United States v. Knight, No. 14-2651 (8th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this CaseKnight is a licensed attorney, and the charges against him stem from his representation of a Barber in a bankruptcy proceeding, in 2008-2010. Knight was convicted of conspiracy to commit bankruptcy fraud, 18 U.S.C. 371 and 157; aiding and abetting bankruptcy fraud; aiding and abetting the making of a false statement in relation to a bankruptcy case; and five counts of aiding and abetting money laundering, 18 U.S.C. 1957 and 2. The district court granted Knight a new trial on the conspiracy, bankruptcy fraud, and money laundering counts, granted his motion for judgment of acquittal on the false statement count, and conditionally granted him a new trial on the false statement count in the event of reversal on appeal. The Eighth Circuit reversed the acquittal on the false statement charge, but affirmed the decision to grant Knight a new trial on all counts of conviction, noting evidence that Knight and Barber used the IOLTA to keep Barber's creditors from learning that he had money available and evidence concerning a sham entity that was used to divert money to Barber's own pocket.
Court Description: Beam, Author, with Gruender and Benton, Circuit Judges] Criminal case - Criminal law. The district court erred in granting defendant's motion for a judgment of acquittal on the charge of aiding and abetting the making of a false statement in relation to a bankruptcy case in violation of 18 U.S.C. Sections 152(3) and 2; while the court erred in granting a judgment of acquittal on this count, it did not err in granting defendant a new trial on the count based on the ground that the false statement instruction was erroneous; the court did not err in granting defendant a new trial on the conspiracy, bankruptcy fraud and money laundering counts based upon the weight of the evidence. Judge Gruender, concurring in part and dissenting in part. Home | Contact Us | Employment | Glossary of Legal Terms | Site Map | RSS Privacy Policy|BrowseAloud
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.