FEDERAL JUDGE REFUSES TO GIVE NEW TRIAL TO CONVICTED CHECK CASHER, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT PONZI SCHEMER WITNESS LIED ON THE STAND

The US Government apparently, at times, uses Ponzi schemers to make other cases. Juan Rene Caro*, whose money service business, La Bamba Check Cashers, illegally assisted construction companies in evading payroll and social Security taxes, and mandatory insurance, through the adroit use of shell companies, is currently serving eighteen years in Federal Prison, for CTR violations involving $132m.The construction companies paid their illegal alien workers. through checks payable to shell companies, which Caro's company cashed, thereby evading Federal tax withholding, and insurance payments, on the laborers. Caro's conviction was affirmed on appeal.

 His attorney then asked for a new trial. The grounds: one of the principal witnesses against him at trial lied on the stand. Who was this person ? master Ponzi schemer Nevin Shapiro, now serving his own prison term of twenty years, on charges that include money laundering, for his $930m operation.

Caro's attorney moved for a new trial, based upon these grounds:

(1) Shapiro, who borrowed money from Caro to repay illegal gambling debts, committed perjury at Caro's trial, when he testified that he was in the grocery brokerage business, when in truth and in fact, he was running a Ponzi scheme. Shapiro currently owes $82m, as and for Restitution.

(2) Shapiro was actually under Federal investigation in New Jersey, for his Ponzi scheme activities. the US Attorney in Miami denied that his office knew about the New Jersey investigation, and therefore did not disclose it to Cano's attorney, in violation of Brady** and possibly Giglio***.

The Court denied the motion, even though the Ponzi schemer advised the court, in a letter, that he had committed perjury.

_____________________________________________________________________________
*Case No.: 08-cr-20444 (SD FLA).
** The prosecutor is obligated to disclose, to the defense, any information that might affect the credibility of a witness, or be favorable to the accused. Brady vs. Maryland.

*** The prosecutor is required to disclose, to the defense, any information about arrangements, with the witness, involving immunity, or other similar favorable treatment, to be received in exchange for his testimony. Giglio vs. United States. Did Shapiro derive a benefit from his testimony ?