Case Law Database

Participation in an organized criminal group

Offences

• Agreement to commit a serious crime (conspiracy)

Keywords

• conspiracy

United States of America v. L.A., Y.V., L.L., Y.L., V.N., V.T., S.I., V.K.I.

Fact Summary

In September 1993, A.V. and V.V. founded Summit International, a “purported” investment firm in New York City. A.V. and V.V. had criminal histories, with links to Russian criminal groups. They marketed Summit “to the Russian public as an investment firm with knowledge of Wall Street, and ultimately received over $8 million USD from its various Russian investors.” However, very little of this money was actually invested and A.V. and V.V. spent much of it on themselves.

In late 1994, R.S., M.K. and V.T. began an endeavour to attempt to force A.V. and V.V. to pay them back the funds from one of the investments in Summit. R.S. worked for Moscow’s Chara Bank, which had loaned Summit $2.6 million USD. When the Chara Bank president (V.R.) who had made the loan suddenly died in November 1994, R.S. travelled to New York City with M.K. and V.T. to meet with A.V. and V.V. in order to discuss the loan. They met on 1 December 1994. At this meeting M.K. informed A.V. and V.V. that Chara Bank president V.R.’s wife was “trying to recoup Chara’s money with the help of Russian criminal groups.” M.K. and R.S. offered to provide A.V. and V.V. with protection from the Russian criminal groups on the grounds that they split the Chara money. No agreement was made at this time; however, V.V. was introduced to V.N., who was V.T.’s business partner, and they spent the evening at a nightclub where V.T. told V.V. he would essentially be acting as the representative for R.S. and M.K. “regarding the payment of the Chara money.”

On 2 December 1994, the group met once again, this time at Summit’s office. A.V. and V.V. agreed to pay the money, but “requested more time to consider the specific percentages for the division of the money.” The payments were never made because V.V. went to Moscow for several weeks. However, A.V. and a Summit colleague (Y.V.) met with R.S. and V.N. who reminded A.V. about the payment owed.

R.S. and V.T. then returned to Moscow and in the following weeks, R.S. and M.K. tried to contact A.V. and V.V. several times; however, A.V. and V.V. “refused to speak to them.” A meeting was finally arranged for 21 February 1995. Prior to this meeting, R.S. and M.K. approached V.K.I. who “agreed to become involved in the matter.” V.K.I.  “had a reputation as one of the most powerful members of the Russian criminal world.” When A.V. and V.V. learned of V.K.I.’s involvement in the matter, they became afraid and left the Summit Office in order to avoid the meeting.

A.V. and V.V. fled to Miami, Florida to seek assistance from L.V., a business partner. A.V., V.V. and L.V. “pursued different strategies to attempt to evade or shield themselves…[V.V.] contacted his friends at another criminal group based in Lyubertsky in Russia and ultimately met with them in San Francisco,” where he falsely told them “that the Chara money had been repaid. [V.V.] believed they would relay this information to [V.K.I.]  and that [V.K.I.] would then leave [A.V.] and [V.V.] alone.”

A.V. and V.V. met, on separate occasions, with the FBI in Miami in order to obtain protection. V.V. falsely told the FBI that the Chara loan had been paid back. Soon after, “the FBI began an inquiry into [V.K.I.’s] activities…and requested and received authorization to tap [V.K.I.’s] cellular phone.” A.V. and V.V. then returned to New York City in March 1995; however, they continued to hide from V.K.I. and R.S..

On 10 April 1995, V.K.I. met with an associate of his who had helped him in previous alleged extortions—L.A.. L.A. would later testify for the American government as part of a cooperation agreement. L.A. contacted S.I., who in turn contacted Y.G., to help with the matter.

V.K.I., L.A., S.I., Y.G. and R.S. attended a meeting together on 13 April 1995. At this meeting, R.S. provided the others with photos of A.V. and V.V., as well as their phone numbers. V.K.I. later called L.A. and told him that he planned to keep the $2.6 million USD for themselves and would not return it to R.S., “or at the very least, that they would take half of what each side retained if R.S., A.V., and V.V. reached a compromise solution.”

L.A. contacted the Summit colleague, Y.V., to set up a meeting with A.V. and V.V., but Y.V. was unable to. During this time, L.A. kept V.K.I. informed of the situation over telephone; however, they never used anyone’s name.

On 25 May 1995, Y.V. informed L.A. that A.V. and V.V. could be found at a “neutral location that evening” (the Hilton Hotel restaurant). L.A., S.I., Y.G. and Y.V. went to the restaurant and approached A.V. and V.V. Then, A.V. informed them that the payment had already been paid back. L.A. implied that “failure to settle with V.K.I. could result in a physical attack at a later date.”

A.V. and V.K. then went with L.A. to meet with R.S., V.T. and V.N. at another restaurant, where they agreed to pay $3.5 million USD. A.V. and V.V. later testified that they had “agreed to make the payment because they felt that it was the only way that they would be allowed to leave.” An agreement was typed up with details on how to wire the money to an offshore account in the Bahamas.

On 30 May 1995, S.I. met V.V. at the Summit office where V.V. provided him with the payment schedule. The next day, L.A., S.I., Y.G. and Y.V. went to the office intending to meet with A.V. and V.V.; however, A.V. and V.V. were away and the men found video recording equipment that had been provided by the FBI in order to tape S.I.’s meeting with V.V.. They confronted A.V. and V.V. about the equipment but V.V. told them it was only used to record Summit meetings and had not been on when the meeting with S.I. took place. During this meeting, L.A. spoke with V.K.I. on the phone who informed him that the account number for payment had changed and that A.V. and V.V. should be informed to make payments there.

On 6 June 1995, V.V. contacted L.A. to inform him that the first payment had been made and he faxed the records to him. In fact, the payment had never been made; false wire transfer documents provided by the FBI were used instead. V.K.I., L.A., S.I., V.T. and V.N. were arrested by FBI agents the next day.

V.N., V.T., S.I. and V.K.I. were later convicted of conspiracy to commit extortion, while V.N., S.I. and V.K.I. were also convicted of attempted extortion.

Commentary and Significant Features

On appeal, V.N. argued that “the evidence did not support his conviction for conspiracy to commit extortion and attempted extortion.” More specifically, V.N. did “not dispute that a conspiracy to commit extortion existed, but rather [argued] that he was not a member.” Additionally, V.T. also argued that he was not a member of the conspiracy.

When considering these asserts, the Court of Appeals stated:

While only slight evidence is required to link another defendant with a conspiracy once the conspiracy has been shown to exist, a defendant's "mere presence" at the scene of a crime is not enough to show knowing participation in the conspiracy… Nor is "`[a]ssociation with a conspirator, without more, sufficient to establish the requisite degree of participation in a conspiratorial venture.’”… However, "a defendant's ... presence may establish his membership in the conspiracy if all of the circumstances considered together show that by his presence he meant to advance the goals of that conspiracy.”… Thus, the evidence must demonstrate purposeful behavior by a defendant to further the conspiracy to show membership in that conspiracy.

Upon review of the facts, the Court of Appeals determined that there was sufficient evidence to convict both V.N. and V.T. of conspiracy to commit extortion. Both men were not only present during discussions concerning the conspiracy, but also took actions to further it.

Sentence Date:
1997-01-29

Cross-Cutting Issues

Liability

... for

• attempt

... based on

• criminal intention

... as involves

• principal offender(s)
• participant, facilitator, accessory

Offending

Details

• involved an organized criminal group (Article 2(a) CTOC)

Involved Countries

United States of America

Investigation Procedure

Involved Agencies

• Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)

Special investigative techniques

• Special investigative techniques
• Electronic or other forms of surveillance

Procedural Information

Legal System:
Common Law
Latest Court Ruling:
Appellate Court
Type of Proceeding:
Criminal
Accused were tried:
together (single trial)
 
 
Proceeding #1:
  • Stage:
    first trial
  • Court

    Court Title

    United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York

     
    • Criminal

    Description

    Following a six-week jury trial, V.N., V.T., S.I. and V.K.I. were convicted on 8 July 1996 of conspiracy to commit extortion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951, and additionally, V.N., S.I. and V.K.I. were convicted of attempted extortion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1951 and 2.

     

    Sentences

    Sentence

    Term of Imprisonment:
    4 years 3 Months
     

    V.N. was sentenced to 51 months' imprisonment.

    Sentence

    Term of Imprisonment:
    4 years 6 Months
     

    V.T. was sentenced to 54 months' imprisonment.

    Sentence

    Term of Imprisonment:
    5 years 7 Months
     

    S.I. was sentenced to 61 months' imprisonment.

    Sentence

    Term of Imprisonment:
    9 years 7 Months
     

    V.K.I. was sentenced to 115 months' imprisonment.

    Proceeding #2:
  • Stage:
    appeal
  • Official Case Reference:
    146 F.3d 73 (1998) Nos. 97­1077, 97­1080, 97­1088, 97­1107 and 97­1140 to 97­1142
  • Court

    Court Title

    United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

     
    • Criminal

    Description

    V.N., V.T., S.I. and V.K.I. appealed the District Court's decision, arguing that there were "numerous grounds for alleged error". However, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit found no such error, therefore affirming the District Court's decision. Please see "Commentary and Significant Features" for elaboration on the discussion of the Appeals Court.

     

    Defendants / Respondents in the first instance

    Defendant:
    V.N.
    Gender:
    Male
    Age:
    46
    Defendant:
    V.T.
    Gender:
    Male
    Age:
    35
    Defendant:
    S.I.
    Gender:
    Male
    Age:
    33
    Defendant:
    V.K.I.
    Gender:
    Male
    Nationality:
    Russian
    Age:
    56

    Court

    United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York