`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`