Judges remand securities fraud case on statute-of-limitation issue

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has ordered a trial court to reconsider whether it should discharge certain charges of securities fraud because the charges fall outside the statute of limitation.

Vaughn A. Reeves Jr. faces 10 counts of Class C felony aiding, inducing, or causing securities fraud. In July 2005, the United States Securities and Exchange Commission obtained an injunction against Alanar, a company run by Reeves’ family, to cease operations. Alanar used a Ponzi-like scheme to run the financing company geared toward churches and nonprofits.

Reeves was charged on June 30, 2009, alleging that for each count from September 2000 to July 2005, he knowingly or intentionally aided, induced, or caused another person to commit securities fraud. There is a five-year statute of limitation for the charge, but the probable cause affidavit invoked the concealment of evidence exception in Indiana Code Section 34-41-4-2(h)(2) to explain why the statute of limitation didn’t apply.

Reeves asserted that evidence showed the state had knowledge of potential wrongdoing by the company before 2005. The trial court denied his motion to dismiss, citing the concealment of evidence exception.

On interlocutory appeal in Vaughn A. Reeves, Jr. v. State of Indiana, No. 77A04-1005-CR-292, the appellate judges upheld the denial of Reeves’ motion to dismiss on charges that include offenses that allegedly occurred on or after June 30, 2004, as they would still fall within the five year statute of limitations. Acts occurring between September 2000 and June 29, 2004, fall outside that period.

The Court of Appeals needed to look at whether the state met its initial burden of making sufficient allegations in the charging information that the offenses Reeves committed were within the applicable statute of limitation. The judges found the charging information didn’t contain any allegation of the concealment of evidence exception or alleged dates of the concealment. The state didn’t allege it lacked sufficient evidence to charge Reeves or that his offense couldn’t have been discovered by due diligence, wrote Judge Carr Darden.

“We note, however, that the probable cause affidavit does contain specific allegations regarding the concealment of evidence exception that would have put Reeves on notice that the State intends to rely on the concealment of evidence exception for the purpose of bringing all the alleged acts within the five-year statute of limitation,” he wrote. “Therefore, under the specific facts of this case, we remand to the trial court for consideration, as set forth in Indiana Code section 35-34-1-4(d), of whether it will discharge the defendant as to the dates specified above or deny the discharge upon determining that the prosecutor would be entitled to cure the information by amendment.”


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.