ILNews

Judges uphold mail fraud conviction

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Although it noted the question was a "close one," the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals determined there was sufficient evidence to support a man's conviction of mail fraud in his scheme to defraud the government out of money for work he didn't complete.

In United States of America v. Timothy A. Boisture, No. 07-1621, Timothy Boisture appealed one of his two convictions of mail fraud. Boisture, a partial owner of Environmental Consulting and Engineering Company, participated in a multi-part scheme to defraud his company and the Indiana Department of Environmental Management. Boisture was awarded a project through IDEM to clean up oil and waste storage tanks and plug 12 oil and oil injection wells in Vanderburgh County. Later, the project expanded to 39 more wells in the county. IDEM paid for the project with a grant from the U.S. Coast Guard and the Department of Natural Resources oversaw the closure of the wells.

Boisture, along with subcontractor Carl Hanisch and DNR inspector Donald Veatch, conspired to get money from IDEM for work they didn't complete. Environmental Consulting could get additional funds for "out of scope" work, and after Hanisch incurred unexpected out-of-pocket expenses, the three men wrote up reports and invoices claiming to perform work that they could be reimbursed for. After his convictions of mail fraud, Boisture appealed arguing insufficient evidence on one count of mail fraud.

The government relied on false representations in two "Plugging and Abandonment Reports" required by DNR for each well closed to support the mail fraud convictions. The reports were mailed from the Evansville office to the Indianapolis office. At the time of the mailings, Boisture and his co-schemers had already been paid, so he argued the government failed to show the mailings furthered their scheme. He also argued there was insufficient evidence anyone in the scheme knew the reports would be mailed.

Boisture, Hanisch, and Veatch sought to keep their scheme undetected, and the reports tied into and helped complete the scheme as a whole, wrote Judge Ilana Rovner. They needed the invoices and the reports to match so as to not raise suspicion. In addition, the DNR didn't consider the plugging process finished until the completed reports were received and bond released. Although the government's case could have been stronger, the jury could have inferred from the evidence that the two reports amounted to the final step in a broad scheme to dupe IDEM.

The 7th Circuit also rejected Boisture's argument that none of the three men could have foreseen the reports would be mailed. Veatch testified that he knew the final part of the report, the bond release, was completed and stored at the main DNR office in Indianapolis. He also testified that he submitted the reports to the Evansville office; from this, the jury could infer that Veatch could have reasonably foreseen the documents would be mailed. No employee hand delivered the reports and to convict Boisture of mail fraud, the government had to prove he, Veatch or Hanisch could reasonably foresee the documents being mailed, wrote Judge Rovner.

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT