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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT