An irreverent Wall Street Blog
Attorney Convicted of 28 Counts in FusionPharm Fraud Case Loses Federal Appeal
June 21, 2021
After a 12-day jury trial in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, attorney Guy M. Jean-Pierre was found guilty on 28 of 29 counts of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, wire fraud and aiding and abetting, mail fraud and aiding and abetting, securities fraud and aiding and abetting, money laundering and aiding and abetting. Jean-Pierre, 60, was sentenced to 84 months in prison plus three years of supervised release. United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Guy M. Jean-Pierre a/k/a Marcelo Dominguez de Guerra, Defendant (Judgment, DCO, 17-CR-00008 / February 3, 2020) https://brokeandbroker.com/PDF/JeanPierreJudgDCO200203.pdf
As set forth in part in the Denver Jury Convicts Attorney of Securities Fraud (DOJ Release / January 31, 2019)
https://www.justice.gov/usao-co/pr/denver-jury-convicts-attorney-securities-fraud-0:
[B]eginning in late 2010, defendant Jean-Pierre's co-conspirators endeavored to establish a business that would obtain and retrofit steel shipping containers so that they could be used to grow plants hydroponically. With defendant Jean-Pierre's help, the co-conspirators acquired a dormant publicly traded penny stock company and changed its name to FusionPharm as part of plans to develop and capitalize the business. The main business plan was to resell these repurposed shipping containers, which FusionPharm called "pharm pods," to hydroponic growers. The pharm pods were, at times, marketed as effective vehicles to get fresh produce, such as lettuce, quickly and efficiently to restaurants and local groceries in urban markets. Over time, however, the pharm pods were marketed to marijuana or cannabis growers in Colorado and other states.An object of the conspiracy was to conceal the co-conspirators' role in the management and operation of FusionPharm, due to one of the co-conspirators' prior securities felony conviction. Defendant Jean-Pierre prepared and transmitted documents that allowed FusionPharm to sell stock in violation of securities laws, falsely portrayed deposits of proceeds from the sale of FusionPharm common stock as convertible debt obligations, falsely portrayed other entities as non-affiliates of FusionPharm, concealed the role of other co-conspirators in the FusionPharm business, falsely represented that disclosure documents and financial statements constituted adequate current information about FusionPharm, and failed to disclose defendant Jean-Pierre's role in drafting documents for another attorney to sign and represented as the other attorney's own work product.
As asserted in FusionPharm Co-Conspirators Sentenced for $10+ Million Securities Fraud and Money Laundering Scheme / Defendants misled investors in marijuana hydroponic pod scheme (DOJ Release / January 31, 2020)
https://www.justice.gov/usao-co/pr/fusionpharm-co-conspirators-sentenced-10-million-securities-fraud-and-money-laundering:
Defendant Jean-Pierre, a graduate of Columbia University Law School, prepared and transmitted documents that allowed FusionPharm to sell stock in violation of securities laws, falsely portrayed deposits of proceeds from the sale of FusionPharm common stock as convertible debt obligations, concealed the role of other co-conspirators in the FusionPharm business, falsely represented that disclosure documents and financial statements constituted adequate current information about FusionPharm, and failed to disclose defendant Jean-Pierre's role in drafting documents for another attorney to sign and represented as the other attorney's own work product.
10Cir Appeal
On February 11, 2020, Jean-Pierre appealed the DCO convictions to the United States Court of Appeal for the Tenth Circuit ("10Cir") United States of America, Plaintiff, v. Guy M. Jean-Pierre a/k/a Marcelo Dominguez de Guerra, Defendant (Opinion, 10Cir, No, 20-1039 / June 15, 2021)
https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/20/20-1039.pdf. 10Cir characterized the appeal before it as follows:
Mr. Jean-Pierre's appeal challenges only four of his convictions-Count 1 for conspiracy to commit securities fraud and Counts 21, 22, and 23 for securities fraud. Mr. Jean-Pierre makes two contentions. First, he argues the district court abused its discretion in admitting the attorney letter agreements bearing Ms. Dinwoodie's signature. . . . Second, Mr. Jean-Pierre argues the instructions on Counts 21, 22, and 23 were erroneous because they failed to require the jury to find the securities at issue were not exempt from Rule 144. . . .
at Page 12 of the 10Cir Opinion
The Niece's Unauthorized Signatures
In considering Jean-Pierre's arguments as to the admissibility of the attorney letter agreements with Dinwoodie's signature, 10Cir noted that in April 2010, the OTC Market:
refused to accept legal opinions from Mr. Jean-Pierre because repeated inconsistencies and omissions demonstrated he failed to draft attorney letters with due diligence. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Jean-Pierre submitted twelve attorney letter agreements bearing the signature of his niece, Leslie Jean-Pierre Dinwoodie. Ms. Dinwoodie is also an attorney. In the spring of 2010, Mr. Jean-Pierre asked Ms. Dinwoodie for help on legal opinion letters, telling her he would divide his practice and set up a new corporation with her assistance. To do so, Mr. Jean-Pierre asked for three copies of Ms. Dinwoodie's signature and she provided them. Ms. Dinwoodie never did any legal work for Mr. Jean-Pierre. But Mr. Jean-Pierre nonetheless placed her signature on the attorney letter agreements, without her authorization.
at Pages 4 - 5 of the 10Cir Opinion
Notwithstanding Jean-Pierre's assertion that the introduction of the 12 forged attorney agreements involved "uncharged acts" for which he was depicted as being culpable, 10Cir found that the totality of the evidence presented at trial "demonstrated that Mr. Jean-Pierre used Ms. Dinwoodie's signature without her permission to submit attorney letters to the OTC Market." at Page 14 of the 10Cir Opinion. Moreover, the appellate court allowed that even if the disputed letters did not, on their own, allow the jury to infer that Jean-Pierre had taken advantage of his family via the forgery, there was ample testimony from the OTC Market representative and Dinwoodie that did make that point and said testimony was admitted without an objection as to the very point now contested by Jean-Pierre. In a nutshell, 10Cir found that the admission of said letters was harmless and declined to decide as to whether DCO conduct was erroneous.
DCO's Jury Instructions
Finally, as to Jean-Pierre's appeal based upon improper jury instruction by DCO, 11Cir found that the lower court's instruction properly set forth the elements of securities fraud and the government's obligation to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Bill Singer's Comment
Perhaps fitting the failed hydroponic marijuana venture, Jean-Pierre's appeal goes up in smoke. Although you can't blame a Defendant found guilty of 28 counts for trying whatever has a shot of winning an appeal, in Jean-Pierre's case, I doubt that he or his legal team really anticipated that 10Cir would reverse his convictions. After all, reduced to its basics, Jean-Pierre appears to have argued that even if he had misused his niece-the-lawyer's signature, he wasn't actually charged with forging her signatures, and for DCO to have allowed the introduction of what was depicted as 12 forged attorney agreements deprived him of his ability to defend against said uncharged acts. Okay, sure -- frankly, not a bad point; however, as a noted jurist ruled in another unrelated case: