Case 1:16-cr-00156-VEC Document 65 Filed 07/28/17 Page 1 of 6
`
`USDC SDNY
`DOCUMENT
`ELECTRONICALLY FILED
`DOC #:
`
`
`
`DATE FILED:
`
`
`7/28/2017
`
`S1 16-CR-156 (VEC)
`
`OPINION & ORDER
`
`X::::::::
`
`:
`
`:X
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`------------------------------------------------------------
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`
` -against-
`
`ROXANNA INSAIDOO,
`a/k/a “Roxanna Pearson,”
`
` Defendants.
`------------------------------------------------------------
`
`VALERIE CAPRONI, United States District Judge:
`
`
`
`Following a five day trial, Defendant Rosanna Insaidoo a/k/a Roxanna Pearson (“Ms.
`
`Insaidoo”) was convicted of: conspiracy to commit embezzlement, in violation of
`
`18 U.S.C. § 371; embezzlement, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 666(a)(1)(a); conspiracy to launder
`
`money, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956(h); conspiracy to commit mortgage fraud, in violation of
`
`18 U.S.C. § 1349; and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343. Ms. Insaidoo moves for a
`
`judgment of acquittal as to her convictions for embezzlement, embezzlement conspiracy, and
`
`money laundering conspiracy. Alternatively, Ms. Insaidoo moves for a new trial. For the
`
`following reasons, the motion is DENIED.
`
`Rule 29 Motion
`
`
`
`Ms. Insaidoo moves for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal
`
`Procedure 29, asserting that there was insufficient evidence to support the jury’s conclusion that
`
`she had the requisite knowledge necessary to support her conviction for embezzlement,
`
`embezzlement conspiracy, and money laundering conspiracy. Ms. Insaidoo argues that even
`
`when viewed in the light most favorable to the Government, the evidence “gives nearly equal
`
`circumstantial support to a theory of guilt and a theory of innocence, and a rational juror would
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cr-00156-VEC Document 65 Filed 07/28/17 Page 2 of 6
`
`have . . . entertained a reasonable doubt in this case.” Defendant Roxanna Insaidoo’s
`
`Memorandum of Law in Support of Her Motions for a Judgment of Acquittal or a New Trial
`
`Pursuant to Rules 29 & 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure (“Mem.”) 3, Dkt. 47.
`
`Essentially, Ms. Insaidoo urges that she was a “dupe” that “trust[ed] that [Mr.] Insaidoo would
`
`properly attend to” the affairs of United Block Association (“UBA”), a non-profit that ran four
`
`senior centers and that received federal funds. Mem. 12. The Government responds that the
`
`evidence at trial was more than sufficient to sustain Ms. Insaidoo’s guilty convictions.
`
`A defendant challenging the sufficiency of the evidence pursuant to Rule 29 “bears a
`
`heavy burden.” United States v. Vilar, 729 F.3d 62, 91 (2d Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v.
`
`Coplan, 703 F.3d 46, 62 (2d Cir. 2012). A conviction must be upheld if “any rational trier of
`
`fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id.
`
`(quoting Coplan, 703 F.3d at 62). A judgment of acquittal is warranted “only if the evidence
`
`that the defendant committed the crime alleged is nonexistent or so meager that no reasonable
`
`jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Jiau, 734 F.3d 147, 152 (2d
`
`Cir. 2013) (quoting United States v. Espaillet, 380 F.3d 713, 718 (2d Cir. 2004)).
`
`In considering the sufficiency of the evidence, the Court must view the evidence “in its
`
`totality, not in isolation,” United States v. Autuori, 212 F.3d 105, 114 (2d Cir. 2000), and “in the
`
`light most favorable to the Government,” United States v. George, 779 F.3d 113, 115 (2d Cir.
`
`2015). All inferences and issues of credibility must be resolved in favor of the Government, and
`
`a guilty verdict may be based entirely on circumstantial evidence. United States v. Zayac, 765
`
`F.3d 112, 117 (2d Cir. 2014). In general, “the court must be careful to avoid usurping the role of
`
`the jury.” United States v. Guadagna, 183 F.3d 122, 129 (2d Cir. 1999).
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cr-00156-VEC Document 65 Filed 07/28/17 Page 3 of 6
`
`
`
`In this case, the jury could reasonably find that Ms. Insaidoo had the requisite knowledge
`
`to sustain her convictions for embezzlement and embezzlement conspiracy. The evidence at trial
`
`demonstrated that Ms. Insaidoo received more than $195,000 from UBA, even though she
`
`worked very few hours at UBA as a “health consultant.” Moreover, the evidence demonstrated
`
`that she continued to be paid when she was out of the country and obviously unable to provide
`
`health services to UBA’s clientele. The jury could reasonably find, based on the totality of the
`
`evidence, that Ms. Insaidoo knew that most of the money she received from UBA was not
`
`legitimate compensation but instead had been embezzled.
`
`
`
`In addition, the jury could reasonably find that Allied Home Care (“Allied”) was a
`
`“charity” jointly owned by Mr. and Ms. Insaidoo and that Ms. Insaidoo knew that the money
`
`going into the Allied bank account had been stolen from UBA. The evidence at trial
`
`demonstrated, among other things, that: Ms. Insaidoo controlled and was a signatory on the
`
`Allied bank account; she was a signatory on and wrote checks from one of UBA’s bank accounts
`
`(the “0230 Board Account”) to Allied; Allied received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the
`
`0230 Board Account; and Ms. Insaidoo signed checks from the Allied account for her personal
`
`expenses. Ms. Insaidoo even concedes that the evidence established that Ms. Insaidoo “was a
`
`signatory on the 0230 [Board Account] and numerous checks paid to Allied Home Care had her
`
`signature on them” and that she “received checks payable to . . . herself [that] were cashed.”
`
`Mem. 7-8. Although Ms. Insaidoo did not sign all of the checks, and although the evidence
`
`against her was circumstantial, there was sufficient evidence for a jury to reasonably find that,
`
`far from being a “dupe,” Ms. Insaidoo knew that the hundreds of thousands of dollars being
`
`funneled into Allied had been stolen from UBA.
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cr-00156-VEC Document 65 Filed 07/28/17 Page 4 of 6
`
`Relative to her conviction for money laundering conspiracy, the evidence at trial
`
`demonstrated that the embezzled UBA funds were transferred in and out of the 0230 Board
`
`Account and from that account to the Allied bank account before being spent or sent to a foreign
`
`bank in Ghana. Because a reasonable jury could find that Ms. Insaidoo knew that the money had
`
`been stolen from UBA and that Ms. Insaidoo nevertheless agreed to help move the stolen money
`
`through the Allied account, the jury could reasonably find that Ms. Insaidoo had the requisite
`
`mens rea for money laundering conspiracy.
`
`In sum, there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude that Ms. Insaidoo
`
`knowingly committed the crimes of embezzlement, embezzlement conspiracy, and money
`
`laundering conspiracy. Therefore, Ms. Insaidoo’s Rule 29 motion for a judgment of acquittal is
`
`DENIED.
`
`Rule 33 Motion
`
`Ms. Insaidoo also moves for a new trial pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure
`
`33, arguing that the jury’s verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The Government,
`
`again, argues that the evidence was more than sufficient to support her convictions. The Court
`
`agrees with the Government.
`
`Pursuant to Rule 33, the Court may grant a new trial “if the interest of justice so
`
`requires.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 33. But motions for new trials are granted in only “the most
`
`extraordinary circumstances,” and only if the court finds “a real concern that an innocent person
`
`may have been convicted.” United States v. Sanchez, 969 F.2d 1409, 1414 (2d Cir. 1992). If the
`
`Court is satisfied that “competent, satisfactory and sufficient evidence” in the record supports the
`
`guilty verdict, then the motion for new trial must be denied. Id.
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cr-00156-VEC Document 65 Filed 07/28/17 Page 5 of 6
`
`Ms. Insaidoo argues that a new trial is required because the jury considered against Ms.
`
`Insaidoo “spillover evidence that should have been limited” to Mr. Insaidoo and that evidence
`
`“so prejudiced Mrs. Insaidoo as to deprive her of a fair trial.” Mem. 3. Ms. Insaidoo, however,
`
`does not specify what evidence was prejudicial “spillover evidence” that was not properly
`
`admissible against her. In the context of an indictment that charged both defendants with
`
`multiple conspiracies, it is not obvious what evidence would have been admissible against only
`
`one of the conspirators.
`
`
`
`Ms. Insaidoo repeats her arguments that she lacked knowledge of Mr. Insaidoo’s conduct,
`
`again arguing that “so much of the evidence in this case had nothing to [do] with her and
`
`everything to do with her husband.” Mem. 14-15. But there was more than sufficient evidence
`
`to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Ms. Insaidoo was guilty of embezzlement,
`
`embezzlement conspiracy, and money laundering conspiracy. As discussed supra, a jury could
`
`reasonably find, among other things, that she knew (or consciously avoided knowing) that the
`
`funds that were deposited into the Allied account had been stolen from UBA, that she personally
`
`benefitted from the stolen funds, and that those stolen funds were laundered through the 0230
`
`Board Account and Allied’s accounts before being spent or sent overseas and that she agreed
`
`with her husband to misuse UBA’s money in that way. Therefore, there was sufficient evidence
`
`at trial to convict Ms. Insaidoo of embezzlement, embezzlement conspiracy, and money
`
`laundering conspiracy, and the Court finds no manifest injustice in the jury’s verdict.
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 1:16-cr-00156-VEC Document 65 Filed 07/28/17 Page 6 of 6
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Ms. Insaidoo’s motion for judgment of acquittal or, in the
`
`alternative, for a new trial is DENIED. The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate
`
`Docket Entry No. 47.
`
`SO ORDERED.
`
`Dated: July 28, 2017
`
`New York, NY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_____________________________________ _____
`___________________________
`VALERIE CAPRONI
`VALERIE CAPRONI
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`6
`
`