Georgia Criminal Defense Lawyers Blog
This month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Kousisis v. United States, a case that could have significant implications on the future of federal white-collar prosecutions. Specifically, the Court is considering the boundaries of federal fraud statutes in scenarios where deceptive practices are employed without causing direct financial harm to the victim.
Kousisis comes before the Court after a Philadelphia-area government contractor was found guilty of fraud after it failed to comply with a contract provision intended to promote diversity. Stamatios Kousisis and Alpha Painting and Construction Co., Inc. (Alpha) secured two substantial contracts with the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PennDOT). These contracts mandated a certain percentage of work to be allocated to Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBEs). Kousisis and his company misrepresented their compliance with this requirement by using a DBE as a mere pass-through entity, thereby falsely claiming adherence to the DBE participation goals. Despite this deception, the contracted work was completed to PennDOT’s satisfaction, and no direct financial loss was incurred by the department.
Federal prosecutors charged Kousisis and Alpha with wire fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and making false statements. The prosecution’s argument was based on the “fraudulent inducement” theory, suggesting that the defendants obtained the contracts through deceptive promises, even though PennDOT did not suffer a financial loss. Ultimately, Kousisis was sentenced to 70 months’ imprisonment for the multi-million dollar fraud he perpetrated following a jury trial in 2018.
However, the defense has argued that for a fraud conviction, there must be an intent to cause economic harm, which they claim was absent in this case. During oral arguments, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson posed the question, “Why isn’t this a classic scheme to obtain property under false pretenses?” For years in federal white-collar cases, the “scheme” itself has always been recognized as the “harm” that triggers application of the federal fraud statutes. Despite that precedent, defense argued: “If there’s no harm that occurs in those transactions, there is no fraud.”
It seems that conservative justices were receptive to the defendant’s argument. Chief Justice John Roberts suggested that “such crimes were better handled by state prosecutors.” Justice Samuel Alito expressed that “the court really doesn’t like the federalization of white-collar prosecutions and wants that to be done in state court and is really hostile to this whole enterprise.”
The outcome of Kousisis v. United States holds the potential to redefine the scope of federal white-collar prosecutions. A decision favoring the defendants could lead to a substantial shift in prosecutorial responsibilities from federal to state authorities. A ruling that limits federal jurisdiction in such cases would compel companies to adapt by focusing more on state-level compliance and legal frameworks. Engaging with experienced legal counsel will be essential for businesses to remain compliant and mitigate risks in this evolving legal landscape.