Reksid, who is being represented by attorney Mark Hanson, contends that all of the wire fraud counts should be dismissed because “there is no evidence that the use of the wires was ‘in furtherance of the scheme.’ ”
The judge said: “The wires were used only to dispose of the money. Any fraud allegedly committed ended once [Reksid] was in possession of the monies. In other words, once [Reksid] received the funds, the scheme (if any) was already complete. The fact that he may have later sent the money to third parties in Africa is of no consequence with regard to the scheme itself.”
Ponsor added: “To establish the crime of wire fraud, a wire must be sufficiently close to the scheme, meaning it must be for the purpose of executing the scheme or ‘incidental to essential part’ of it.”
But Ponsor said the court also “recognized that there was an important factual distinction between counts two through six, and counts seven and eight.”
The judge said “as previously noted, counts seven and eight allege that one of the defendant’s victims herself wired the funds at the defendant’s direction. Accordingly, the government might have been able to present sufficient evidence that the defendant caused the wire transfer via a third party for the purpose of executing the scheme of fraud. For this reason the court found that these two charges survived the defendant’s motion to dismiss.”
On Monday, Sept. 12, the court ruled in favor of the defense motion to dismiss counts two through six with prejudice but denied the motion to dismiss counts seven and eight.
Later on same day, Assistant U.S. Attorney Eric S. O’Malley filed a request for leave to dismiss counts seven and eight without prejudice, which the court granted.
Reksid will be tried next week on the charge of bribery concerning a program receiving federal funds.
