to the case file reported in 1996 Westlaw (WL 33648765), Hill, at his April 26, 1996 plea hearing in New Jersey, "confessed that he and his co-conspirators used various corporate entities, including Citywide Mortgage Corporation and Citywide Financial Services, to engage in an 'advance fee scheme'".
Added the Westlaw report: "More specifically, defendant solicited and accepted money from customers (an 'advance fee' of about (US)$25,000 - (US)$35,000) based on a fraudulent promise to arrange funding for loans which never materialised. As a result of this scheme, Hill and his collaborators defrauded nearly 500 victims out of an estimated (US)eight million dollars."
The Westlaw report also revealed that on the same day, Hill also pleaded guilty to a related one-count indictment arising out of the Southern District of New York which charged him with making a false statement in an application submitted to the Commodities Future Trading Commission.
For that offence he was sentenced to five years' probation and ordered to make full restitution to the victims in connection with that offence.
On April 3, 1991, Hill appeared before the Honourable Stanley S Brotman for sentencing. According to Westlaw, the assistant United States Attorney told the court that "hill had co-operated with the government in its investigation of his companies and had provided 'considerable information' concerning a number of individuals".
The document also said that the government asked the court not to consider an ongoing investigation by the Postal Inspector's Office in Dallas, Texas which implicated Hill in another mail fraud while he was co-operating with the authorities in New Jersey.
Hill, the document explained, was convicted of this fraud in the fall of 1993 and sentenced to an additional 57 months in prison.
A report in the Dallas Morning News on November 6, 1993 said that government officials had estimated that the conspiracy, based in Dallas and operated across the United States from 1989 until 1991, "cost taxpayers more than US$100 million".
However, the Westlaw report said: "After hearing counsels' recommendations, the court indicated that it was 'very much concerned' because 'a lot of people lost a lot of money here'. The court also found that defendant showed no remorse and had submitted 'highly suspect' financial statements.
"The court then imposed a sentence of 20 years' imprisonment and a (US)$25,000 fine, and ordered defendant to make full restitution to the victims of his offence."
Westlaw said that Hill did not file a direct appeal from his conviction and sentence, neither did he submit a restitution plan as ordered by the court.
He served time at the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) in Fairton, a medium security facility for male offenders located in rural south central New Jersey, as well as the Mansfield Law Enforcement Centre in Texas.
On August 5, 1991, Hill sought an extension for time to file "a motion for reconsideration of sentence" and asked that he be appointed a lawyer. However, the district court denied the motion - termed a Rule 25(b) motion - on the ground that it was filed after the 120-day jurisdictional period had elapsed. The court also dismissed his request for appointment of counsel as moot, Westlaw said.
On May 21, 1992, Westlaw said he filed a second Rule 25(b) motion requesting reconsideration on the ground that his failure to file on time was due to "the ineffective assistance of his attorney".
However, the court denied the motion on June 17 on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to hear a Rule 25(b) motion filed "out of time".
The following month, on July 6, Hill appealed the court's decision, but the court denied it on February 3, 1993 for want of jurisdiction.
According to Westlaw, Hill filed the first "of many pro se motions to vacate his sentence" on February 22, 1993, arguing again that he was entitled to have his sentence reduced based on ineffective representation by his lawyer.
He also filed what is termed a section 2255 motion alleging that his attorney had failed to inform him that he had the right to appeal his sentence, even though section 18f of his signed guilty plea to the New Jersey District Court stated, "I understand that under some circumstances I or the Government may have the right to appeal any sentence imposed".
The Westlaw report said that in October 1993, the district court appointed Federal Public Defender Richard Coughlin as counsel to defend Hill in connection with both claims.
"In light of the defendant's failure to comply with the court's order regarding restitution, the court also appointed the Joshua Markowitz law firm as a receiver to assess the viability of restitution in this case," Westlaw said.
But Hill, the document continued, in a series of motions filed from approximately December 1994 through February 1995, "abandoned the limited issues raised in his prior Rule 25(b)/section 2255 motion in favour of a more sweeping attack upon his entire criminal case".
Hill, the document said, deserted his argument that his attorney failed to timely file a motion for reduction of sentence and failed to advise him of his right to appeal. Instead, he sought to set aside his sentence on four other grounds:
1) the information was insufficient;
2) his plea was invalid;
3) he was denied due process of law; and
4) he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney advised him to plead guilty.
On March 10, 1995 when the district court conducted the first of two evidentiary hearings with respect to Hill's claims, Coughlin testified that he had provided files to the Markowitz firm from approximately 130 boxes of Hill's business documents seized by the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI).
Said Westlaw: "Mr Coughlin explained that according to Hill, these files reflected good loans which could be liquidated and collected to help refund his victims. Contrary to defendant's representations, however, the Markowitz firm's review of these files revealed that no recoverable loans existed. Particularly, many of the loan documents were not signed, while others were impossible to collect. Moreover, the Markowitz firm testified that when they met with Hill, he was not forthcoming regarding the whereabouts of any viable funds."
Judge Brotman presided over the second evidentiary hearing of Hill's section 2255 motion on August 28, 1995. Prior to that hearing, Hill, according to Westlaw, moved to terminate Coughlin as his attorney and "proceed pro se".
The court granted the motion and heard testimony from Bury, the lawyer who represented Hill at the time of his guilty plea. Bury told the court that based on his extensive experience as both a state prosecutor and criminal defence attorney, and in light of the overwhelming evidence against his client, he had advised Hill to co-operate and plead guilty.
Bury also testified that in his opinion, the information properly charged a conspiracy under the Racketeering Influence and Corrupt Organisation (RICO) Act, that the plea was "fully knowing and voluntary" and that Hill received due process.
On September 29, 1995, Judge Brotman rejected each of Hill's arguments and denied his section 2255.
In a 34-page opinion, the district court concluded that after being fully instructed on the law and the consequences of his plea, Hill waived his rights and entered a knowing and voluntary guilty plea to a properly charged RICO conspiracy. Accordingly, there was simply no support for his arguments.
Just under a month later, on October 11, Hill filed a timely Notice of Appeal from the district court's opinion.
The Westlaw report said that despite his arguments, the district court properly denied section 2255 relief as the majority of his claims were waived when he knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty to the offence of conviction.
"To the extent defendant attempts to circumvent his waiver by couching his argument in jurisdictional terms, his argument is foreclosed by the law," said the document. "Not surprisingly, defendant fails to find any legal support for his claim that the information does not state an offence - because it did not name Hill's co-conspirators - or suffers from any defect at all.
"Similarly, defendant's attempt to retract his guilty plea on the grounds that it lacked a factual basis and was not knowingly and voluntarily entered, is meritless. In response to the court's probing questions, defendant himself explicitly admitted, under oath and free from coercion, that he had committed the crime alleged in the information. Finally, to the extent defendant blames his guilty plea upon attorney error, the record demonstrates that in light of the evidence, his attorney's advice that pleading guilty was in defendant's best interests fell within the wide boundaries of effective assistance."
According to Westlaw, the information in the racketeering case detailed 10 separate racketeering acts carried out by Hill and "certain unknown co-racketeers".
Hill, however, claimed that the information was defective, arguing that the information failed to properly charge RICO conspiracy because his co-racketeers were not listed in the information by name. He also complained that the information failed to allege an enterprise or specify the predicate acts and a pattern of racketeering activity.
But, said the Westlaw report, "An information need not identify co-conspirators by name. and is legally sufficient if it simply charges that the defendant conspired with others. Indeed, 'the identity of the other members of the conspiracy is not needed, inasmuch as one person can be convicted of conspiring with persons whose names are unknown'.
"Moreover, although Hill complains that the information failed to state an offence, he is careful not to argue (and indeed cannot) that he did not actually know his co-conspirators or that he acted alone. In fact, as the district court remarked, Hill's claim is entirely undercut by his own April 26, 1990 plea allocution where he confessed that he participated in a scheme with other co-racketeers to accept payment for fraudulent promises to arrange funding or letters of credit.
More damaging still, Hill's former attorney, Bradfurd Bury, later confirmed at the evidentiary hearing that Hill knew exactly who his co-conspirators were. Indeed, Hill provided Bury with a handwritten list naming 13 co-racketeers. Thus, regardless of whether the information identified the co-conspirators by name and despite the fact that defendant was the only one charged, Hill suffered no prejudice as he himself provided sufficient evidence to support his conspiracy conviction."
The law document also said that by pleading guilty, Hill waived any challenge he might have invented regarding the alleged defects in the information. "Even if he had not waived his arguments by pleading guilty, however, his contentions would still fail as he can produce no legal support for the proposition that the information must list and/or charge his co-racketeers. Accordingly, his conviction and sentence should be affirmed," it said.
The Westlaw report of the case said the court described Hill as disingenuous for arguing that his plea was not made knowingly, given that he had received a copy of the charge, had discussed it with his lawyer and understood the charge.
The district court also said it perceived that Hill had proven himself to be more sophisticated than the average layperson, and thus, he required no additional explanation of the conspiracy elements (especially as these elements 'are not complex').
"Indeed, at the time of his plea hearing, Hill was the college-educated president of four corporations involved in real estate and mortgage services whose yearly gross income exceeded $350,000," said the court. "At the height of the Citywide conspiracy, Hill and his cohorts controlled 35 corporations with offices across this country, Europe and the British West Indies; obtained $8 million from 500 customers; engaged in numerous, sophisticated business transactions, including purchasing a national commercial bank, arranging fraudulent loans to shell corporations, establishing a law office, and creating false financial statements, letters of credit, and escrow accounts; and conducted an elaborate and complex 'Ponzi scheme' where current advance fees were used to partially fund some loan commitments and thus, perpetuate the scheme.
"The fact that defendant is astute, educated, sophisticated, and capable of managing not only an array of 'legitimate' businesses, but also, multifarious illegal schemes, demonstrates as well as anything that he clearly understood the elements of the RICO conspiracy charge.
"Furthermore, defendant was not a novice with respect to the criminal justice system. By the date of his plea in New Jersey, Hill had two prior arrests, and a conviction, following a trial, for obtaining money under false pretenses. In light of this past criminal record, it stretches belief that Hill was unaware, when he pled guilty in New Jersey, of the significance of his plea."
Westlaw also said that at the plea hearing, the court asked and Hill answered approximately 23 separate questions to establish a factual basis for his plea of guilty to the RICO information.
"Specifically, Hill confessed that he owned and controlled Citywide entities, that these entities did business in interstate commerce, and that he operated these businesses along with 'co-racketeers'. He admitted further to knowingly and fraudulently taking $8 million in advance fees from individuals, to transporting that money in interstate commerce, and to establishing bogus lending institutions which generated false letters of credit and confirmations of funding.
"Defendant also confessed that between August and December 1986, he and his co-racketeers employed misrepresentations, false statements and delay tactics to prevent customers from obtaining refunds, while at the same time, diverting the advance fees to their own use.
"Finally, defendant indicated that his responses to the court's numerous questions provided merely a "synopsis" of his criminal acts, and that there were numerous others which were not recited in the interest of brevity."
The court also vindicated Bury for advising Hill to plead guilty, saying that the advice paid off because in light of Hill's co-operation, his attorney was able to negotiate a favourable global plea agreement, disposing of investigations and charges pending in seven states.
"In return for defendant's guilty plea, the United States Attorney's Office agreed:
(1) not to prosecute any other criminal offenses arising from the Citywide Enterprise scheme;
(2) to bring Hill's co-operation to the attention of other prosecuting offices; and
(3) to consent to a request to the court recommending against deportation.
"As all sides agreed that Hill would not prevail if he attempted to defend this case, Mr Bury's advice to plead guilty was not ineffective assistance of counsel, but rather prudent strategy and correct advice."
Cash Plus boss jailed in 1990s for racketeering, mail fraud in US
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
Hill. filed many appeals
Cash Plus boss Carlos Hill was convicted of racketeering, mail fraud and of making a false statement in the US in the 1990s and was sentenced to near 30 years in prison, court documents obtained by the Observer have shown.
Beginning in April 1990 when he pleaded guilty in the District Court of New Jersey to one count of racketeering conspiracy, Hill was at the centre of a long list of court proceedings during which he fired a court-appointed attorney but saw his appeals against his sentences for racketeering and mail fraud rejected by the Courts of Appeal in New Jersey and Texas.
A US District Court of New Jersey document signed by Hill as the defendant on April 26, 1990 shows that he entered a guilty plea saying that he "conspired with co-racketeers to commit fraud in interstate commerce regarding mortgages and other collateral instruments".
Yesterday, local handwriting expert Beverley East, whose firm Strokes and Slants does work for a number of Jamaica's leading private sector companies and law firms, examined the signature on the New Jersey District Court document and compared it with Hill's signature on a lawsuit he filed against the Observer last month and found them to be one and the same.
Hill filed the suit after the newspaper published a summary of a court case between the US Government and one Carlos Hill in the November 9 edition of the Observer's Caribbean Business Report.
The article accompanied another looking at issues relating to Cash Plus, one of the many alternative investment schemes that are now at the centre of controversy in Jamaica.
The New Jersey court document also listed Hill's birth date as 6/20/47, the same date of birth on the Cash Plus boss' TRN.
In the New Jersey Court document Hill named his lawyer at the time as Bradford Bury and declared that he (Hill) had "not been forced, coerced or threatened in any manner by any person to plead guilty". He also stated that he was not told that other persons would be prosecuted if he refused to plead guilty.
"I offer my plea of guilty freely and voluntarily and of my own in this application and in the certification of my lawyer which is attached to this application," the document signed by Hill said, adding that the statements made in the document are true.
In an interview published in the Sunday Gleaner on November 25, Hill admitted to running afoul of the US authorities but said it was nothing that he could not stand up and defend.
"My family migrated to the United States in 1967 where, at a young age, I ended up in banking," he told the newspaper. "I worked with one of the largest minority banks in New Jersey, where, later on, I would end up being the president. I eventually got bored and got my own company.
"We were doing portfolio loans and were very successful at it. We would later run into problems, in that, we loaned out too much money and weren't able to fulfil some of our obligations. I was in violation and the US Justice Department asked me if I would co-operate. The year was 1986. If you have never had a failure in life then you will never be able to appreciate what true success is."
He said he had learnt from that ordeal and was a much better person today. "The US authorities shocked me by giving me back my loan portfolio in the end, and I have made good use of it," he added.
But according to the case file reported in 1996 Westlaw (WL 33648765), Hill, at his April 26, 1996 plea hearing in New Jersey, "confessed that he and his co-conspirators used various corporate entities, including Citywide Mortgage Corporation and Citywide Financial Services, to engage in an 'advance fee scheme'".
Added the Westlaw report: "More specifically, defendant solicited and accepted money from customers (an 'advance fee' of about (US)$25,000 - (US)$35,000) based on a fraudulent promise to arrange funding for loans which never materialised. As a result of this scheme, Hill and his collaborators defrauded nearly 500 victims out of an estimated (US)eight million dollars."
The Westlaw report also revealed that on the same day, Hill also pleaded guilty to a related one-count indictment arising out of the Southern District of New York which charged him with making a false statement in an application submitted to the Commodities Future Trading Commission.
For that offence he was sentenced to five years' probation and ordered to make full restitution to the victims in connection with that offence.
On April 3, 1991, Hill appeared before the Honourable Stanley S Brotman for sentencing. According to Westlaw, the assistant United States Attorney told the court that "hill had co-operated with the government in its investigation of his companies and had provided 'considerable information' concerning a number of individuals".
The document also said that the government asked the court not to consider an ongoing investigation by the Postal Inspector's Office in Dallas, Texas which implicated Hill in another mail fraud while he was co-operating with the authorities in New Jersey.
Hill, the document explained, was convicted of this fraud in the fall of 1993 and sentenced to an additional 57 months in prison.
A report in the Dallas Morning News on November 6, 1993 said that government officials had estimated that the conspiracy, based in Dallas and operated across the United States from 1989 until 1991, "cost taxpayers more than US$100 million".
However, the Westlaw report said: "After hearing counsels' recommendations, the court indicated that it was 'very much concerned' because 'a lot of people lost a lot of money here'. The court also found that defendant showed no remorse and had submitted 'highly suspect' financial statements.
"The court then imposed a sentence of 20 years' imprisonment and a (US)$25,000 fine, and ordered defendant to make full restitution to the victims of his offence."
Westlaw said that Hill did not file a direct appeal from his conviction and sentence, neither did he submit a restitution plan as ordered by the court.
He served time at the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) in Fairton, a medium security facility for male offenders located in rural south central New Jersey, as well as the Mansfield Law Enforcement Centre in Texas.
On August 5, 1991, Hill sought an extension for time to file "a motion for reconsideration of sentence" and asked that he be appointed a lawyer. However, the district court denied the motion - termed a Rule 25(b) motion - on the ground that it was filed after the 120-day jurisdictional period had elapsed. The court also dismissed his request for appointment of counsel as moot, Westlaw said.
On May 21, 1992, Westlaw said he filed a second Rule 25(b) motion requesting reconsideration on the ground that his failure to file on time was due to "the ineffective assistance of his attorney".
However, the court denied the motion on June 17 on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to hear a Rule 25(b) motion filed "out of time".
The following month, on July 6, Hill appealed the court's decision, but the court denied it on February 3, 1993 for want of jurisdiction.
According to Westlaw, Hill filed the first "of many pro se motions to vacate his sentence" on February 22, 1993, arguing again that he was entitled to have his sentence reduced based on ineffective representation by his lawyer.
He also filed what is termed a section 2255 motion alleging that his attorney had failed to inform him that he had the right to appeal his sentence, even though section 18f of his signed guilty plea to the New Jersey District Court stated, "I understand that under some circumstances I or the Government may have the right to appeal any sentence imposed".
The Westlaw report said that in October 1993, the district court appointed Federal Public Defender Richard Coughlin as counsel to defend Hill in connection with both claims.
"In light of the defendant's failure to comply with the court's order regarding restitution, the court also appointed the Joshua Markowitz law firm as a receiver to assess the viability of restitution in this case," Westlaw said.
But Hill, the document continued, in a series of motions filed from approximately December 1994 through February 1995, "abandoned the limited issues raised in his prior Rule 25(b)/section 2255 motion in favour of a more sweeping attack upon his entire criminal case".
Hill, the document said, deserted his argument that his attorney failed to timely file a motion for reduction of sentence and failed to advise him of his right to appeal. Instead, he sought to set aside his sentence on four other grounds:
1) the information was insufficient;
2) his plea was invalid;
3) he was denied due process of law; and
4) he received ineffective assistance of counsel when his attorney advised him to plead guilty.
On March 10, 1995 when the district court conducted the first of two evidentiary hearings with respect to Hill's claims, Coughlin testified that he had provided files to the Markowitz firm from approximately 130 boxes of Hill's business documents seized by the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI).
Said Westlaw: "Mr Coughlin explained that according to Hill, these files reflected good loans which could be liquidated and collected to help refund his victims. Contrary to defendant's representations, however, the Markowitz firm's review of these files revealed that no recoverable loans existed. Particularly, many of the loan documents were not signed, while others were impossible to collect. Moreover, the Markowitz firm testified that when they met with Hill, he was not forthcoming regarding the whereabouts of any viable funds."
Judge Brotman presided over the second evidentiary hearing of Hill's section 2255 motion on August 28, 1995. Prior to that hearing, Hill, according to Westlaw, moved to terminate Coughlin as his attorney and "proceed pro se".
The court granted the motion and heard testimony from Bury, the lawyer who represented Hill at the time of his guilty plea. Bury told the court that based on his extensive experience as both a state prosecutor and criminal defence attorney, and in light of the overwhelming evidence against his client, he had advised Hill to co-operate and plead guilty.
Bury also testified that in his opinion, the information properly charged a conspiracy under the Racketeering Influence and Corrupt Organisation (RICO) Act, that the plea was "fully knowing and voluntary" and that Hill received due process.
On September 29, 1995, Judge Brotman rejected each of Hill's arguments and denied his section 2255.
In a 34-page opinion, the district court concluded that after being fully instructed on the law and the consequences of his plea, Hill waived his rights and entered a knowing and voluntary guilty plea to a properly charged RICO conspiracy. Accordingly, there was simply no support for his arguments.
Just under a month later, on October 11, Hill filed a timely Notice of Appeal from the district court's opinion.
The Westlaw report said that despite his arguments, the district court properly denied section 2255 relief as the majority of his claims were waived when he knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty to the offence of conviction.
"To the extent defendant attempts to circumvent his waiver by couching his argument in jurisdictional terms, his argument is foreclosed by the law," said the document. "Not surprisingly, defendant fails to find any legal support for his claim that the information does not state an offence - because it did not name Hill's co-conspirators - or suffers from any defect at all.
"Similarly, defendant's attempt to retract his guilty plea on the grounds that it lacked a factual basis and was not knowingly and voluntarily entered, is meritless. In response to the court's probing questions, defendant himself explicitly admitted, under oath and free from coercion, that he had committed the crime alleged in the information. Finally, to the extent defendant blames his guilty plea upon attorney error, the record demonstrates that in light of the evidence, his attorney's advice that pleading guilty was in defendant's best interests fell within the wide boundaries of effective assistance."
According to Westlaw, the information in the racketeering case detailed 10 separate racketeering acts carried out by Hill and "certain unknown co-racketeers".
Hill, however, claimed that the information was defective, arguing that the information failed to properly charge RICO conspiracy because his co-racketeers were not listed in the information by name. He also complained that the information failed to allege an enterprise or specify the predicate acts and a pattern of racketeering activity.
But, said the Westlaw report, "An information need not identify co-conspirators by name. and is legally sufficient if it simply charges that the defendant conspired with others. Indeed, 'the identity of the other members of the conspiracy is not needed, inasmuch as one person can be convicted of conspiring with persons whose names are unknown'.
"Moreover, although Hill complains that the information failed to state an offence, he is careful not to argue (and indeed cannot) that he did not actually know his co-conspirators or that he acted alone. In fact, as the district court remarked, Hill's claim is entirely undercut by his own April 26, 1990 plea allocution where he confessed that he participated in a scheme with other co-racketeers to accept payment for fraudulent promises to arrange funding or letters of credit.
More damaging still, Hill's former attorney, Bradfurd Bury, later confirmed at the evidentiary hearing that Hill knew exactly who his co-conspirators were. Indeed, Hill provided Bury with a handwritten list naming 13 co-racketeers. Thus, regardless of whether the information identified the co-conspirators by name and despite the fact that defendant was the only one charged, Hill suffered no prejudice as he himself provided sufficient evidence to support his conspiracy conviction."
The law document also said that by pleading guilty, Hill waived any challenge he might have invented regarding the alleged defects in the information. "Even if he had not waived his arguments by pleading guilty, however, his contentions would still fail as he can produce no legal support for the proposition that the information must list and/or charge his co-racketeers. Accordingly, his conviction and sentence should be affirmed," it said.
The Westlaw report of the case said the court described Hill as disingenuous for arguing that his plea was not made knowingly, given that he had received a copy of the charge, had discussed it with his lawyer and understood the charge.
The district court also said it perceived that Hill had proven himself to be more sophisticated than the average layperson, and thus, he required no additional explanation of the conspiracy elements (especially as these elements 'are not complex').
"Indeed, at the time of his plea hearing, Hill was the college-educated president of four corporations involved in real estate and mortgage services whose yearly gross income exceeded $350,000," said the court. "At the height of the Citywide conspiracy, Hill and his cohorts controlled 35 corporations with offices across this country, Europe and the British West Indies; obtained $8 million from 500 customers; engaged in numerous, sophisticated business transactions, including purchasing a national commercial bank, arranging fraudulent loans to shell corporations, establishing a law office, and creating false financial statements, letters of credit, and escrow accounts; and conducted an elaborate and complex 'Ponzi scheme' where current advance fees were used to partially fund some loan commitments and thus, perpetuate the scheme.
"The fact that defendant is astute, educated, sophisticated, and capable of managing not only an array of 'legitimate' businesses, but also, multifarious illegal schemes, demonstrates as well as anything that he clearly understood the elements of the RICO conspiracy charge.
"Furthermore, defendant was not a novice with respect to the criminal justice system. By the date of his plea in New Jersey, Hill had two prior arrests, and a conviction, following a trial, for obtaining money under false pretenses. In light of this past criminal record, it stretches belief that Hill was unaware, when he pled guilty in New Jersey, of the significance of his plea."
Westlaw also said that at the plea hearing, the court asked and Hill answered approximately 23 separate questions to establish a factual basis for his plea of guilty to the RICO information.
"Specifically, Hill confessed that he owned and controlled Citywide entities, that these entities did business in interstate commerce, and that he operated these businesses along with 'co-racketeers'. He admitted further to knowingly and fraudulently taking $8 million in advance fees from individuals, to transporting that money in interstate commerce, and to establishing bogus lending institutions which generated false letters of credit and confirmations of funding.
"Defendant also confessed that between August and December 1986, he and his co-racketeers employed misrepresentations, false statements and delay tactics to prevent customers from obtaining refunds, while at the same time, diverting the advance fees to their own use.
"Finally, defendant indicated that his responses to the court's numerous questions provided merely a "synopsis" of his criminal acts, and that there were numerous others which were not recited in the interest of brevity."
The court also vindicated Bury for advising Hill to plead guilty, saying that the advice paid off because in light of Hill's co-operation, his attorney was able to negotiate a favourable global plea agreement, disposing of investigations and charges pending in seven states.
"In return for defendant's guilty plea, the United States Attorney's Office agreed:
(1) not to prosecute any other criminal offenses arising from the Citywide Enterprise scheme;
(2) to bring Hill's co-operation to the attention of other prosecuting offices; and
(3) to consent to a request to the court recommending against deportation.
"As all sides agreed that Hill would not prevail if he attempted to defend this case, Mr Bury's advice to plead guilty was not ineffective assistance of counsel, but rather prudent strategy and correct advice."
Comment