throbber
Case 1:17-cr-00047-DLC Document 125 Filed 07/12/17 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`17cr47 (DLC)
`
`MEMORANDUM
`OPINION & ORDER
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`------------------------------------- X
`
`
`:
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
`:
`
`:
`-v-
`:
`
`:
`MAHMOUD THIAM,
`:
`
`:
`Defendant.
`:
`
`:
`
`------------------------------------- X
`
`APPEARANCES
`
`For the Government:
`Elisha Kobre
`Christopher J. DiMase
`Assistant United States Attorneys
`Joon H. Kim
`Acting United States Attorney
`for the Southern District of New York
`One St. Andrew’s Plaza
`New York, NY 10007
`
`Lorinda Laryea
`Trial Attorney
`Sandra Moser
`Acting Chief, Criminal Division, Fraud Section
`United States Department of Justice
`1400 New York Ave., N.W.
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`For the defendant:
`Aaron M. Goldsmith
`Law Office of Aaron M. Goldsmith, P.C.
`225 Broadway, Suite 715
`New York, NY 10007
`
`DENISE COTE, District Judge:
`
`
`Mahmoud Thiam (“Thiam”) is the former Minister of Mines and
`Geology in Guinea. On January 18, 2017, a grand jury returned a
`two-count Indictment against Thiam. Count One charged that
`between 2009 and August 2011, Thiam engaged in a monetary
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cr-00047-DLC Document 125 Filed 07/12/17 Page 2 of 4
`
`transaction in criminally derived property in excess of $10,000
`in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1957. Count Two charged that Thiam
`engaged in money laundering in November of 2010 in violation of
`18 U.S.C. § 1956. Trial began on April 24, 2017. On May 3, the
`jury returned a guilty verdict as to both counts. Thiam now
`moves for a new trial pursuant to Rule 33, Fed. R. Crim. P. For
`the reasons set forth below, Thiam’s motion is denied.
`Rule 33 authorizes a district court to grant a new trial “if
`the interest of justice so requires.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a). A
`motion for a new trial may be granted only “sparingly and in the
`most extraordinary circumstances.” United States v. Ulbricht,
`858 F.3d 71, 112 (2d Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). The motion
`should not be granted “unless the trial court is convinced that
`the jury has reached a seriously erroneous result or that the
`verdict is a miscarriage of justice.” Townsend v. Benjamin
`Enterprises, Inc., 679 F.3d 41, 51 (2d Cir. 2012).
`Thiam argues that the evidence presented at trial was
`insufficient for a reasonable jury to convict him, because the
`Government failed to prove that the funds deposited into Thiam’s
`account were intended as a bribe. Under Guinean law, a bribe is
`the receipt of a thing of value in return for engaging in an act
`or refraining from engaging in an act within the scope of his
`duties as the Minister of Mines. The federal charges were
`premised on Thiam’s violation of Guinean bribery laws. Thiam
`argues that the evidence was insufficient because there was no
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cr-00047-DLC Document 125 Filed 07/12/17 Page 3 of 4
`
`direct evidence that the payments were a bribe, and not enough
`circumstantial evidence for such a conclusion to be anything but
`speculation.
`The evidence presented at trial was sufficient for the jury
`to find that Thiam received a bribe. The Government’s theory was
`that executives of a Chinese conglomerate paid Thiam $8.5 million
`in exchange for the use of his position as Guinea’s Minister of
`Mines to promote the award of valuable mining rights to the
`Chinese conglomerate. The final agreement between Guinea and the
`Chinese conglomerate executed in connection with the transfer of
`the mining rights was an October 10, 2009 Shareholders Agreement.
`The evidence presented at trial included: (1) the timing of the
`payments, including a $3 million payment two weeks before the
`Shareholders Agreement was signed, into an account Thiam opened
`in the same building as the Chinese conglomerate; (2) Thiam’s
`false statements to the Hong Kong bank that he was employed as a
`“consultant” with an income of $200,00 per year and his failure
`to disclose his status as a public official in Guinea; (3)
`Thiam’s attempted concealment of the source of the deposits into
`the Hong Kong account, which were funneled from the accounts of
`executives of the Chinese conglomerate; (4) Thiam’s false
`statements to two banks in the United States regarding the source
`of the money -- that the money was variously income from past
`business transactions, savings from past employment, or proceeds
`from the sale of land in Africa -- and his failure to disclose
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:17-cr-00047-DLC Document 125 Filed 07/12/17 Page 4 of 4
`
`his status as a public official in Guinea; (5) Thiam’s statement
`to law enforcement that the money was an interest-free personal
`loan from an executive of the Chinese conglomerate; (6) Thiam’s
`testimony at trial that the money was an interest-free loan from
`the executive that he never repaid; and (7) Thiam’s consciousness
`of guilt, evidenced by his joking with an executive of the
`Chinese conglomerate about getting “locked up.”
`This evidence is sufficient for a reasonable jury to
`conclude that the payments from the Chinese conglomerate to Thiam
`were a bribe. Accordingly, the jury did not reach a “seriously
`erroneous result,” nor do the interests of justice require a new
`trial. Thiam’s motion pursuant to Rule 33, Fed. R. Crim. P., is
`denied.
`Dated:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`_________________________________
`
`
`DENISE COTE
` United States District Judge
`
`New York, New York
`July 11, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket