Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania; January 10, 2017; Federal District Court
On January 26, 2016, a fifty-three count Superseding Indictment was filed against Defendant Renee Tartaglione, charging her with various offenses, including Theft from a Health Care Benefit Program (18 U.S.C. § 669), Theft from a Program Receiving Federal Funds (18 U.S.C. § 666), Mail Fraud (18 U.S.C. §§ 1341, 1349), and Wire Fraud (18 U.S.C. §§ 1343, 1349). Tartaglione contends that some charges are multiplicitous, which would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, and requests that the Court allow prosecution solely on the Theft from a Health Care Benefit Program charge, dismissing the other counts with prejudice.
The Court outlines that from 2007 to 2013, while serving as President of the Board of Directors of Juniata Community Mental Health Clinic (JCMHC), Tartaglione allegedly defrauded the clinic by issuing checks for services not rendered and orchestrating fraudulent payments to co-conspirators. She is accused of directing over $2 million in stolen funds and making illegitimate payments to herself through excessive rent for properties owned by her holding company, Norris Hancock LLC. The Court ultimately finds that the offenses are not multiplicitous, thereby denying Tartaglione's Motion to Dismiss.
Defendant Renee Tartaglione faces multiple charges, including Mail Fraud (Counts 2-13), Wire Fraud (Counts 14-25), Theft from a Health Care Benefit Program (Counts 26-37), and Theft from a Program Receiving Federal Funds in Excess of $10,000 (Counts 38-49). She argues that Counts 26-37 and 38-49 are duplicative, as they rely on identical evidence concerning checks issued from a clinic. Tartaglione claims that the government must elect which charges to pursue before trial, asserting these counts are multiplicitous, which could lead to multiple sentences for a single offense, violating the Double Jeopardy Clause.
Multiplicity refers to charging the same offense in multiple counts, which can result in improper sentencing. The constitutional protection against duplicative punishment aims to limit judicial discretion to legislative intent regarding penalties. When Congress intends for multiple punishments for distinct offenses, it does not conflict with constitutional provisions. Tartaglione cites the legislative history of 18 U.S.C. 669, emphasizing that it should be the sole statute for prosecuting health care fraud, as Congress aimed to strengthen enforcement against such crimes. She contends that charges under 18 U.S.C. 666, as well as Mail and Wire Fraud charges, should be dismissed based on this legislative intent. The House Report highlights the inadequacies of existing federal enforcement tools against health care fraud, leading to the creation of 18 U.S.C. 669 for more effective prosecution.
The House Report does not indicate that the new criminal statute intended to replace existing statutes for addressing health care fraud. The legislative history lacks clarity regarding whether Congress aimed to eliminate the use of 18 U.S.C. §§ 666, 1341, or 1343 alongside 18 U.S.C. § 669 in prosecutions for health care fraud. Given this ambiguity, the Blockburger test is necessary to assess whether offenses are multiplicitous. This test evaluates whether each statute requires proof of a distinct fact that the other does not, despite potential overlap in evidence. The trial court must compare the elements of each charged offense accordingly.
To establish Theft from a Health Care Benefit Program under 18 U.S.C. § 669, the government must prove: (1) the defendant embezzled or misapplied assets, (2) the assets belonged to a qualifying health care benefit program, (3) the defendant acted knowingly and willfully, and (4) the embezzled amount exceeded $100.
For Theft from a Program Receiving Federal Funds exceeding $10,000 under 18 U.S.C. § 666, the government must demonstrate: (1) the defendant was an agent of the organization receiving federal funds, (2) the organization received over $10,000 in federal funds in one year, (3) the defendant embezzled or misapplied property, (4) the property was owned or controlled by the organization, and (5) the property value was at least $5,000.
To establish Mail Fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (Counts 2-13), the Government must demonstrate: 1) the defendant knowingly devised a scheme to defraud using materially false representations, 2) acted with intent to defraud, and 3) used the mails or caused the mails to be used in furtherance of the scheme. In contrast, to prove Wire Fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Counts 14-25), the Government must show: 1) the defendant's knowing and willful participation in a scheme to defraud, 2) specific intent to defraud, and 3) the use of interstate wire communications to advance the scheme. Each offense includes unique elements; specifically, Theft from a Health Care Benefit Program under 18 U.S.C. § 669 requires proof that the program qualifies as a "health care benefit program" and that it affected interstate commerce. Additionally, Theft from a Program Receiving Federal Funds in Excess of $10,000 under 18 U.S.C. § 666 necessitates proving the receipt of over $10,000 in federal funds within a year and the defendant’s status as an agent of the organization at the time of the alleged theft, alongside a minimum value of $5,000 for the property involved. The elements of Mail and Wire Fraud, which require the use of mails and interstate wire communications respectively, are not present in either theft offense. Consequently, under the Blockburger test, these offenses are not multiplicitous, allowing the Government to proceed with all charges without electing which to try. The defendant's Motion to Dismiss Multiplicitous Counts of the Superseding Indictment is therefore denied.
18 U.S.C. § 669 criminalizes the embezzlement, theft, or unauthorized conversion of assets from health care benefit programs, imposing penalties of fines or imprisonment for up to 10 years. If the value involved is $100 or less, penalties are reduced to a maximum of one year. The statute defines "health care benefit program" broadly, encompassing any public or private plan providing medical benefits and entities involved in such provision. The Third Circuit, in United States v. Whited, clarified that the statute was intended to target theft affecting interstate commerce, aligning it with Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause.
Additionally, 18 U.S.C. § 666 addresses the embezzlement and corruption involving agents of organizations or government entities. It prohibits the misappropriation of property valued at $5,000 or more and outlines penalties similar to those in § 669, including fines and imprisonment for up to 10 years. The section also criminalizes corrupt solicitation or acceptance of value with the intent to influence or reward actions related to the organization or government agency involved.
An organization or government agency is considered to receive benefits exceeding $10,000 in a year under federal assistance programs, including grants and loans. This provision excludes standard salary and business expense reimbursements. Key definitions include: "agent" as anyone authorized to act for another, "government agency" as any governmental subdivision or entity, "local" referring to a political subdivision within a state, and "State" encompassing all U.S. states and territories. The term "in any one-year period" refers to a timeframe starting no earlier than twelve months before and ending no later than twelve months after an offense.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 1341, individuals devising schemes to defraud through mail or commercial carrier face fines or imprisonment, with harsher penalties if linked to federally declared disasters or financial institutions. Similarly, 18 U.S.C. § 1343 addresses wire fraud, imposing similar penalties. The Superseding Indictment alleges that Defendant Renee Tartaglione conspired to commit mail and wire fraud and violated 18 U.S.C. §§ 666 and 669. Under 18 U.S.C. § 1349, conspiracy to commit these offenses carries the same penalties as the offenses themselves, and the defense does not argue that conspiracy charges are multiplicitous.
