ILNews

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.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT