United States v. Pierre, No. 14-2904 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CasePierre and three co-defendants were charged, in the Minnesota district court, with conspiracy to defraud the government, 18 U.S.C. 286, by submitting 1066 false tax returns and claiming undeserved tax refunds of about $6.9 million. They used social security numbers belonging to Florida prisoners on returns and, allegedly, incorporated fictitious businesses in Minnesota, opened bank accounts on behalf of those businesses, and collected tax refunds in those accounts. The indictment also charged Pierre with money laundering, 18 U.S.C. 1957. Before the Minnesota indictment was returned, Pierre and two co-defendants were indicted in Florida. Pierre’s Florida codefendants were not mentioned in the Minnesota indictment. The Florida indictment charged conspiracy to defraud the United States, 18 U.S.C. 286, conspiracy to use unauthorized access devices (section 1029(b)(2)), use of unauthorized access devices (section 1029(a)(2)), and aggravated identity theft (section 1028A(a)(1)). The indictment also charged Pierre with possession of 15 or more unauthorized access devices (i.e., debit cards and social security numbers), 18 U.S.C. 1029(a)(3). A jury convicted Pierre on all counts charged in Florida. Pierre unsuccessfully moved three times to dismiss his Minnesota indictment on double jeopardy grounds. The Eighth Circuit affirmed, holding that the prior conviction did not encompass either the same conspiracy or the money laundering offense charged in Minnesota.
Court Description: Colloton, Author, with Wollman, Circuit Judge, and White, District Judge] Criminal case - Criminal law. Defendant's conviction in Florida district court on a charge that he conspired to defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 286 did not present a Double Jeopardy bar to this Minnesota prosecution on a charge of conspiring to defraud the United States as the Florida case did not encompass either the same conspiracy charged here or the money laundering offense charged in the Minnesota indictment; the conspiracies involved different co-conspirators, occurred at different times, used distinct methodologies and were focused in different states; the substantive count of money laundering also does not place defendant in jeopardy twice as no money laundering was charged in the Florida case; the district court did not abuse its discretion by deciding this double jeopardy issue without a hearing.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.