United States v. Kenner

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Joseph F. Bianco, District Judge: On July 9, 2015, following a nine-week trial, a jury convicted -defendant Phillip Kenner (“Kenner”) of one count of conspiring to commit,wire-fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (Count One of the superseding indictment); four counts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2 (Counts Two, Three, Four, - and Seven); and one count 'of conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1956 (h) (Count Nine). 1 (ECF No. 324.) In addition, the jury convicted defendant Tommy C. Constantine (“Constantine,” and together with Kenner, “defendants”) of one count of conspiring to commit, wire fraud (Count One); .five counts of wire fraud (Counts Two. through Six); and one count of conspiracy to commit money laundering (Count Nine). Now pending before the- Court is (1) Constantine’s motion for a judgment of acquittal as to all counts or, in the alternative, for. a new trial (ECF No. 346); and (2) Kenner’s motion for a new trial (ECF No. 416). For the reasons set forth below, the Court denies both motions.

First, with respect to his motion for a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Pro-cédure, Constantine argues that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of either conspiracy charge because the government did not prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Constantine was a participant in any of three conspiracy objects — namely, defrauding investors in (1) a Hawaii land development project (“the Hawaii Project”); (2) Eufora LLC (“Eu-fora”), a prepaid credit card company run by Constantine; and (3) a fund for litigation against developer Ken Jowdy (“Jow-dy”) (the “Global Settlement Fund” or “GSF”). In addition, Constantine contends that there was no evidence connecting him with the wire transfers charged in Counts Two through Four of the superseding indictment, and he asserts that the Court should acquit him of the wire fraud charges in Counts Five and Six because the jury acquitted Kenner of those crimes and the evidence at trial showed that Constantine attempted to return the money at issue.

The Court finds all of these arguments unpersuasive. As set forth in greater detail below, the witness testimony and documentary evidence adduced at trial sufficiently established that Constantine agreed with Kenner to participate in all of the objectives of the conspiracy. In particular, bank records show that both defendants routinely diverted third-party funds intended to finance the Hawaii Project, Eufora, and the GSF to pay for undisclosed personal expenditures, such as — in Constantine’s case — race cars, rent, and lawsuits unrelated to those investments. Although Constantine argues, with respect to the Hawaii Project and Eufora, that he did not directly solicit money from the victims of those schemes, a reasonable juror could find — after viewing the record in a light most favorable to the government and drawing all inferences in its favor— that Constantine’s conversion of the proceeds from those endeavors, coupled with evidence that defendants attempted to conceal their fraud, proved beyond a reasonable doubt that • Constantine knowingly participated in those objectives of the conspiracy.

As for the Global Settlement Fund, Constantine contends that the alleged victims authorized all of the contested payments and that a defense witness testified that he permitted Constantine to use his GSF contributions for Constantine’s personal expenses. However, although there was evidence at trial that the Global Settlement Fund’s purposive ambit was broad and encompassed goals beyond financing litigation against Jowdy, none of the government’s witnesses testified that they approved using the GSF for defendants’ individual gain. Moreover, financial statements show that Constantine’s personal expenditures from the GSF exceeded the defense witness’s investments.

With respect to the wire fraud convictions, Counts Two through Four of the superseding indictment involved money transfers between Kenner and third parties. However, although Constantine did not directly participate in those transactions, a rational juror could find that he was culpable as a co-conspirator based on evidence that (1) the funds came from Eufora investments, and (2) they were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of Constantine and Kenner’s unlawful agreement to convert Eufora funds to their personal benefit.

Counts Five and Six also pertain to a Eufora investment, and insofar as Constantine argues that he is entitled to a judgment of acquittal based on the jury’s determination that Kenner was not guilty on those charges, an inconsistent verdict for two co-defendants does not provide grounds for Rule 29 relief. Further, a rational juror could conclude that Constantine had the requisite intent to defraud based on evidence that (1) he subsequently used the underlying funds for an undisclosed personal expenditure, and (2) the investor who wired that money never received the Eufora equity that Constantine had promised him. Constantine’s contention that he subsequently attempted to return that investment is not a basis for Rule 29 relief because it is well-established Second Circuit case law that, for federal wire fraud charges, scienter is measured at the time of the transaction, and the crime is complete once the fraudulent communication has been sent. Although a juror can consider later actions- to determine intent at the time of- the transaction, a rational juror could certainly have concluded that Constantine had the intent to defraud at the time of the investment at issue and only offered to return the money once the fraud was disclosed.

Accordingly, the Court denies Constantine’s Rule 29 motion in its entirety because the government proved his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as to all charges.

Second, Constantine also moves, in the alternative, for a new trial pursuant 'to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 on the grounds of jury confusion and newly-discovered evidence. 2

Constantine argues that the Court should have provided the jury with a special verdict form that would have required them to specify which of the three conspiracy objects provided the basis for Constantine’s conviction. However, Constantine waived this argument at trial because he affirmatively withdrew his request for special interrogatories. In addition, assuming arguendo that he had not forfeited'that claim, there was no error — much less plain error — by the Court because Supreme Court and Second Circuit precedent make clear that a special verdict form is not required in a multi-object conspiracy prosecution. Moreover, the newly-discovered evidence proffered by Constantine does not warrant Rule 33 relief because it existed prior to the trial, and Constantine could have discovered it with due diligence. In any event, it is highly improbable that use of those materials at trial ’would have affected the jury’s verdict. Thus, Constantine’s Rule 33 motion is also denied.

Third, Kenner separately moves for a new trial under Rule 33, asserting that (1) the government withheld exculpatory evidence; (2) there is newly-discovered evidence; ■ and (3) the government committed prosecutorial misconduct. All of these arguments lack merit.

There was no violation of Kenner’s due process rights under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963), because all of the materials at issue were disclosed to Kenner, are cumulative of impeachment evidence that was introduced at trial, or were not in the government’s possession prior to trial. Further, there is no likelihood that any of those records would have altered the jury’s findings of guilt.

In addition, the newly-discovered evidence encompasses financial documents that Kenner obtained via subpoena during the trial and that he introduced as evidence during his own testimony. Thus, they were fully available to the jury. The remaining documents were either in Ken-ner’s possession or could have been discovered with due diligence before trial, and to the extent he did not have those records, introducing them as evidence would not have led to acquittal given the government’s substantial proof of guilt.

Kenner also alleges that the government made inappropriate statements during its cross-examination of him and during its rebuttal summation, and he asserts that the government suborned perjury from several of its witnesses. However, the contested remarks were not so egregious as to deprive Kenner of a fair' trial, the Court minimized any prejudice by sustaining contemporaneous objections and properly instructing the jury that questions and summations by counsel do not constitute evidence, and it is unlikely that the verdict would have been different, absent those remarks. Further, Kenner’s perjury claims merely reiterate the same credibility issues that his counsel vigorously explored at trial on cross-examination of the government’s witnesses and during his opening statement and summation. Kenner also testified in great detail as to these issues during the defense case. Therefore, any purported perjury was fully considered by the jury, which — after nine weeks of testimony and the introduction of more than 1,000 exhibits — had ample opportunity to fully evaluate the veracity of each witness in this case, including Kenner.

Finally, with respect to both Constantine’s and Kenner’s Rule 33 motions, the Court concludes, in its discretion, that a new trial is not warranted because there is no real possibility that an innocent person has been convicted.

[[Image here]]

Thus, for these reasons and those that follow, and after careful consideration of the parties' submissions, contentions at oral argument, and the extensive trial record, the Court denies defendants’ motions in their entirety.

I. Background

A. The Trial Evidence

As noted, the trial in this action lasted approximately nine weeks, and the evidence consisted of testimony from over 40 witnesses and more than 1,000 exhibits. In light of this voluminous record, the Court will limit its factual summary to the evidence that is relevant to the instant motions.

In brief, the government advanced three theories of fraud at trial pertaining to the Hawaii Project, Eufora, and the Global Settlement Fund.- With respect to the Hawaii Project, the government introduced evidence demonstrating that Kenner defrauded several professional hockey players who were clients of his. Those witnesses testified. that they contributed money to that endeavor based on Kenner’s representations that their investments would finance a real estate development in Hawaii; however, Kenner subsequently diverted his clients’ money — without their authorization — to another property development in Mexico that involved Jowdy. In addition,-. witnesses testified that Kenner used several lines of credit in their name to divert money in an unauthorized manner, and when Kenner failed to make interest payments, those accounts were closed, and his clients lost the collateral used to, secure those lines of credit. Further, and unbeknownst to Kenner’s clients, bank records introduced at trial showed that Constantine received money intended for the Hawaii Project. The government also adduced evidence of forged consulting agreements that purportedly justified those payments, as well as an audio recording of a conversation between Ken-ner and Constantine indicating that they colluded to conceal their fraud.

Similarly, with respect to Eufora objective, the government demonstrated at trial that Kenner solicited funds from several investors who believed that their money would be used to finance that company. Howeyer, bank records and testimony indicated.that Constantine converted those investments to cover his personal expenses, such as legal fees, without the investors’ authorization. Specifically,'the government showed at trial that the transactions underlying the wire fraud,charges in Counts Two through Six of the superseding indictment were derived from Eufora investments, and that Kenner and Constantine used that money for unapproved expenditures. Contemporaneous text messages between Kenner and Constantine from the relevant period also evinced an agreement by defendants to use Eufora money for their personal benefit.

Finally, several government. witnesses testified at trial that Kenner and Constantine convinced them to invest in the Global Settlement Fund because they believed that their contributions would principally finance litigation against Jowdy. However, bank records and testimony again demonstrated that both defendants used GSF funds for personal expenses. In particular, the evidence showed that Constantine paid his rent, various legal expenses, and for automotive work with money from the GSF. 3

1. Defendants’ Background

Kenner was a financial advisor to several investors, including professional hockey players. (See, e.g., Tr. 4 at 130, 2913-14.) He attended Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (“RPI”) for college, where he roomed and played hockey with government witness Joe Juneau (“Juneau”). (Id. at 124-26.)

Constantine was the founder and Chief Executive Officer of Eufora, a prepaid credit card company. (See, e.g., Government Exhibit (“GX”)-8021-R.) Constantine was also a professional race car driver. (See, e.g., id.; Tr. at 3667.) He and Kenner were longtime business partners, since at least 2002, when, they both held positions as officers of Eufora. (Defs.’ Exh. C-265.)

2. Relevant Witness Testimony and Other,Evidence

a. The Government’s Case

i. Joe Juneau

1. Direct Testimony

On direct examination, Juneau testified that, after graduating from RPI, he joined the National Hockey League (“NHL”) in ,1992. (Tr. at 124, 127.) Juneau introduced Kenner to Derek Sanderson, an NHL connection of his who worked at Boston Capital, a financial firm, and Kenner was hired to work at Boston Capital. (Id. at 128-29.) Juneau testified that Kenner then went on to work at other .financial investment companies and eventually started his own company, Standard Advisors, in 2002. (Id. at 132-33.)

Kenner served as Juneau’s financial adviser from 1994 through 2007 or 2008. (Id. at 130.) Juneau testified that, during this period, Kenner often sent him faxes of investment-related documents to sign that only contained the signature page. (Id. at 141-42.) Juneau also said that Kenner did not send him regular summaries of the status of Juneau’s various investments. (Id. at 142-43.) In or around 2002 or 2003, Kenner spoke with Juneau about investing in the Hawaii Project. (Id. at 137-38). A May 2005 exchange between Kenner and Juneau indicated that Juneau had invested $100,000 in that enterprise. (Id. at 145-46; GX-728.) In or around 2006, Kenner informed Juneau of the need to renew a line of credit with Northern Trust Bank (“Northern Trust”). (Tr. at 139.) However, despite being presented at trial with a Northern Trust document dated December 18, 2003 appearing to contain his signature and indicating that Juneau had agreed to open a line of credit with Northern Trust, Juneau testified that he could not recall ever authorizing that account. (Id. at 139-JO; GX-2152.) Juneau sent Kenner an email asking why the Northern Trust renewal document indicated that he had a $750,000 line of credit when Juneau was under the impression that his Hawaii Project investment was valued at $100,000. (Tr. at 162-67; GX-733.) Juneau said that he never authorized Kenner to invest more than $100,000 in the Hawaii Project on his behalf. (Tr. at 170-71.) Juneau further testified that he never received any return on his investment in the Hawaii Project. (Id. at 22-24.)

2. Cross-Examination

On cross-examination, Juneau testified that he had lost money on other investments. (Id. at 231-36.) He also testified that he could not remember whether he told investigators from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (“FBI”) about the Northern Trust line of credit when he met with them in 2009. (Id. 245-46.) Juneau further said that Kenner never prohibited him from contacting Northern Trust and that Juneau did in fact speak with a bank official named Aaron Mascarella (“Mascarel-la”) to inquire about the credit line. (Id. at 251-52; Defs.’ Exh. Kenner-3.) In addition, Juneau said that he had received an e-mail from Mascarella confirming that the Northern Trust line of credit had been paid off, and he also testified that he had signed a form authorizing the line of credit. (Tr. at 253-55; Defs.’ Exhs. Kenner-3 and Kenner-2152.) However, notwithstanding that repayment, Juneau said that he terminated his relationship with Kenner in or around the summer of 2005 because Kenner was unresponsive to Juneau’s attempts to communicate with him, and Juneau had lost more than $2 million in investments based on what he “belive[d] was getting out of [his] portfolio for different private deals that never came back.” (Tr. at 258-60.) Juneau admitted that Ken-ner never guaranteed any sort of financial return and that he understood the risks associated with investing. (Id. at 261-62.) He further acknowledged that he received a communication dated July 21, 2006 that indicated that there were positive developments regarding his Hawaii Project investment. (Id. at 296-97; Defs.’ Exh. Kenner-20

In addition, on cross-examination, Juneau testified that he had met Constantine only once, in or around December 2004. (Id. at 298-99.) Juneau had an approximately hour-long lunch with Constantine and Kenner, but did not recall what they discussed. (Id. at 299.) He also admitted that he had no contact with Constantine after that meal until Juneau sued Constantine in or around 2008 or 2009. (Id. 307-10.) That lawsuit, which Juneau filed to recoup financial losses on his various investments, was subsequently dismissed. (Id. at 311.) During settlement discussions involving that lawsuit, Constantine sent Juneau an e-mail stating that Juneau had “been grossly ill-advised by [his] attorneys and their so-called experts; as well as by a couple of disgruntled former colleagues of [Kenner’s], who know absolutely nothing about [Constantine] or his business.” (Id. at 322-23; Defs.’ Exh. C-2.) Juneau admitted that, although he never made a profit on any of his investments with Constantine, Constantine did return all of Juneau’s money (id. at 339), including a refund of his $100,000 investment in’Eufora on or around July 7, 2005 via a check sent to him by Kenner (id. at 302-07).

ii. Michael Peca

1. Direct Testimony

Michael Peca (“Peca”) is a retired professional-hockey player. (Tr. at 370.) He met Kenner in or around 1996 while Peca was playing for the Buffalo.Sabers. (Id. at 374.) Peca was introduced to Kenner because he was looking for a financial adviser to help him save money. (Id.) Their business relationship ended in 2009 after eroding over the preceding two years. (Id. at 375.)

On direct examination, Peca testified that Kenner at first pursued a conservative investment strategy, but that changed in or around 2001 after Pena signed a contract with the New York Islanders. (Id. at 378.) Peca then began to invest in land development properties and spoke with Kenner about the Hawaii Project in or around 2003. (Id. at 378-79.) Peca said he understood that the purpose of the Hawaii Project was to purchase agricultural land to build residential housing. (Id. at 379.) He further testified that he did not view the property at issue before agreeing to the investment, but he instead relied on Kenner’s description of the Hawaii Project. (Id. at 381.)

Peca said that Kénner created an investment company called Little Isle IV LLC (“Little Isle IV”) to manage the Hawaii Project, and Peca invested $100,000 in cash and $1.775 million in funding obtained through a line of credit. (Id. at 381-82.) Peca opened the line of credit with Northern Trust and secured it via bonds that Peca transferred to Northern Trust from his Charles Schwab -investment account, which represented an important part of his family’s financial savings. (Id. at 383-85.) Peca also testified that Kenner told him to obtain the line of credit from ■ Northern Trust, which Kenner said would have a six-to-nine-month lifespan and then be repaid in-full. (Id. at 384-85.) In addition, Peca testified that Kenner represented that the Northern Trust line of credit would, only be used to finance vertical construction as part of the Hawaii Project. (Id. at 386-87.) Peca also signed a document on or about March 11, 2005, allowing Kenner to access his line of credit with Northern Trust. (Id. at 387-88; GX-2142.) On April 4, 2005, Northern Trust bank records show that $1.25 million was drawn on the line of credit, and Peca testified that Kenner never informed him of that transaction. (Tr. 431; GX-2001.) Those funds were used to pay off the line of credit belonging to Owen Nolan (“Nolan”), another former NHL player, and Peca said that he never authorized Kenner to use his line of credit to remunerate Nolan. (Tr. at 431-32.)

After the line of credit became active, Peca received monthly activity reports pertaining to his bond account, but not for the line of credit itself. (Id. at 388-89.) On direct testimony, Peca reviewed a Northern Trust bank statement, covering the period from October 1, 2006 through October 31, 2006 for an account held by Little Isle IV. (Id. at 414-15; GX-2002.) That statement showed that, on October 19, 2006, Little Isle IV received a wire in the amount of $395,000 from Peca’s line of credit account with Northern Trust. (Tr. at 415-417; GX-2002.) Other Northern Trust bank account statements reflect that, on that same day, $395,000 was transferred from Little Isle IV to Ula Makika LLC (“Ula Makika”), and from. Ula Makika to Led Better Development Company LLC (“Led Better”). (Id. at 417-18; GX-2003.) Peca testified that he never authorized Kenner to transfer funds from his Northern Trust account to Led Better and believed that his line of credit would only be used to finance the Hawaii Project, (Tr. at 418-19.) He also said that he later learned from Kenner “well after the fact,” in or around 2010, that a portion of that line of credit was-used'to loan money to Jowdy. (Id. at 423-25.)

Moreover, on or around February 9, 2009, Peca received a letter from Northern Trust indicating that his line of credit was near default. (Tr. at 433-34; GX-716.) Peca said that he immediately contacted Kenner, who assured him not to worry. (Tr,' at 435.) However, Peca testified that Northern Trust' subsequently held his account in default; as a result, his collateral-ized bonds were “pretty much completely wiped out,” and Peca lost over $1,8 million. (Id. at 435-36.) Peca further said that Ken-ner never explained to him whát. had caused the default, and Peca did not know what had happened to that money. (Id. at 436.) Peca testified that, in or around August 2009, he asked Northern Trust to send all documents pertaining to his line of credit account to Kenner, but when Peca subsequently attempted to review those materials, Kenner told him that someone had broken into his home and stolen them. (Id. at 439-40.)

With respect to Eufora, Peca'testified that he first heard of that company in 2004 from Kenner. (Id. at 441.) He later met Constantine in 2009. (Id. at 442-43.) Peca said that he made several investments in Eufora in 2004 and 2008 for a total of $366,000. (Id. at 443; see also GX-751 and GX-762.) He wired those funds from his Charles Schwab account to Eufora, and Peca said that Kenner executed those transactions, (Id.)

For instance, on or.about April 4, 2008, Kenner sent a letter instruction, directing that $100,000 be wired from Peca’s Charles Schwab account to Constantine Management Group Ltd. (“CMG”). (Id. at 444-45; GX-753.) At trial, Peca testified that he did not know whether CMG had any connection with Eufora. (Tr, at 445-46.) Peca said that, after he discovered that wire instruction, he asked Kenner in or around 2011 or 2012 about the purpose of that funds transfer, but Kenner did not provide an explanation. (Id, at 446-47,452.)

•In addition, Peca testified that he was familiar with the Global Settlement Fund, which he said was “a legal 'fund designed for a-civil action against Ken Jowdy, with the hopes of the end game being acquiring the northwestern parcel of beach front property in” a real ¿state development in Mexico. (Id. at 420.) Peca said that, in or about 2009, he met with Constantine and Kenner to discuss strategy for the litigation, against Jowdy. (Id. at 452.) He testified that, at that time, he had not received a return' on his investment in. the Hawaii Project, (Id. at 463.) Constantine began that conversation by introducing himself and explaining the purpose of the Global Settlement Fund. (Id. at 453-54.) Peca further testified that Constantine promised that he would “make [Peca] whole in every investment [Peca] ever made to Phil Ken-ner and” Constantine, although Peca said at trial that Jowdy had no connection to Peca’s losses in the Hawaii Project, (Id. at 455-57.)

Peca said that he contributed $250,000 to the Global Settlement Fund through a lawyer named Ronald Richards (“Richards”), whom Kenner introduced to Peca. (Id. at 421, 459; GX-754.) Peca further testified that he did not know what happened to that money, and he said that Richards informed him, in or around 2011, that the Global . Settlement Fund was “gone.” (Tr. at 422, 460.) On or about May 18, 2009, Kenner sent Peca and his wife Kristin an e-mail indicating that Richards had received the $250,000 intended for the Global Settlement Fund and that, in return for that contribution, Peca would also receive additional equity in, inter alia, Eu-fora. (Id. at 468-65; GX-757.) Specifically, the e-mail stated that:-

In addition to the [GSF] paying for various legal fees, PR Agency fees, as well as other protective advances and settlement costs, you will be receiving transfer of membership agreements from [Constantine] for your acquisition of additional interest in Eufora, LLC, as well as your new LLC and operating agreements reflecting your ownership interest in the Avalon Airpark Real Estate Project, the Falcon-10 aircraft, and the two Palms Place condominium units.

You may not -recall [Constantine] or I mentioning the Palms units in=2 Oour [sic] conversation. In any case, because Moreau and [Constantine] settled that case as part of the Global Settlement, he has graciously elected to include you as a beneficiary in the significant equity that exists in those two units as part of this transaction.

As we discussed, rather than throwing money away only on legal fees, this strategy which effectively acquires significant assets, while providing a legal remedy, is by far our best solution.

(GX-757.)

Peca testified that he never received a return on any investment in Eufora, nor did he receive an explanation from Kenner or Constantine as to how Peca’s $250,000 contribution to the Global Settlement Fund was spent. (Tr. at 470-71.) In addition, Peca said that he contributed to the Global Settlement Fund because of his “desperation” to recover his other investments, as Constantine had promised. (Id. at 471-72.)'

2. Cross-Examination

On cross-examination, Peca testified that he never saw Kenner forge another person’s signature. (Id. at 488-89.) He also said that he never saw the operating agreement or any books and records for Little Isle IV. (Id. at 494.) Peca further testified at trial that he was never aware that the line of credit he obtained to fund the Hawaii Project was the source óf a loan to Jowdy for a development in Mexico. (Id. at 496.) However;- he admitted that he had testified before the grand jury that he was aware of a short-term loan made to Jowdy using Little Isle TVs capital account. (Id. at 499.) Peca also acknowledged that he never requested records from Northern Trust pertaining to his line of credit account and also did not challenge Kenner when he refused to explain why $100,000 of Peca’s funds were wired to CMG. (Id. at 504-07.) Moreover, Peca said that Kenner would often just send him the signature page for a document that he needed to sign. (Id. at 512-13, 615-17.) He explained that, from to time, he asked Kenner to send the remainder of a document, but said that he generally trusted that everything was in order. (Id. at 517.)

Moreover, Peca testified on cross-examination that, on or about November 9, 2009, he received an e-mail from Constantine sent to a group of investors indicating that a buyer had agreed to invest in a Mexico real estate development project and provide the $15 million needed for “settlement costs.” (Id. at 533-34; Defs.’ Exh. C-24.) Peca agreed at trial that this information was consistent with achieving the purpose of the Global Settlement Fund. (Tr. at 534-35.) However, Peca said that this deal with an individual named Robert Sonnen-blick (“Sonnenblick”) was ■ never consummated. (Id. at 536.) In addition, Peca testified that, when he met with Constantine and Kenner in 2009 to discuss the Global Settlement Fund, Kenner said that he needed money from Peca and the other NHL investors to fight Jowdy or else he risked losing everything. (Id. at 538-39.) Nevertheless, he said that it was his understanding from Kenner and Richards that Constantine was in charge of the Global Settlement Fund. (Id. at 540.) Peca further testified that he received several emails from Constantine in 2009 setting up conference calls to discuss management of the Global Settlement Fund. (Id. at 564-69; Defs.’ Exhs. C-32, C-33, C-34, C-35, and C-36.) Likewise, Peca said that Constantine kept him and other investors apprised of developments with the Global Settlement Fund through group e-mails. (Tr. at 580.)

3. Re-Direct Testimony

On re-direct, Peca testified that he never met Sonnenblick and did not know whether he actually exists, and he also said that he has no records indicating that he holds an interest in Eufora. (Id. at 608-09.) In addition, Peca testified that the lawsuit commenced against Jowdy to recoup a loan related to a Mexico development project was dismissed at Richards’ request without prejudice, and he said that he never received an accounting of how the Global Settlement Fund legal fees were- spent. (Id. at 613-15.)

iii. Shimon Betesh

Shimon Betesh (“Betesh”) is a real estate attorney who resides in Queens, New York. (Tr. at 634.) He testified that, in or around October 2006, he was involved in a transaction pertaining to Led Better. (Id. at 635.) He said that he was retained by Kenner, who was a member of that company, and that Kenner told him that Led Better was going to buy land for property development. (Id. at 635-37.) Led Better wired Betesh $769,000, on or about October 25, 2006, to facilitate that purchase. (Id. at 637-38; GX-1401.) Betesh testified that, on or about that date, Led Better closed on a property at 18 North Haven Way in Sag Harbor, New York (the “Sag Harbor Property”) that had a purchase price of $750,000. (Id. at 641-43, 649.) He also said that Led Better’s organizational documents show that Peca was neither a managing member nor an equity owner of Led Better. (Id. at 646-47; GX-703.) Be-tesh also affirmed that the Sag Harbor Property was located in New York, and not in Hawaii. (Tr. at 649.)

iv. Kristin Peca

1. Direct Testimony

Kristin Peca (“Mrs. Peca”) is the wife of Michael Peca. (Tr. at 660.) She met him in or around 1995 at approximately the time he met Kenner. (Id.) Mrs. Peca testified that she and her husband jointly make investment decisions for their family. (Id. at 662.)

She further testified that Kenner told her about the Hawaii Project, and she said that she and her husband invested $100,000 that they thought would confer 12 to 13 percent of a 35 percent stake in a company Kenner organized to facilitate that deal. (Id. at 666-67.) In addition, Ken-ner told her that he needed to get a line of credit from a bank that would be collater-alized with a bond account that Mrs. Peca and her husband set up. (Id. at 667.) Mrs. Peca further testified that Kenner said that none of the bond funds would “ever go missing.” (Id.) She also said that the bonds used to secure the line of credit was her family’s “safety net” in the event of financial hardship. (Id. at 668.) Moreover, Mrs. Peca said that she was initially reluctant to use the bonds in this way, but Kenner convinced her otherwise because she believed that he was looking out for family’s best interests. (Id. at 668-69.) Mrs. Peca further testified that she believed that the line of credit would be used to fund construction for the Hawaii Project and said that Kenner never told her that it would be used to buy land in Sag Harbor. (Id. at 669-70.) She also said that she believed that she would get her money back from the line of credit within six months, but that did not happen. (Id. at 670.)

Mrs. Peca said that, when she saw the letter from Northern Trust indicating that the line of credit account was in default, she panicked. {Id. at 679-80.) She further testified that her husband contacted Ken-ner to inquire as to what had happened, and that Kenner told him that the investment in the Hawaii Project was safe. {Id. at 680-81.) However, Mrs. Peca said that Kenner stopped returning her phone calls in or around 2009 and was slow in responding to other communications. {Id. at 682.)

With respect to Eufora, Mrs. Peca testified that Kenner told her about that investment opportunity and that his friend Constantine was involved, and she said that Kenner represented that Constantine held exclusive patents that allowed individuals with poor credit ratings to build better credit histories. {Id. at 671.) Mrs. Peca further testified that she and her husband made two investments in Eufora in 2004 and 2008, and that the latter investment occurred after Kenner told her that Eu-fora was about to “explode” and needed extra funding to “get us over the last little legal bit.” {Id. ■ at 672.) She also said that she would not have supported investing in Eufora if she knew that the patents Constantine held were being used as collateral for a loan because that would indicate that the company was in debt. {Id. at 673.) In addition, Mrs. Peca said that Kenner never told her that the Eufora investment would go to CMG. (Id. at 676.) At trial, she reviewed a statement for a bank account belonging to Constantine and said that it showed that the account received a $100,000 wire from Peca to CMG on or about April 7, 2008, and that, on the same day, an outgoing wire went from that account to Kenner for the same amount of money. (Id. at 676-77; GX-1706.) Mrs. Peca testified that she never authorized Kenner to receive investment funds intended for Eufora. (Tr. at 677.) She also said that she never received any official documentation reflecting the ownership interest that she and her husband held in Eufora and never received a return on that investment. (Id. at 678-79.)

In addition, Mrs. Peca testified that she met Constantine in 2009 when he and Ken-ner came to her home. (Id. at 683.) She said that Constantine told her that he had a plan to recoup the Hawaii Project investment through the Global Settlement- Fund. (Id. at 684.) Mrs: Peca said that Constantine explained that the line of credit was used to make loans to Jowdy and that filing a lawsuit against Jowdy would enable recovery of that money. (Id. at 684-85.) Kenner reportedly told her that he did not have the funds to finance that litigation himself and, therefore, needed funding from the Pecas, as well as other investors. (Id. at 685.) Mrs. Peca also said that Ken-ner and Constantine told her that every investor needed to contribute $250,000, or else the Global Settlement Fund would be unsuccessful. (Id. at 686.) They also reportedly told her that the money would be kept in an escrow account controlled by Richards (the “Richards Escrow Account”). (Id.) Mrs. Peca testified that she told Constantine and Kenner that she was not interested in investing in any other development projects and only wanted the Global Settlement Fund investment to be used for litigation against Jowdy. (Id. at 687.) Constantine did not tell her that he would be m charge of the Global Settlement Fund. (Id. at 688.)

Mrs. Peca also said that she was never informed that the Global Settlement Fund would be used to pay for. Constantine’s rent; for race cars or a home that- he purchased; or for a personal lawsuit pertaining to Constantine and race cars. (Id, at 694-95.) She testified that- she would never have authorized her Global Settlement Fund contribution to be used for those purposes. (Id. at 696.)

'Further; Mrs. Peca testified that Ken-ner eventually told her that all of the money in the Global Settlement Fund had been used up and that he did not receive any money from that endeavor. (Id. at 696, 709.) However, at trial, Mrs, Peca reviewed account statements for the Richards Escrow Account and said that they showed a $250,000 incoming wire transfer from the Pecas received on May 8, ?009 and a $22,425.02 outgoing wire transfer to Kenner on July 80, 2009. (Id. at 710-11; GX-1102 and GX-754.)

2. Cross-Examination

On cross-examination, Mrs. Peca said that she did not initially contact Northern Trust to inquire about the line of credit default because she believed that Kenner had the necessary information. (Tr. at 713.) She said that, eventually, the Pecas withdrew the power of attorney they had conferred on Kenner so that he could no longer- process financial transactions on their behalf. (Id. at 715.) Mrs. Peca testified that Kenner told her that someone had stolen the financial documents pertaining to the line of credit account from his home. (Id. at 716.) She said that she did not believe him because that explanation “seemed like another one of his conspiracy theory stories.” (Id. at 717.) Mrs. Peca further testified that she-received a packet of information from Kenner pertaining to Little Isle IV, but did not know what had happened to those materials. (Id. at 719-21.) In addition, she acknowledged that she thought that Kenner’s advice to begin investing in real estate developments i like the Hawaii Project was reasonable at the time it was given, and she did not think that he was being deceitful (Id. at 725-26.) Mrs. Peca said that she thought that she did receive some Northern Trust documents from Kenner, but they did not contain the information that the Pecas were looking for. (Id, at 752.) She also acknowledged that Kenner had told her that it may .take five to twenty years for a real estate 'investment to become profitable. (Id. at 757.)

Mrs. Peca further testified on cross-examination that she believed that'Constantine played a role in the -Eufora investment. (Id. at 729.) She also affirmed that the purpose of the May 2009 meeting involving Kenner, Constantine, and the Pe-cas was 'to discuss making a contribution to the Global Settlement Fund. (Id. at 770.) Mrs. Peca further testified that she recalled a discussion of how proceeding with the Global Settlement Fund would benefit the Pecas’ investment in Eufora. (Id. at 771.) She also acknowledged that, approximately ten days after making a $250,000 contribution to the. Global Settlement Fund, the Pecas received an e-mail from Kenner requesting permission to use those funds for purposes other than litigation against Jowdy, such as public relations agency fees. (Id. at 773-75.)

Likewise, Mrs. Peck admitted that, based on that e-mail, she understood that the Global Settlement Fund had multiple objectives beyond, litigation against Jowdy, including acquiring assets. (Id. at 777.) She testified that her husband responded to Kenner’s email and asked how much equity the Pecas had-obtained in Eufora with their contribution to the. Global Settlement Fund. (Id. at 778-79; Defs.’ Exh. C-26.) Moreover, Mrs, Peca said that she and her husband received an e-mail from Constantine that discussed other uses of the Global Settlement Fund besides litigation against Jowdy. (Tr. at 781-84; Defs.’ Exh. C-27.) She also acknowledged that her husband sent an email to Kenner.on May 22, 2009 that stated that he understood and accepted the terms of the settlement plan. (Tr. at 785; Defs.’ Exh. C-28.) Mrs. Peca said that Constantine set up conference calls to discuss management of-.the Global Settlement Fund in which she participated. (Tr. at 787-91.) She also testified that,' at some point, she requested that Richards return the Pecas’ Global Settlement Fund contribution, but she did' not recall the exact date' of that communication. (Id, at 792-93.) Finally, on cross-examination, Mrs. Peca testified that' Constantine was' not involved in managing the Pecas’ investment portfolio and never provided them with any advice regarding the Northern Trust line of credit. (Id. at 811.)'

3. Re-Direct Testimony

On re-direct, Mrs. Peca said that her understanding was that the Global Settlement Fund would be used for litigation against Jowdy and that conversations with Kenner and Constantine confirmed that belief. (Id. at 816-17.) She said that she would never have authorized them to spend the Pecas’ contribution on personal projects. (Id. at 818-19.)-. -

' v. Aaron Mascarella

1. Direct Testimony

Aaron Mascarella worked in the Scottsdale, Arizona office of Northern Trust from : 1994 to 2011. (Tr.. at 837.) He was assigned to the banking division from 1994 to 2005 and then transitioned to the lending division. (Id. at 838.)

Mascarella testified that he met Kenner in or around 2003. (Id. at 838-39.) ‘He said that a- client of his introduced ■ the two of them and identified Kenner as a financial advisor to several NHL players. (Id. at 839.) Mascarella further testified that Ken-ner had lunch with him -and a couple of colleagues from Northern Trust, and that Kenner said that he. was seeking financing for a project in Hawaii. (Id. at 839-40.) In addition, Mascarella said that Kenner proposed moving several of his clients’ investment accounts to Northern Trust to use as collateral for a loan. (Id. at 840.) He also said that he- created several bank accounts for Kenner, including one for Little Isle IV, which were to be used for the Hawaii Project. (Id. at 841; see also GX-2081-A and GX-2081-B.) In addition, he said, that, as- the sole member and manager of Little Isle iy,. only Kenner was authorized to transfer money into and out of that entity’s bank account. (Tr. at 844; see also GX-2081-C.) Mascarella testified that Kenner had the same authority with respect to Northern Trust bank accounts for several other companies. (Id. at 844-49.)

At trial, Mascarella reviewed a chart prepared by the government that summar rized all of the accounts pertaining to Hawaii entities and said that Kenner opened all of those accounts. (Id. at 849.) He further testified" that he was responsible for managing the lines of credit opened by Kenner with Northern Trust and said that they were secured by individual investment accounts that contained “conservatively invested” bonds and cash. (Id, at 850-52.) In addition, Mascarella said that Northern Trust would, not have provided loans to Kenner without that' collateral. (Id. at 851.)

Mascarella further testified that Kenner opened individual lines of credit with Northern' Trust for Peca, Nolan, Bryan Berard, Darryl Sydor, Steven Rucchin, Glenn Murray, Mattias Norstrom, and Sergei Gonchar; and he said that Kenner also obtained a corporate line of credit for Little Isle IV, which was secured by Nolan’s .and Juneau’s investment accounts. (Id. at 853-54.) He also said that Kenner was the only person who directed every transfer of money into and. out of those lines of credit, and that Kenner said that Northern Trust should only communicate with him regarding the lines of credit. (Id. at 856, 859.) Mascarella also said that Ken-ner told him that the NHL players were too busy to be bothered with decisions pertaining to the lines of credit and instructed Mascarella to send monthly statements for those accounts to Kenner’s personal residence. (Id. at 859.)

Mascarella also reviewed a March 23, 2007 e-mail from Juneau to Kenner inquiring as to why he had received a notice that his Northern Trust line of credit was in default, as well as Kenner’s response saying that he had paid off the line of credit and that everything was in order. (Id. at 860-61; Defs.’ Exh. Kenner-3.) In addition, Mascarella reviewed a series of Northern Trust account statements that he said indicated that, on March 23, 2007, Kenner had advanced $638,488.76 from Nolan’s individual line of credit to pay down $636,603.63 in the Little Isle IV corporate account secured by Juneau’s investments. (Tr. at 862-63; GX-2158, GX-2101, and GX-2133.)

Mascarella said that any time an interest payment for a line of credit was past due, he would inform Kenner of that fact, and Kenner would typically ask Mascarella to advance a loan on another line of credit to make the interest payment out of Little Isle IVs account. (Tr. at 864.) For instance, Mascarella said that on April 23, 2007, Kenner took out a $60,000 advance on Peca’s line of credit and used it to pay off an $11,000 interest payment due on Peca’s account, as well as interest payments for several other lines of credit. (Id. at 867-68; GX-22.)

Mascarella also summarized similar transactions that occurred with respect to Peca’s line of credit and other lines of credit. In sum, on several occasions, when an interest payment or payments were due for one or more lines of credit, Kenner advanced a loan on a line of credit that had availability (ie., a line of credit that had not reached its credit cap) and used that loan to pay off the interest due through Little Isle IVs corporate account. (Tr. at 868-75; GX-23-GX-35.)

Mascarella further testified that, in or around 2008, he met with Kenner at Ken-ner’s request to discuss increasing the credit available for the lines of credit. (Tr. at 875-76.) He also said that he did not meet with or contact any of the NHL players about this request. (Id. at 876-77.) In addition, Mascarella testified that a senior lender at Northern Trust informed Kenner that the bank needed a full accounting of all advances that had been made on the lines of credit, as well as tax paperwork, before extending the loan limits, and although Kenner said that he would provide that information, he never did. (Id. at 877.)

At trial, Mascarella said that, on or around October 16, 2008, the lines of credit were fully drawn, and accordingly, in or around July 2008, Kenner began making interest payments on those accounts by transferring funds from Northern Trust checking accounts for other entities that he controlled, such as Ula Makika, as well as from his personal bank account at Wells Fargo. (Id. at 878-79; GX-36, GX-38-40.) In addition, Mascarella said that the line of credits eventually entered default because interest payments were no longer being made. (Tr. at 881-84; GX-20.) In or around February and March 2009, Mascar-ella sent letters notifying the NHL players that their lines of credit accounts were in default for failure to make interest payments. (Tr. at 886-88; see also, e.g., GX-2112.) He further testified that, accordingly, Northern Trust seized control of the NHL players’ investment accounts and sold the investments therein. (Tr. at 888.)

For instance, on or about March 31, 2009, $1,794,392 from. Peca’s investment account was used to pay off his line of credit. (Id. at 891-92; GX-2162.) Mascar-ella said that Peca’s investment account was valued at a little over $1.8 million prior to that transaction. (Tr. at 892; GX-2162.) Similarly, Mascarella testified that, on March 31, 2009, $596,000 from Bryan Berard’s investment account and $1,010,645 from Steve Rucchin’s investment account'were used to pay off their respective lines of credit. (Tr. at 893-94; GX-2165 and GX-2173.) Finally, Mascarel-la said that Kenner never secured any line of credit with his own investment account. (Tr. at 894.)

2. Cross-Examination

On cross-examination, Mascarella testified that some of the default letters sent by Northern Trust were returned as undeliverable because of incorrect addresses. (Id. at 898-99.)-He said that neither he nor the bank did anything to obtain the correct addresses. (Id. at 899.) Mascarella further testified that using one line of credit to pay off another was not in and of itself worrisome. (Id. at 901.) He also said that he never saw Kenner forge another person’s signature and said, that he never told any of the NHL .players that Kenner had prohibited Mascarella from speaking with them directly. (Id. at 916, 918.) Finally, Mascarella testified on cross-examination that he never met or -communicated with Constantine prior to the trial and said that, to his knowledge, Constantine did not have anything to-do with the Northern Trust lines of credit that Mascarella had discussed. (Id. at 922-23.)

3. Re-Direct Testimony

On re-direct, Mascarella testified that he exchanged e-mails with Kenner on or about February 18, 2009 indicating that Kenner had received the Northern Trust default letters and promised to pay the-outstanding interest payments, but he said that Kenner never did so. (Id. at 925-27; GX-6514.)

vi. Ethel Kaiser

1. Direct Testimony

Ethel Kaiser (“Mrs. Kaiser”) is the mother of John Kaiser (“Kaiser”), and through him, she met Kenner. (Tr. at 932.) In or around 2005, Kenner and Kaiser asked Mrs. Kaiser to make a loan of $390,000 to the Hawaii Project. (Id. at 932-33.) Mrs. Kaiser said that she withdrew that loan from her savings account, and that it was supposed to be re-paid within 30 days with about 12 percent interest. (Id. at 933.) Mrs. Kaiser testified that neither the principal nor the interest on that loan were re-paid within 30 days, but she said that her son eventually reimbursed her “[d]own the line.” (Id. at 934.)

In addition, Mrs. Kaiser testified that she invested $70,000 from her savings in Eufora after speaking with Constantine. (Id. at 935-36.) She said that Constantine told her that Eufora “was going to be very, very big” and that she would “make a lot of money.” (Id. at 936.) However, Mrs. Kaiser testified that she lost that entire investment and never received any explanation as to what had happened to that money. (Id.)

2. Cross-Examination

On cross-examination, Mrs.’ Kaiser said that Kaiser advised her that the Hawaii Project was a good investment, but she said that he did not originate the idea for that endeavor. (Id. at 937-38.) She further testified that Kaiser repaid her Hawaii Project investment with 12 percent interest and that he had asked her for money to make other investments. (Id. at 939.) Mrs. Kaiser said that she always gave her son money when he asked, for it with the understanding that it would be re-paid with interest. (Id, at 940.) ■

In addition, Mrs. Kaiser testified that Kenner did not discuss, Eufora with her. (Id, at 944.) She said that she met Constantine for the first time in or around 2009, when she and her son traveled to Mexico. (Id, at 946.) Mrs. Kaiser testified that she spoke with Constantine on the phone about Eufora, but could not recall if that was before or after the Mexico meeting. (Id, at 947-48.) She said that only she, Constantine, and Kaiser were on that phone call and that Kaiser did all of the talking. (Id. at 948-49.) Mrs. Kaiser further testified that she Wired the $70,000 investment to her son in or around 2009. (Id. at 960.) In addition, she said that her son would never be involved in an effort to take over Eufora from Constantine. (Id, at 961-52.)

vii. John Kaiser

1. Direct Testimony

Kaiser served as a Suffolk County police officer. (Tr. at 954.) He testified that, in or around March 2002, he traveled to the big island of Hawaii with his friend Chris Manfredi (“Manfredi”)> and while they were there, they stopped by a real estate office to look at properties, including a 258-acre vacant tract of land. (Id. at 955-56, 960.) Kaiser said that the sale price for that land was $750,000. (Id, at 956.) He further testified that he and'Manfredi put down $10,000 on that property with the intention of buying and sub-dividing it into residential lots for sale or development. (Id. at 957, -960.)

In addition, Kaiser s'aid that he met Kenner in or around 2003 in Hawaii through a friend of Manfredi’s. (Id. at 960-61.) Kaiser-testified that Kenner ¡told him that he was “a financial advisor to a lot of different celebrities .., and a bunch, of hockey players,” was worth $500 million, and was interested in purchasing additional acreage for the purpose of real estate development. (Id. at 962,969.)

Kaiser further testified that, from 2003 to approximately 2006, he and Manfredi closed on the purchase of the initial 258-acre parcel and were conducting due diligence with respect to residential development. (Id. at 973.) He also said that, in or around the summer of 2005, Kenner contacted him to ask for a $1 million loan for the Hawaii Project. (Id. at 975-76.) Kaiser testified that he did not have all. of the money needed for this loan, so he solicited funds from family and friends. (Id. at 976-77.) Kaiser said that he wired the funds to Kau Holding Company and that Kenner told him that, at the end of 30 days, he would receive $1.1 million in -repayment with interest. (Id, at 977-78.) However, Kaiser said that he did not receive those funds at: the 30-day mark and asked Ken-ner for the money, who told him to wait, but Kenner never re-paid any portion of that loan. (Id. at 978-80.) As -a result, Kaiser used $1.2 million in proceeds from the sale of his personal residence to reimburse his family and friends who had contributed to that loan. (Id. at 980.) Kaiser further testified that, in or around April 2006, he and Manfredi met with' Kenner to discuss the status of the Hawaii Project, and he learned from Kenner that the $1 million- loan was used to fund a development project in Cabo San Lucas, Mexico, rather than in Hawaii. (Id. at-983.) He said that he learned'that the money went to fund a Jowdy-led development called Diamante Del Mar (“Diamante”). (Id. at 986.)

On direct testimony, Kaiser also reviewed two consulting agreements between Little Isle IV and CMG dated December 15, 2004 and June 1, 2005 that he purportedly signed, but he said that.his signatures on those documents were not--authentic. (Id. at 992-94; GX-5104.) He also said that he did not meet Constantine until late 2007 or early 2008 when Kenner introduced the two of them. (Tr. at 996-97.) Kaiser also testified that-he and others sold a 50 percent stake in -the Sag Harbor property to Kenner and Led Better in or around 2006 for $750,000. (Id. at 998-1004; GX-1602.)

In addition, Kaiser said that he was familiar with a man named Timothy Gaarn (“Gaarn”), who he said was involved with Eufora. (Tr. at 1046.) Kaiser testified that he received' á $30,000 wire transfer on February 12, 2009 from Gaarn, which he said constituted payment for a construction projéct in Paradise Valley, Arizona (the “Paradise Valley property”) that Kaiser worked on with Kenner. 5 (Id. at 1045-47; GX-2303.) With respect to that transaction, Kaiser testified as follows:

Q. Why are you getting $30,000, do you recall, from Timothy Gaarn, manager at Eufora at this juncture?

A. Because I was in the process of a build for the [Paradise Valley property]; and Phil Kenner said that Tim Gaarn owed him money and he would send it to me.

Q. Why did you need money for that particular home? Were you developing the [Paradise Valley property]?

A. Because it was under construction. I was getting the materials and labor.

(Tr. at 1047.) However, Kaiser said that, on that same day, he sent $30,000 to Ken-ner because “Kenner said it was a-mistake, that he needed that money. It should have been sent to him directly.” (Id. at 1047-48; GX-1603 and'GX-1721.)

Similarly, Kaiser said that, on February 26, 2009, he transferred $40,300 to Kenner following an equivalent incoming transfer from Gaarn “[b]ecause [Kaiser] was directed from Phil Kenner that was — those funds weren’t supposed to be, used for the [Paradise Valley property]. It was an incorrect wire from Timothy Gaarn.” (Tr. at 1049-50; GX-1724 and GX-1604.) In addition, Kaiser testified that, on May 22, 2009, he received $25,000 from Kenner.. (Tr. at 1050-51; GX-1727.)

With respect to Eufora, Kaiser testified that he learned about that company through Kenner, in or around 2007, when Kenner told him that it “was going to be a huge company making millions and millions of dollars” because Constantine owned an important patent. (Id. at 1010-11.) He also said that he met with Constantine, who told him that this patent was valuable and that he was looking for 'investors. (Id. at 1013-15.) Kaiser said that he decided to invest $200,000 in Eufora via two wires sent to the Richards - Escrow Account in or around December 2009. (Id. at 1015, 1057-58; GX-1101.) He said that' Constantine solicited those funds from other-individuals, including Mrs. Kaiser, and Kaiser said that he relied on Constantine’s representations about Eufora to tell them that the investment was a great opportunity. (Id. at 1059-60.) In addition, Kaiser testified that Constantine told him that the funds had to be sent to Richards, rather than Eufora, and insisted that the funds would be used for the company. (Id. at 1064; GX-JK-1.)

Kaiser further testified that he heard Constantine call several NHL players to offer to buy back their shares in Eufora at half their value and said that they agreed to do so, but Kaiser said that he then spoke with NHL players himself after their conversation with Constantine and advised them not to sell their Eufora equity because Kaiser had seen documents indicating that the company was poised for financial success. (Id. at 1065-67.) Kaiser, along with others, later commenced a lawsuit against Constantine to try to recoup the value of their shares in Eufora. (Id. at 1069-70.) He said that he never recovered his $200,000 investment. (Id. at 1070.)

2. Cross-Examination

On cross-examination, Kaiser said that he spoke with Kenner in or around 2006 about lending money to Jowdy with a 15 percent interest rate that was separate from the $1 million loan that Kaiser provided to Kenner and that Kenner subsequently gave to Jowdy. (Id. at 1104-05.) He also said that he and Kenner stopped speaking for some time because of a dispute between them and that he believed that Kenner sent him a box of documents related to the Hawaii Project in or around 2010. (Id. at 1128-30.) In addition, Kaiser said that between 2003, when he first met Kenner, and August 2006, when Lehman Brothers lent money to the Hawaii Project, he was not aware of any individuals who contributed financing to the Hawaii Project other than Kenner. (Id. at 1187— 88.) He further testified that, in 2011, he learned from reviewing a “phony” consulting agreement that Kenner had sent to him that a man named Robert Gaudet, a golf professional employed at the Diamante resort in Mexico, was involved in obtaining funding for the Hawaii Project. (Id. at 1191-92.) Kaiser also testified that, from 2002 to 2006, Manfredi was involved in developing the Hawaii Project through collecting data necessary to obtain funding that he shared with Kenner. (Id. at 1198-1200.) He further said that Constantine and James Grdina (“Grdina”) were involved in financing a portion of the Hawaii Project known as the Waikapuna property, the purchase of which closed in or around 2005 or 2006. (Id. at 1207-09.)

In addition, Kaiser testified that Lehman Brothers provided a $105 million loan to the Hawaii Project in or around August 2006 and said that there was an approximate payout of $14 to $16 million, approximately $700,000 to $800,000 of which he received via wires to a bank account in the name of Na’alehu Ventures. (Id. at 1206, 1217-20; GX-2103.) Kaiser further reiterated that, prior to the 2006 Lehman Brothers loan, he lent $1 million to Kenner for the Hawaii Project via a 30-day loan wired to the Kau Holding Company. (Id. at 1210-15.) He said that, following the payout from the Lehman Brothers loan, he was still owed money from the original $1 million investment that he gave Kenner, a portion of which was used to finance a development in Cabo San Lucas, Mexico. (Id. at 1221-23.)

With respect to Eufora, Kaiser testified on cross-examination that he first invested money in that company in 2007 through Kenner prior to meeting Constantine. (Id. at 1237-38.) He said that, in total, he invested approximately $1.7 million of his own money in Eufora through Kenner using funds that Kenner owed him for work on another development project. (Id. at 1239-41.) Kaiser also said that Kenner told him that those funds were sent to Constantine, and he testified that some of the funds invested in Eufora “went through Mr. Kenner, but others were directed by Mr. Constantine.” (Id. at 1242, 1250.) He further testified that Kenner gave him a list of the wire transfers pertaining to Kaiser’s investments in Eufora and that Kaiser wrote those figures down on a sheet of paper. (Id. at 1315-16; Defs.’ Exhs. Kenner-37 and C-81.) Kaiser said that Kenner told him that those funds went to a CMG bank account, but that Kaiser had not determined whether that was accurate. (Tr. at 1322-23.) In addition, Kaiser reviewed a CMG bank account statement and said that four April 2007 investments listed in Kaiser’s handwritten record did not appear on that statement. (Id. at 1327; Defs.’ Exh. C-81.) However, those investments did appear on CMG’s April 2008 bank statement. (Tr. at 1329-31; GX-1706.) Kaiser also testified that he was aware that Eufora had an outstanding loan that needed to be paid. (Tr. at 1347.)

Kaiser further testified on cross-examination that Kenner told him that Jowdy had stolen or misappropriated money, and that Kaiser had said that Jowdy was a thief in response to a remark by Constantine. (Id. at 1236,1311,1314.)

3. Re-Direct Testimony

On re-direct, Kaiser said that he and other investors brought a lawsuit to determine the status of the patents owned by Eufora. (Id. at 1403-04.) He further said that he had not received any information regarding what had happened to his Eu-fora investments. (Id. at 1404-05.) In addition, Kaiser said that Constantine agreed that Kaiser had millions of dollars invested in Eufora. (Id. at 1406.) Kaiser also reviewed April 24, 2008 text messages between Constantine and Kenner and said that they indicated that Kenner was going to send CMG $100,000 on that date. (Id. at 1412; GX-203-A and GX-204-A.)

With respect to the Hawaii Project, Kaiser testified that he was unaware whether Constantine ever attempted to raise money from others for that endeavor, but he said that Kenner told him that Constantine was involved. (Tr. at 1409-10.) He also said that the approximately $800,000 that he received from the Lehman Brothers loan was for another loan, expenses, and back pay. (Id. at 1414.) Kaiser testified that those funds were not recompense for the $1 million loan that he gave Kenner for the Hawaii Project. (Id.)

4. Re-Cross-Examination

On re-cross-examination, Kaiser acknowledged that he received an e-mail from Constantine disputing whether Kaiser had millions of dollars invested in or owned 20 percent of Eufora. (Id. at 1425.)

viii. Patrick Gonya

Patrick Gonya (“Gonya”) is an attorney who practices in Miami, Florida with a law firm that was previously known as Carey Rodriguez Greenberg & Paul (“Carey Rodriguez Greenberg”). (Tr. at 1276-77.) He testified that he represented Constantine and Tommy Constantine Racing LLC, from in or around March 2009 to in or around June 2010, in connection with a commercial litigation matter. (Id. at 1277-79; GX-3397.) That case involved a dispute between Constantine’s racing team and Pruitt Enterprises, another racing company. (Tr. at 1281.)

Gonya testified that, as payment for the legal work that his law firm performed for Constantine, the firm received $8,000 on or around May 12, 2009; $15,000 on or around October 13, 2009; $3,677.40 on or around October 28, 2009; $13,377.57 on or around December 12, 2009; and $15,000 on or around December 15, 2009. (Id. at 1286-88; GX-3321-R.) He further testified that the first three funds transfers came from an account controlled by Richards and the last two transfers came from Alliance Bank on behalf of Eufora. (Tr. at 1286-88; GX-3321.)

In addition, Gonya testified that, during an April . 23, 2009 deposition, Constantine said, inter alia, that (1) Eufora and his racing programs were not profitable; (2) Kenner was not involved in any of Constantine’s business; (3) CMG did not, at that time, have any assets; and (4) he used CMG’s bank account to pay for personal expenses like car payments and mortgages. (Tr. at 1289-95; GX-8021-R (deposition testimony).)

On cross-examination, when asked about the funds transfers from Richards’ account, Gonya said that he did not know who that money belonged to. (Tr. at 1303.)

ix. Nicholas Privitello

1. Direct Testimony

Nicholas Privitello (“Privitello”) is an electrician who lives on Long Island. (Tr. at 1426-27.) He testified that he met Ken-ner when he performed work on Kenner’s home in Arizona, and Privitello said that Kenner told him that he was involved with investments by hockey players. (Id. at 1428-29.)

Privitello said that Kenner spoke with him in late 2009 about Eufora, and he said that Kenner told him that Eufora owned patents related to building credit history and that the company would become very profitable soon. (Id. at 1430.) He also testified that Kenner told him that Constantine was the founder of Eufora, and Privitello said that he eventually began communicating with Constantine by phone and e-mail. (Id. at 1432.) Privitello said that Constantine told him that Eufora was close to signing deals with big banks and convinced him to invest $200,000 for a 1.5 percent stake in the company, which Privitello wired to the Richards Escrow Account on or about December 7, 2009 via two separate transfers of $150,000 and $50,000. (Id. at 1432-33, 1435, 1442-43; see also, e.g., GX-208.1 (email from Kaiser to Privitello forwarding email from Constantine to Kaiser, which states that following “receipt of $200,000, Eufora’s members will formally execute a Membership Transfer Consent Form and amend the company’s Operating Agreement to reflect a 1.5% interest in Eufora, LLC which shall be held by” Privi-tello), GX-3302, and GX-3306.) Privitello further testified that he did due diligence on Eufora and verified that the patents were real, and he said that neither Kenner nor Constantine told him that the patents were being held as collateral for a loan. (Tr. at 1434-35.)

In addition, Privitello reviewed statements for the Richards Escrow Account and said that they showed outgoing transfers of $155,000 to AZ Avalon Partners LLC (“AZ Avalon”) on December 7, 2009 and $50,000 to Eufora on December 8, 2009. (Id. at 1455-56; GX-1101.) Moreover, Eufora’s bank account statement showed a December 15, 2009 transfer of $15,000 to Carey Rodriguez Greenberg, the law firm that represented Constantine in his race car litigation. (Tr. at 1456-57; GX-1218.) Privitello testified that did not authorize that his Eufora investment be used to pay legal fees for Constantine’s personal lawyer. (Tr. at 1457.) He also said that he did not receive any documentation regarding his Eufora investment, and that Constantine never' offered to return Privi-tello’s investment. (Id. at 1457, 1478-80.) Moreover, Privitello said that he did not in fact have a 1.5 percent stake in Eufora. (Id. at 1480; GX-503.6.)

Privitello said that, in or around May 2012, he recorded a telephone conversation with Constantine during which he attempted to recoup his Eufora investment. (Tr. at 1458.) During that phone call, Constantine said that “[a]ll the money that came to Eufora on behalf of the players, came directly from the players to Eufora ... So their money went from their bank account to Eufora, LLC’s bank account. I know exactly how much money they put in.” (GX-503.1.) In addition, Privitello said, “I wrote right on my wire it’s for i.5 percent of the thing,” and Constantine asked, “Who received that wire?” (GX-503.2.) Pri-vitello responded, “Ron Richards as of your direction,” and Constantine said that Privitello “could have wrote ‘f*** you Ronnie and your mother’ on that.” (Id.) Constantine also told Privitello that

the reason that this — your money was directed to the lawyer’s office instead of to us is because if we saw how much money was going directly to us, we’d know exactly where it came from and who, right? ... But if it gobs to Ron Richards’ office arid thén we get one wire from Ron Richards, then we have no idea who the money came from into Ron Richards, then ‡ can put it in whatever ñamé he wants without haying to explain sh**.

(GX-503.3.) However, Constantine later said, “You asked me why it went to Ron Richards’ account. I have no f***king idea.” (GX-503.7.) Moreover, Constantine asked Privitello, “Why didn’t you take it back before we spent it?,” and Privitello answered, “I don’t, I don’t, I don’t — I mean, look, it was a while ago. I don’t think I was ever offered it. I cannot recall any time being offered it.” (GX-503.5.) Finally, Constantine told Privitello that “[y]ou weren’t shareholders” in response to Privitello’s statement that he and others at a Eufora shareholders meeting were not allowed to view an agreement between Eu-fora and another company. (GX-503.6.)

2. Cross-Examination

On cross-examination, Privitello agreed that Kenner was not involved in ariy of the email communications between Privitello and Constantine regarding Privitello’s investment in Eufora, and he agreed that a lawsuit that was filed to enforce his and other investors’ interests in Eufora named Constantine as the sole defendant. (Tr. at 1488-92.) Likewise, he said that Kenner never promised him a stake in Eufora in return for his investment. (Id. at 1492-93.)

In addition, Privitello testified that he had a conversation with Kaiser prior to his discussion with Constantine regarding Eu-fora. (Id. at 1537.) He also said that he had told Constantine about a “side deal” with Kaiser whereby he agreed to give Kaiser $50,000 of his investment in Eufora. (Id. at 1559-60.) Privitello further testified that he did not recall Constantine offering him or other Eufora investors a reimbursement of their investments at an August 2010 shareholders meeting or during subsequent litigation. (Id. at 1590-93, 1595-97, 1602-03,1634.)

X. Allison Ressler

Allison Ressler (“Ressler”) is a Los An-geles-based attorney with the law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell. (Tr. at 1514.) She met Constantine in or around the fall of 2008, in connection with efforts by Constantine and others to acquire Playboy En-, terprises (“Playboy”). (Id. at 1515.) Ressler testified that financial records show that Constantine paid $65,000 in legal fees for this transaction via a May 26, 2009 wire from the Richards Escrow Account. (Id. at 1519-20; GX-3396 R.) She said on cross-examination that she did not what type of account that was and affirmed that she was not familiar with Eufora. (Tr. at 1520-21.)

xi.Ricardo Banciella

Ricardo Banciella (“Banciella”) is a Miami-based attorney. (Tr. at 1639.) He testified that, while he was employed by the law firm Wampler Buchanan Walker Cha-brow Banciella & Stanley, P.A. (“Wampler Buchanan”), Banciella represented Constantine between July 2007 and the fall of 2008, in connection with a dispute over a sponsorship agreement between race car drivers. (Id. at 1640-41; GX-3311.) Ban-ciella said that, on or about April 30, 2008, Wampler Buchanan received payments of $36,361.07 and $3,333.31 for that representation, and he said that at the time the representation was terminated in or around October 2008, firm records showed that Constantine still owed approximately $40,000. (Tr. at 1646^8; GX-3312 and GX-3326-R.)

xii.Eric Edenholm

Eric Edenholm (“Edenholm”) is a car salesman who lives in Arizona. (Tr. at 1650-51.) He testified that he met Constantine about 18 to 20 years ago through mutual friends in the racing business. (Id. at 1651-52.) Edenholm said that, on or around June 16, 2009, he purchased Constantine’s Arizona home - and allowed Constantine to continue living there in return for $3,000 in monthly rent. (Id. at 1659-60; GX-3608.) Edenholm reviewed his bank account statement and said that incoming $18,000 wires dated November 6, 2009 and January 22, 2010 each represented payment for' six months of Constantine’s rent and that the first wire came from the Richards Escrow Account. (Id. at 1660-61, 1669-70; GX-3059 and GX-3060.) Similarly, Edenholm said that his bank account showed that Constantine’s $450,000 payment for an airplane and $75,000 payment for race car-related expenses also came from the Richards Escrow Account. (Tr. at 1661-62; GX-3053.) He also said that he received $15,000 from the Richards Escrow Account as payment for “repayment of an earlier loan, as well as some work that was done on some vehicles.” (Tr. at 1670-71.)

xiii. Jeffrey Bailey

Jeffrey Bailey (“Bailey”) lives in Arizona and owns a consulting company called JBAZ Consulting (“JBAZ”) that engages in real estate financing. (Tr. at 1696.) He testified that he worked with Constantine on a real estate investment and first spoke with him in 2009 after meeting Constantine through Edenholm. (Id. at 1696-97.) Bailey said that he invested in hangers owned by Constantine to enable Constantine to pay off debt and avoid foreclosure on those properties. (Id. at 1697.) He testified that bank statements showed that JBAZ received $384,300 on or about July 13, 2009 from the Richards Escrow Account. (Id. at 1728-29; GX-1102.) Likewise, Bailey said that he received several monthly payments of approximately $40,000 from Constantine in 2009, and that each of those payments was pre-dated by an equivalent funds transfer from the Richards Escrow Account to the account of AZ Avalon. (Tr. at 1737-39; GX-1307-GX-1309.) In addition, JBAZ also received a $42,000 payment from AZ Avalon in or around December 2009 that was pre-dated by a $43,000 transfer from Eufora to AZ Avalon. (Tr. at 1739-40; GX-1310.)

xiv. John McDonald

John McDonald (“McDonald”) is a corporate comptroller at Playboy. (Tr. at 1783.) He testified that Playboy had a racing team sponsorship agreement with CMG whereby Constantine purchased advertising pages in Playboy magazine. (Id. at 1784-85.) In addition, he said that Playboy’s records show that all invoices sent to Constantine by Playboy from August 2007 to September 2008 were paid by funds transferred from bank accounts belonging to CMG and Kenner. (Id. at 1796-97; GX-2726.)

xv. Jay McKee

Jay McKee (“McKee”) is a former NHL player who resides in Buffalo, New York. (Tr. at 1907.) He testified that (1) Kenner was his financial advisor (id. at 1810-11); (2) he invested in the Diamante project (id. at 1811); and (3) Kenner and Constantine convinced him to contribute $250,000 to the Global Settlement Fund, which McKee did to recoup investment losses in Diamante, and gave McKee the impression that Richards would be in control of that money (id. at 1811-16; GX-1526). In addition, McKee said that Kénner and Constantine told him that the Global Settlement Fund would be used to cover litigation expenses, public relations agency fees, protective advances, and settlement costs; but he testified that that neither Kénner nor Constantine told him that the Global Settlement Fund would be used to pay lawyers other than Richards. (Tr. at'1820-21.) Moreover, McKee testified that he had made a prior $100,000 investment in Eufora through Constantine, but did not receive any return.'(Id at 1825.)

On cross-examination, McKee said that he recalled discussing that the Global Settlement Fund would be used to fund publicity in connection with efforts to recoup investments from Jowdy. (Id. at 1875-76.)

xvi. Tyson Nash

1.Direct Testimony

Tyson Nash (“Nash”) is a former NHL player who currently lives in Arizona. (Tr. at 1901.) His testimony is substantially similar to that of the other hockey players. Nash said that (1) Kenner was his financial advisor (id. at 1904); (2) he invested $100,000 in thé Hawaii Project on or about May 19, 2005 based on Kenner’s advice and did not authorize that those funds go to Mexico (id. at 1906-08; GX-1524); (3) he spoke with Kenner about the Lehman Brothers loan and believed that he would be receiving a return on his Hawaii Project investment but did not receive as much money as Kenner promised (Tr. at 1909-12); (4). Nash invested $100,000 in Eufora, on or around April 24, 2008, based on Kenner’s representation that Constantine owned a valuable patent (id. at- 1912-14; GX-760); (5) his Eufora investment was transferred to CMG (Tr. at 1916-17; GX-1706); (6) Nash met with Constantine and said that Constantine told him that his Eufora investment would be used for the production of commercials, which Constantine showed him (Tr. at 1915-16, 1953-54); and (7) Nash contributed to the Global Settlement Fund to recoup his investment in the Diamante project (id. at 1918-23).

In addition, Nash testified that, in or around 2012, Constantine sent him a transfer of membership document dated April 24, 2008 that purported -to transfer a 0.5 percent stake in Eufora to ’ Nash from CMG. (Id. at 1942-43; GX-764.) He said that, when he originally invested in Eu-fora, he was not told that his funds would be used to buy a stake in the company from Constantine. (Tr. at 1945.)

2.Cross-Examination

On cross-examination, Nash testified that Constantine drafted the transfer of membership document in 2012 and backdated it to 2008. (Id. at 1946, 2023.) He also said that the overall purpose of the Global Settlement Fund was, to recover investments with Jowdy in Mexico, though he said its purposes, were “very broad.” (Id. at 1992-93,2002.) In addition, he testified that he recalled a meeting of Eufora shareholders where Constantine offered to fully return several individuals’ investments in that company. (Id. at 2013-15.)

3.Re-Direct Testimony

On re-direct, Nash said that he was never reimbursed for either his Eufora investment or his Global Settlement Funds contribution. (Id at 2035.) He also testified that bank records show that a portion of his Eufora investment was sent to Wam-pler Buchanan and Kenner,- and he said that he did not authorize his funds to be used' for such purposes. (Id. at 2036; GX-1706.) Nash further testified that, although the Global Settlement Fund had a broad purpose, Constantine never discussed with him using that money for his personal expenses, a lawsuit in Florida, race cars, or the purchase of Playboy. (Id. at 2042.)

xvii. Owen Nolan

Nolan is a former NHL player who resides in California. (Tr. at 2050.) Nolan testified that he (1) invested $200,000 in Eufora in 2003 through Kenner (id. at 2058-59); and (2) in or around 2005, he invested $100,000 in the Hawaii Project (id. at 2063-64). He said that he never authorized Kenner to open a line of credit in his name with Northern Trust to fund the Hawaii Project, but later learned that Kenner opened a $2.2 million account with that bank. (Id. at 2065-66.) Nolan testified that a document purporting to contain his signature and extending a line of credit for a real estate investment does not in fact contain his authentic signature. (Id. at 2067-69; GX-2154.) In addition, Nolan testified that he was unaware that the Northern Trust line of credit account in his name had a negative balance of $2,189,796.02 in April 2007 and that funds were borrowed from Peca’s line of credit and the lines of credit for other investors to pay interest owed bn Nolan’s account. (Tr. at 2069-73.) He also said that he never received his Eufora investment back. (Id. at 2074-75.)

xviii. Darryl Sydor

1. Direct Testimony

Darryl Sydor (“Sydor”) is a former NHL player who resides in Minnesota. (Tr. at 2157.) He testified that (1) in'or around 2003, he invested $600,000 in the Hawaii Project based on advice from Ken-ner (£, at 2163-64); (2) Sydor did not authorize any of those funds to go to Constantine at that time (id. at 2165); (3) Kenner told Sydor that he would receive a portion of his Hawaii Project investment back following the Lehman Brothers loan (id. at 2166); and (4) Kennér never told Sydor that $866,200.86 from Sydor’s retirement account was used to pay off the Northern Trust line of credit in Sydor’s name (id. at 2168-69).

With respect to Eufora, Sydor said that he (1) invested $200,000 in or around 2004 and another $50,000 in or around 2008 based on Kenner’s advice (id. at 2169-71); (2) Sydor did not authorize any of that money to go to CMG or to Playboy (id. at 2172-73; GX-1709);' (3) CMG’s bank account statement shows an incoming July. 8, 2008 wire from Sydor for $50,000 and an outgoing wire for $28,000 to Playboy that same day.(-id)

In addition, with respect to the Global Settlement Fund, Sydor said that (1) he invested approximately $250,000 to pay for legal fees related to a dispute of a Mexico real estate project (id. at 2175); and (2) Sydor did not authorize Kenner to spend that contribution on any other litigation or on Eufora (id. at 2176, 2179).

1 2. Cross-Examination

On cross-examination, Sydor testified that his signature was on a letter to Northern Trust dated November 3, 2014 authorizing Kenner to access his line of credit at Northern Trust, (Id. at 2194-95; Defs.’ Exh. Kenner-64.) He said that Kenner often sent him documents to sign that were incomplete. (Tr. at 2197.) In addition, Sydor testified that a September 8, 2009 email from .him to Constantine indicates that he asked Constantine to “take care of’ an outstanding attorney fee related to an employment litigation involving Kenner and a former employee of Kenner’s during which Sydor was deposed. {Id. at 2252-53} Defs.’ Exh. C-141.)

3. Re-Direct Testimony

On re-direct, Sydor testified that he did not believe that Constantine ever offered him a 100 percent refund of his Eufora investment and said that he never got that money back. (Tr. at 2293.) In addition, he denied that his authentic signature was ,on several exhibits introduced by the defense. {Id. at 2294-95.)

xix. James Grdina

1. Direct Testimony

Grdina resides in Arizona and owns a company that finances specialty cars. (Tr. at 2359.) He testified that he met Constantine in or around 2000 to discuss investing in Kenner’s purchase of the Waikapuna property in Hawaii. {Id. at 2361.) Grdina said that, to that end, his company at the time, Intrigue Investment Company (“Intrigue”), and CMG formed' a company called Urban Expansion, LLC (“Urban Expansion”) with a $3.5 million contribution from Intrigue and $1.5 million from CMG. {Id. at 2361-62.) Urban Expansion then loaned $3.5 million to Kau Holding Company in or around October 2005 for the purchase of the Waikapuna property. {Id. at 2365, 2414; GX-3801.) In addition, Grdina said that loan was for a four-year term and had a 15 percent interest rate. (Tr. at 2371; GX-3802.) He also testified that the Urban Expansion loan had a prepayment penalty of $2 million, which he said was Constantine’s idea. (Tr. at 2371-74; GX-3811.) Moreover, Grdina said that bank records showed that CMG received $330,000 on or about October 31, 2005 from an account that held Intrigue’s $3.5 million contribution to the Urban Expan-, sion loan, and Grdina testified that CMG was not owed any fee or payment associated with the Urban Expansion loan at that time. (Tr. at 2377-78; GX-3819-A.)

Grdina further testified that the Urban Expansion loan was fully re-paid on August 14, 2006, in part with proceeds from the Lehman Brothers loan for a total of $6,936,000. (Tr. at 2378-79.) He said that payment included a portion of the repayment penalty; and Grdina testified that “Intrigue Investment Company received 70 percent of it, $4,855,000, and Constantine Management Group received 30 percent which was approximately $2,081,000.” {Id. at 2379-80.) However, Grdina said that he later learned that Constantine never actually contributed $1,5 million to the Urban Expansion loan. (Tr. at 2380.)'

2., Cross-Examination

On cross-examination, Grdina testified that Kenner contributed $100,000 of his own money to the purchase of the Waika-puna property, in addition to the $3.5 million from Intrigue. {Id. at 2408-09.) He also said that Kenner personally guaranteed the $3.5 million Intrigue loan via an amended security agreement. {Id. at 2410; Defs.’ Exh. Kenner-78.) ’

In addition, Grdina testified that, at one point, he confronted Constantine about his $1.5 million contribution to the Urban Expansion loan, and Grdina said that Constantine .did not provide him with documentation during that meeting showing that he had in fact made that investment, (Tr. at 2421.) He also said that he had no objection to the pre-payment penalty. .{Id. at 2445.)

3. Re-Direct Testimony

On re-direct, Grdina said that terms of the Urban Expansion loan did not require Constantine to stagger his $1.5 million contribution, and he said that that entire amount was due' within 10- days of Constantine’s signirig of the loan operating agreement. {Id. at 2466.) He also-said that Kenner had no financial interest in the Urban Expansion loan. (Id. at 2472; GX-3824.)

xx. Peter Melley

Peter Melley (“Melley”) is an employee of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. (Tr. at 2477.) He testified that Kenner was a licensed stockbroker. (Id. at 2480-85.)

xxi. Timothy Gaarn

1. Direct Testimony

Gaarn lives in New Jersey and testified on behalf of the government pursuant to a non-prosecution agreement. (Tr. at 2489, 2503.) He met Kenner while Gaarn was working as an independent consultant. (Id. at 2490-91.) In addition, Gaarn said that he met Constantine through Kenner. (Id. at 2491.) He testified that he sought investors for Eufora based on representations about that company made by Constantine and Kenner. (Id. at 2491-92.)

Moreover, Gaarn said that he became a managing member of AZ Eufora Partners (“AZ Eufora”), which owned a portion of Eufora, in or around 2008 or 2009 based on Kenner’s request and as a favor to him because Kenner had previously lent Gaarn money. (Id. at 2492-95; GX-TG-2.) Gaarn further testified that he opened a Wacho-via bank account on behalf of AZ Eufora at or around the time he became a managing member (the “Wachovia Account”). (Tr. at 2496-97; GX-2300.) He also said that he signed a transfer of membership interest agreement in around 2008 that Kenner backdated to indicate that it was signed on August 1, 2005. (Tr. at 2499-50; GX-TG-2.)

Gaarn testified that, after opening the Wachovia Account, he transferred money out of it at Kenner’s request, and he said that he participated in telephone conferences regarding Eufora’s operations with Constantine. (Tr. at 2501.) Moreover, he said that, in or around 2010, he and others sued Constantine because Constantine had said that he wanted to sell Eufora’s patent, thereby devaluing the company. (Id. at 2502, 2544-46.)

In addition, Gaarn said that, on or about December 31, 2008, the Wachovia Account received $100,000 from Eufora, which was pre-dated by a December 29, 2008 transfer from Glen Murray (“Murray”) to Eufora. (Id. at 2514; GX-23Ó1 and GX-2211.) Gaarn also said that, on December 31, 2008, he transferred $81,127 from the Wa-chovia Account to Kenner at Kenner’s request. (Tr. at 2516; GX-2301.) He further testified that he made withdrawals from that account to pay his own personal expenses with Kenner’s knowledge. (Tr. at 2517.) Likewise, Gaarn said that, at Ken-ner’s direction, (1) on or about February 25, 2009, he transferred $13,000 from the Wachovia account to Kenner and “Casa Mr. Loan”; (2) on or about February 25, 2009, he transferred $30,000 to Kenner; (3) in or about April and May 2009, he also transferred $95,000 and $85,000 to Kenner from the Wachovia Account. (Tr. at 2520-24; GX-2303, GX-2305, and GX-2306.)

Moreover, Gaarn said that he also made funds transfers from the Wachovia Account to Kaiser at Kenner’s direction, including a $30,000 transfer on or about February 12, 2009 and a $40,300 transfer on or about February 25, 2009; and he said that a May 5, 2009 wire for $100,000 from Eufora to AZ Eufora was pre-dated by a $100,000 wire from William Ranford (“Ranford”) to Eufora. (Tr. at 2620-23; GX-2216, GX-2303, and GX-2305.)

Finally, Gaarn said that he was involved in obtaining financing for the Diamante project from Lehman Brothers by introducing Kenner and Jowdy to a contact at Lehman Brothers. (Tr. at 2559-60.)

2. Cross-Examination

On cross-examination, Gaarn denied that the payment he sent from the Wachovia Account to Kenner constituted re-payment of the money that Kenner had previously loaned Gaarn. (Id. at 2581.) He also said that the total value of the wires received by the Wachovia Account during, the-four-month period that he managed the account was approximately $700,000. (Id. at 2627.) Gaarn further testified that AZ Eufora was responsible for managing the Eufora investment of the various NHL players who invested in Eufora. (Id. at 2627-28.)

Moreover, Gaarn said that Constantine had nothing to do with the favor that Gaarn performed for Kenner in his role at AZ Eufora, and he testified that Kenner directed all of'the outgoing funds transfers from the Wachovia Account without, to Gaarn’s knowledge, any participation by Constantine. (Id. at 2629, 2632-33.)

xxii. William Castro

William Castro (“Castro”) testified that, in 2006, he owned Unique Auto Sports. (Tr. at 2694.) He said that, on or around August 15, 2006, Unique Auto Sports received a $17,500 payment from CMG to perform work on a vehicle provided by Constantine. (Id. at 2695-96; GX-1733.) He also said that he filmed a television promotional program for automobiles involving Constantine and his car. (Tr. at 2696.)

xxiii. Bruce Derreth

Bruce Derreth (“Derreth”)-works for a company that was previously known as Centrum Financial Services (“Centrum”), which made short-term loans for commercial purposes secured by real estate. (Tr. at 2698.) He said that, on or about June 26, 2005, Kenner applied for a loan from Cent-rum, and that on July 14, 2005, Centrum issued .a $3 million promissory note to Kenner, who also signed a document personally guaranteeing that .loan. ..(M at 2699-2702; GX-3710, GX-3712, and GX-3713.) In addition, Derreth testified that Kenner signed a document certifying that the loan would be used to develop a 1,500-acre property on Hawaii that was also used to collateralize the Centrum loan. (Tr. at 2703; GX-3703.)

Derreth further testified that, on or about-July 19, 2005, Centrum disbursed $2,576,364.54 of the loan to Kenner through Little Isle IV. (Tr. at 2704-5; GX-3720-R and GX-2101.) He also said that Kenner failed to make interest payments on'the loan, and as a result, when the loan came due on February 1, 2006, Centrum and Kenner amended the note to loan an additional $700,000 and to extend the due date to August 1, 2006. (Tr.' at 2707-08; GX-3714.) In addition, Derreth .testified that, on or about August 14, 2006, Centrum received $3,939,333.04 to pay off the loan to Kenner. (Tr. at 2709-10; GX-3719-R.)

xxiv. Steven Rucchin

1. , Direct Testimony

Steven Rucchin (“Rucchin”) is another former NHL player. (Tr. at 2717.) He testified that (1) in or around 2003, he invested in the Hawaii Project and opened a $1 million line of credit with Northern Trust based on Kenner’s advice (Tr. at 2720-22); (2) at the time Rucchin decided to invest in the Hawaii Project, he did not authorize that his investment be used to fund property -in Mexico or to go to Constantine (id. at 2723-24); (3) Rucchin did not authorize his Northern Trust line of credit to be used to make interest payments for the lines of credit belonging to other NHL players (id. at 2725-26); (4) after he received notice that his line of credit was in default, Rucchin contacted Kenner, who told him not to worry about it (id. at 2728); and (5) in or around the fall of 2013, Rucchin learned that he had lost money as a result of that default (id. at 2730).

In addition, Rucchin testified that, in or around 2003, he invested $100,000 in Eu-fora based on Kenner’s advice and made an additional $150,000 investment in 2009. {Id. at 2731-33; GX-5006 and GX-6004.) He said that Eufora’s bank account shows an incoming wire from Rucchin on February 19, 2009 for $100,000 and an outgoing wire to Gaam for $100,000 on that same day. (Tr. at 2733-34; GX-2213.) Likewise, Rucchin said that records show that, on or about April 17, 2009, he and Murray each invested $50,000 in Eufora, and that the next day, an outgoing wire transferred $100,000 from Eufora to Gaarn. (Tr. at 2734-35; GX-6004 and GX-2215.)

'¡With respect to the Global Settlement Fund, Rucchin testified that, in or around May 2009, he met with Kenner and Constantine at Kenner’s request. (Tr. at 2749-50.) He said that he agreed to help fund litigation against Jowdy because he believed that Jowdy was misusing investment funds and that he contributed $50,000 on or about May 22, 2009. {Id. at 2750-51; GX-1508.) Rucchin testified that he did not authorize that his contribution be ¡used to fund Eufora or anything else. (Tr. at 2751.) He said that he never received a return on his Eufora investment or a reimbursement of his. Global Settlement Fund contribution. {Id. at 2752-53.)

2. Cross-Examination

On cross-examination, Rucchin said that he anticipated acquiring a greater share of Eufora in return for his Global Settlement Fund contribution. {Id. at 2783-84.) He also said that bank records show that Richards received a $50,000 wire from Rucchin on May 29, 2009. (Tr. at 2789; Defs.’ Exh. C-175.) Rucchin testified that he would have no -objection to Richards being paid legal fees from the Global Settlement Fund. (Tr. at 2790.) Rucchin further testified that he recalled that, his interest in Eufora was held in AZ Eufora. Qd. at 2801.) He also said that Constantine had nothing to do with the Northern Trust line of credit. {Id. at 2807.)

xxv. William Ranford

Ranford is another former NHL player. (Tr. at 2813.) He testified that (1) he did not invest in the Hawaii Project {id. at 2815); (2) he invested in a Mexico property with which Jowdy was involved {id. at 2819); and (3) he decided to invest in Eufora, and as a result, on July 7, 2008, Kenner wired $200,000 on Ranford’s behalf to CMG (id. at 2820-22;,. GX-1512). In addition, he said that bank records show that $100,000 was wired from Ranford’s account on February 6, 2009 to Eufora, but Ranford said that he did not authorize that transaction and that Kenner did not tell him about, it. (Tr. at 2823-24; GX-1513.) Likewise, Ranford testified that, although records show an additional $100,000 transfer from him to Eufora on May 4, 2009, he did not authorize that transaction. (Tr. at 2831-32; GX-1514 and GX-2216.) With respect to both of the 2009 transfers, Ranford said that he did not know of the subsequent transfers to the Wachovia Account or the payments from the Wachovia Account to Kenner and others. (E.gTr. at 2833.)

With respect to the Global Settlement Fund, Ranford said that he contributed $100,000 on June 15, 2009 based on Ken-ner’s representation that that money was necessary to- recoup Ranford’s investment from Jowdy. {Id. at 2834-85; GX-1506; Defs.’ Exh. C-177.) He also said that Ken-ner told him that the Global. Settlement Fund would be used “for the legal costs in order to finalize the Mexico deal and the Eufora deal.” (Tr. at 2836-37.) However, Ranford said that -he- did not authorize a subsequent $300,000 transfer on July 16, 2009 to Richards. (Id. at 2837-38, 2841; GX-1507.) Moreover, Ranford said that he never received his Eufora investment back and that he did not know what had happened to his Global Settlement-Fund contribution. (Tr, at 2845.)-

On cross-examination, Ranford testified that bank records show that his $100,000 contribution to the Global ■ Settlement Fund was returned to his account on or about June 12, 2009, but he said that he had no recollection of that refund. {Id. at 2875-76; Defs.’ Exh. C-180.)

xxvi. Christopher Manfredi

Manfredi currently works in the coffee industry and primarily lives in Hawaii. (Tr. at 1909-10.) He testified that he first traveled to Hawaii in 2002 with Kaiser and that they entered into a contract to purchase a 258-acre property. (Id. at 1910-12.) Manfredi said that he subsequently met Kenner through mutual friends in or around 2003, and that, Kenner suggested investing in additional nearby properties. (Id. at 2913-20.)

In addition, Manfredi testified that bank records show several .transfers of funds intended for the Hawaii Project to CMG, including a $130,000 wire from Little Isle IV on December 30, 2004; and a $37,500 wire from Little Isle IV on April 21, 2005. (Id. at 2961-63; GX-1751.) He said that, to his knowledge, Constantine did not perform any work on the Hawaii Project that would have entitled him to such payment. (Tr. at 2962.)

On cross-examination, Manfredi testified that he spoke with Constantine regarding the Hawaii Project, but he said that he did not recall -exchanging 'several e-mails with Constantine introduced as evidence that indicated that Constantine was involved in obtaining financing for the Hawaii Project. (Id. at 3004-18; Defs.’ Exhs. C-58, C-61, C-181, and C-188.)

xxvii. - Brian Berard

Brian Berard (“Berard”) is a former NHL player. (Tr. at 3029.) He testified that (1) he met Kenner in or around 1994 (id. at 3031); (2) he invested $100,000 in the Hawaii Project via wire to little Isle IV, and Berard thought that money would be used for a down payment on the Hawaii property (id. at 3033-35); (3) he opened an approximately $700,000 line of credit with Northern Trust based on Kenner’s advice with the understanding that it would be used to make interest payments on the Hawaii Property pending a loan from Lehman Brothers (id. at 3035-37); (4) Berard secured that line of credit with $1.1 million in bonds and stocks (id. at 3038); (5) he contacted Kenner after receiving a notice-of default from Northern Trust, and Ken-ner told him that the default meant that Berard had obtained a larger share of the Hawaii Project (id, at 3040-41); and (6) Berard never received any documentation showing that he had a share in the Hawaii Project worth more than his original $100,000 investment (id. at 3041-42).

With respect to the Global Séttlement Fund, Berard said that Kenner and Constantine' asked him to contribute $250,000 to finance litigation against Jowdy related to Mexico investments, but Berard said that he did not do so because he lacked the money. (Id. at 3050-53, 3056-58.) As for Eufora, Berard said that he invested $100,000 by wire dated December 23, 2003. (Id. at 3058-60; GX-723.) Berard said that he had not received any return on that investment. (Tr. at 3061.)

On cross-examination, Berard said that he sent an e-mail to; inter alia, Kenner and Kaiser dated March 4, 2011, which stated that he understood that the purposes of the Global Settlement Fund were to pay lawyers’ fees for litigation against Jowdy, as well as to buy out the shares of Juneau, Moreau, and Nolan in an unspecified investment. (Tr. at 3141-43; Defs.’ Exh. C-183.) That e-mail also said that it was Berard’s understanding that Constantine sought his involvement in the Global Settlement Fund because “Tommy was spending the money as fast as it was coming in.” (Tr. at 3145; Defs.’ Exh. C-183.)

xxviii. Lynne Lagarde

Lynne Lagarde (“Lagarde”) is a retired attorney who previously represented Constantine for close to two decades. (Tr. at 3382-83.) She testified that, on or about May 19, 2009, her prior law firm — Early, Curl & Lagarde P.C. — received a wire of $10,000 from the Richards Escrow Account as payment for legal work performed for Constantine. (Id. at 3402-03; GX-1102.)

xxix. Lani Dolan

Lani Dolan (“Dolan”) is a real estate saleswoman. (Tr. at 3419-20.) She testified that she worked for Kenner on the Hawaii Project. (Id. at 3420-21.) Dolan said that, in or around 2005, she saw Kenner sign the names of his NHL clients on a document, stating: “The guys that he was— advised for, the hockey guys. He had each one of their signatures on separate pages and he was doing them all on one page.” (Id, at 3423.) She explained that Kenner “traced” his clients’ signatures: “Like Glen Murray’s name. He would sign his name and I would photocopy that. Then he would take the next one, Brian Berard, and put it under and sign it onto the same sheet of paper so that all the guys were on one sheet.” (Id. at 3424.)

xxx. Glenn Murray

Murray is a former NHL player. (Tr. at 3474.) He testified that (1) Juneau introduced him to Kenner (id. at 3475); (2) he invested $100,000 in the Hawaii Project (id. at 3479); (3) he opened a line of credit with Northern Trust secured with $1 million transferred from his Charles Schwab investment account, although Murray could not recall if he agreed to this transaction (id. at 3481-82); (4) he did not receive a default notice from Northern Trust (id. at 3486); and (5) although records show transfers from Murray’s line of credit account to the Northern Trust account of other NHL players, Murray did not owe them any money at the time those transfers occurred (id. at 2487-89; GX-28).

With respect to Eufora, Murray said that he made a $166,000 investment in or around 2004 after speaking with Kenner and Constantine about that company. (Tr. at 3490-92; GX-1522.) In addition, Murray said that he did not recall making additional investments in Eufora, notwithstanding that records showed a $100,000 transfer from his account to Eufora on December 29, 2008, although Murray said that he thought he likely authorized this transaction. (Tr. at 3493-95; GX-2211.) However, Murray could not explain a December 31, 2008 transfer of $100,000 from Eufora to the Wachovia Account or a subsequent $81,127 transfer that same day from the Wachovia Account to Kenner. (Tr. at 3494-97; GX-2211 and GX-2301.) Likewise, Murray said that he could not recall authorizing a $100,000 transfer from his account to Eufora on March 19, 2009, and could not explain a March 20, 2009 transfer of $100,000 from Eufora to the Wachovia Account. (Tr. at 3498-3500; GX-2214.)

In addition, Murray testified that he contributed $250,000 to the Global Settlement Fund by wire dated May 19, 2009 to Richards’ account. (Tr. at 3501-02; GX-1504.) He said that he received an e-mail that same day from Kenner, copying Constantine, indicating that those funds would be used to acquire additional assets, including a greater interest in Eufora, as well as to finance litigation against Jowdy. (Tr. at 3504-06; GX-GM-1.) Murray testified that he never received any documentation indicating that he acquired an additional share of Eufora and had not received any return on his original investments. (Tr. at 3506-07.)

On cross-examination, Murray testified that he may have received a return in 2006 of $42,533 on his $100,000 Hawaii Project investment,-as well as a $385,481.75 payout on his line of credit that same year. (Tr. at 3514-15.) However,, on, re-direct, Murray said that ,he did not have any documentation of those payments. (Id. at 3585-87.) In addition, he said that Northern Trust records show that the closing balance on his line of credit was $0. (Id. at 3598; GX-2Í78.) On re-cross-examination, Murray testified that records showed a $42,533 transfer to his Charles Schwab account. (Tr. at 3604-05; Defs.’ Exh. Kenner-104.)

xxxi. John Paul Osborn

John Paul Osborn (“Osborn”) is a forensic document examiner, and the Court allowed him to testify as an expert witness. (Tr. at 3615, 3620T21.) He testified that he examined Kaiser’s purported signatures on two consulting agreements dated December 15, 2004 and June 1, 2005 and determined them to be inauthentic after comparing them to genuine signatures. (Tr. at 3622-29; GX-5104 and GX-Osborn-1.)

xxxii. Jackson Stewart

Jackson Stewart (“Stewart”) is a California resident who designs and builds race cars and manages racing teams. (Tr. at 3663.) He owns Unitech Racing Incorporated (“Unitech”) and used to manage a race team for Constantine. (Id. at 3663-64.) Stewart testified that Constantine told him that Constantine owned Eufora, and he said that Constantine introduced him to Kenner in or around 2007. (Id. at 3665-66.) He said that, in his opinion, Constantine was not a professional race car driver because he did not make- his living off of racing. (Id. at '3667.) On direct testimony, Stewart engaged in the following colloquy:

Q. Did you have a discussion with Mr. Constantine about where he expected money to come in from?

A. As I explained earlier, we talked about the Playboy sponsorship.

Q. Anything else?

A. Towards the end of our relationship, he talked about a deal that he had in Hawaii and a deal that he had in Mexico, always assuring me that when those deals came to fruition, everything was going to be great'and there would be plenty of money for everybody.

(Id. at 3675.)

xxxiii. Blake Rosser

Blake Rosser (“Rosser”) is a Nevada resident who testified that he worked in the racing business from 2003 to 2006. (Tr. at 3686.) He said that Constantine contacted him in 2005 to sponsor a race car team. (Id.) Rosser testified that his company, Vegas Marketing Promotions, received several payments from Constantine, including a $175,000 payment on October 23, 2006 from CMG for the purchase of race cars. (Id. at 3692; GX-1735.)

xxxiv. Ronald Richards

Richards is an attorney and testified that he has represented both Kenner and Constantine. (Tr. at 3794-95.) He said that, in or around May'2009, he had a conversation with Constantine about money being placed in an escrow account in the name of his law firm, the Law Office of Ronald Richards and Associates. (Id. at 3795-96.) Richards testified that Constantine told him that the Richards Escrow Account would receive incoming wire transfers, but he did not recall if Constantine told him the identities of the senders, though Richards said that the senders had some relationship to Constantine or Kenner. (Id. at 3796-97.) Richards further testified that he knew that hockey players would be among the individuals wiring money into the Richards Escrow Account. (Id. at 3797.) In addition, Richards said that Kenner did not tell him where to send money once it was deposited into that account, but Constantine did provide him with such direction. {Id. at 3798.)

Richards further testified that, his law firm maintained a separate general corporate account that held advanced fees or fees that were earned, and he said that he transferred money from the Richards Escrow Account to the general account. {Id. at 3800-02; GX-RR-1.) He said that his law firm received approximately $335,000 to pursue litigation on behalf of Kenner and the NHL players. (Tr. at 3804; GX-RR-1.)

Moreover, Richards said that all disbursements from the Richards Escrow Account were authorized by Constantine, including a June 4, 2009 $416,000 transfer to Aerospace Reports; a June 8, 2009 $75,000 transfer to Cabin Crafters; a June 2009 transfer of $450,000 to Edenholm Motor-sports; and August 2009 transfers of $40,000 and $4,065 to AZ Avalon. (Tr. at 3805-11; GX-1102.) In sum, Richards testified that, assuming the accuracy of the following figures, Constantine authorized disbursements from the escrow account of, inter alia, $120,000 to AZ Avalon; $17,260 to AZ Falcon Partners; $161,000 to Cabin Crafters; $26,677.40 to Casey Rodriguez; $640,000 to ■ Edenholm Motorsports; $120,050 to Eufora; $120,000 to Gilmartin, Magence & Ross; $384,300 to JBAZ; and $65,000 to Sullivan & Cromwell. (Tr. at 3812-16.) In addition, he said that Constantine authorized a $22,425.02 payment on July 30, 3009 from the Richards Escrow Account to Kenner. (Id. at 3829-30; GX-1102.) Richards further testified that Constantine never directed him as to which funds in the account were designated for the Global Settlement Fund. (Tr. at 3817.)

xxxiv. Christopher Petrellese

Christopher Petrellese (“Petrellese”) is a forensic accountant for the FBI. (Tr, at 3909.) He prepared several summary charts and graphs introduced as'evidence at trial, including an exhibit that showed that, from December 1, 2004 through March 31, '2006, $247,500 was transferred from Little Isle I Vs Northern Trust bank account to CMG. (Id. at 3933-34; GX-41.) Moreover, Petrellese testified that, from December 2004 to September 2005, CMG received a net amount of $1,000,900 from Little Isle IV and Ula Makika. (Tr. at 3934; GX-41-B.) He also discussed a summary chart for Eufora’s bank account for the period from December 1, 2008 to May 31/2009 (GX-46-B), stating:

Q. Looking at the Eufora operating account in December 2008, can you tell us what you highlighted in terms of money going in and money going out?

A. Yes. I was asked to look for particular players who sent money into this account and where it went to.

Q. What happened?

A. It appears mostly that the amounts that came in that day, it either went out that day or in the following couple of days.

(Tr. at 3942-43.). For instance, Petrellese said that the chart showed incoming funds from Murray on December 29, 2008 followed by an outgoing transfer to Gaarn two days later. (Id. at 3943.)

In addition, Petrellese said that a chart summarizing transactions pertaining to the Wachovia Account showed that approximately 98 percent of the funds deposited into that account came from Eufora. (Id. at 3946-47; GX-49.) He further testified that the chart indicated that $381,127 was transferred from the Wachovia Account to Kenner’s Wells Fargo and Bank of America- accounts, accounting for roughly 55 percent of all outgoing transfers. (Tr. at 3947; GX-49-B.)

xxxv.' Joshua Wayne

Joshua Wayne (‘Wayne”) is a special agent with the Internal Revenue Service. (Tr. at 3985.) He similarly testified to summary charts that he created. For instance, he reviewed an exhibit depicting transact tions pertaining to the Urban Expansion loan and said that it showed that a little over $2 million of the $6.9 million in proceeds from the Lehman Brothers settlement went to CMG, followed by outgoing transfers to, inter alia, Kenner for the payment of a personal loan and to Constantine for the payment of personal expenses, including $130,000 to Uniteeh; $100,000 for a cash withdrawal; $17,500 to Unique Auto Sports; $115,802.96 to Playboy; and $175,000 to Vegas Marketing Promotions. (Id. at 4000-01; GX-Chart-7.)

In addition, Wayne testified as follows regarding other charts that he created:

Q. Turning your attention to Chart 9. Is there additional money that you reviewed at the same time for Mr. Kaiser?

A. That’s correct.

Q. Where does that money go?

A. $380,000 on November 1, 2006 is transferred to Ula Makika. Money is then transferred over to CMG Tommy Constantine. Also from Ula Makika $200,000 is transferred to Phil Kenner.

[[Image here]]

Q. I’m going to turn your attention to Chart 10. What happened to the money that Mr. Peca sent for Eufora?

A. It goes to CMG, Tommy Constantine account.

Q. And what happened that same day?

A. The same amount is then transferred over on that same day to Phil Kenner.

Q. What’s the amount?

A. $100,000.

Q. Turning to Chart 11. What happens to the money that Mr. Nash sent?

A. It goes to CMG, Tommy Constantine account.

Q. And what happens to the money after that?

A. It goes to Wampler, Buchanan law firm, Kinetic Speed Shop, and Phil Ken-ner.

Q. Did you review invoices for Wam-pler and Kinetic Speed Shop?

A. I did.

Q. Can you describe generally what those expenses are for?

A. Wampler was for, related to a lawsuit involving Tommy Constantine and— in Florida and Kinetic Speed Shop, has to do with cars.

(Tr. at 4004-05; GX-Chart-9.) In addition, Wayne reviewed a text message conversation between Kenner and Constantine and testified as follows:

Q. I’m going to direct your, attention to what is in evidence as government Exhibit 203A. Looking at this conversation, do you see on the right it says, I’m sending CMG 100K today. Please send the extra 25K back to me?

A. Yes..

Q. And on the left it says 25K question mark? I need 40K for lawyers and 40K for G T car. Is that Eufora monfey, question mark. Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. Yes on the right side?

A. Yes.

Q. On the left side it áays, Are you cool if I just sent the 17K? I’m sorry to nickel and dime you, but I have to lay out 80 straight away and I don’t even have enough to afford a — I don’t even have enough to get to the meeting in Cabo. Do you see that?

A. Yes.

Q. On the right it says, No problem?

A. Yes.

(Tr. at 4005-06; GX-203-A.) Wayne further testified to additional charts that he created and said that they depicted payments from Sydor, Murray, Ranford, Ruc-chin, and Privitello that were subsequently used to pay personal expenditures by Ken-ner and Constantine. (Tr. at 4007-14; GX-Chart-10-20.) Finally, with respect to the GSF, Wayne said that he prepared a chart summarizing disbursements from the Richards Escrow Account and said that it showed, inter alia, a $55,000 wire to the Arizona Bar Foundation as payment to Steve Silver, Constantine's tax attorney. (Tr. at 4015-18; GX-80.)

b. Kenner’s Case

i. Vincent Tesoriero

Vincent Tesoriero (“Tesoriero”) testified that he served with Kaiser as a police officer in New York City and retired from the New York City Fire Department in 2004. (Tr. at 4106-07.) He said that Kaiser approached him to invest in the Sag Harbor Property and that Kaiser told him that Manfredi would not be part of that deal. (Id. at 4107-10.) Tesoriero further testified that Kaiser never provided him with documents in connection with the Sag Harbor Property operating agreement. (Id. at 4111.) On cross-examination, Tesoriero said that it was not his understanding that Peca was an investor in the Sag Harbor Property. (Id. at 4112-13.)

ii. Phillip Kenner

Kenner’s testimony spanned several days of trial. Accordingly, the Court will summarize the testimony that is relevant to the instant motions.

1. Direct Testimony

On direct examination, Kenner asserted that portions of Kaiser’s testimony were inaccurate, stating, inter alia, that (1) Kenner never told Kaiser that he was worth $500 million during their initial meeting (Tr. at 4130-31); and (2) Kaiser was not owed any money pertaining to the Hawaii Project (id. at 4142-43). In addition, he said that Berard was wrong to testify that Kenner never informed him that the Northern Trust line of credit account in his name would be used for loans to Jowdy projects in Mexico. (Id. at 4153-54.) Kenner further testified that he did not know why government witnesses, including Berard, failed to recall certain events during their testimony. (Id. at 4153-56.)

Likewise, Kenner rebutted the testimony of other witnesses, contending that (1) Donlan’s testimony pertaining to Kenner’s practice with client signatures was untruthful (id. at 4168-69); (2) “Peca was completely aware of the establishment of his line of credit and the purpose behind it” (id. at 4169); (3) Kenner never represented to Mrs. Peca that the Northern Trust line of credit would only be open for six to nine months (id. at 4183-84); (4) Rucchin was aware of the loss of his line of credit collateral prior to 2013 (id. at 4187-93); (5) Sydor did communicate with Northern Trust about the default on his line of credit (id. at 4198-4200); (6) Nolan was aware of his line of credit before 2008 (id. at 4211-14); (7) Kenner never prohibited Masearella from communicating with Kenner’s clients (id. at 4221-22); and (8) Murray was aware that the collateral for his Northern Trust line of credit was seized prior to his testimony at trial (id. at 4246-51). In support of this testimony, Kenner introduced several exhibits as evidence, such as text messages and mailing records.

In addition, Kenner said that he never advised his clients that the Hawaii Project was risk-free, contrary to Rucchin’s testimony (id. at 4268-69), and he said that they did receive a partial return on their Hawaii Project investments (id. at 4338-89). He further testified that he would characterize the Northern Trust lines of credit as “pooled funds for the benefit of’ Little Isle IV and admitted to using-funds from those accounts to pay off interest due on other accounts. (Id. at 4282-83.) Kenner said that the various lines of credit holders were aware of those transactions and there was no deceit on his part. (Id. at 4283-84.) Moreover, he testified that the investors had “[cjomplete knowledge” that the lines of credit were used to make loans to Jow-dy and said that a revolving line of credit loan agreement memorialized the lending relationship between Jowdy and the Hawaii Project entities. (Id. at 4288-92; Defs.’ Exh. Kenner-214.) Kenner also said that he did not forge Kaiser’s signature on either of the CMG consulting agreements. (Id. at 4302-06.)

With respect to Eufora, Kenner testified that he did not represent to his clients that their. investments would be immediately used for any particular purpose, and he said that he did not deceive them by sending their funds to CMG. (Id. at 4346^7.) He also said that he did not have any communications with Privitello regarding Eufora in or around December 2009. (Id. at 4362.)

Kenner further testified that, in 2010, he assisted efforts by a group of Eufora investors to attempt a “hostile takeover” of that company and “wrangle control of Eu-fora on' a day to day operation basis away from Mr. Constantine and his management team.” (Id. at 4366-69.) In addition, Ken-ner testified that he believed that Constantine had misappropriated money from the Global Settlement Fund. (Id. at 4397-98.) He discussed several specific disbursements, including payments to Constantine’s lawyers and Eufora. (Id. at 4447-51.) Kenner also testified that, in or around August 2010, Kenner spoke with Constantine in a Home Depot parking lot in Scottsdale, Arizona and recorded that conversation. (Id. at 4571-75.)

2. Cross-Examination

On cross-examination, Kenner was asked about the revolving line of credit loan agreement with Jowdy, and the following colloquy ensued:

Q. Well, there is no record, no document that shows any player knew anything about the Jowdy loan except for the one document you produced and offered into evidence during your direct. Correct?

A. That in fact would be the loan agreement with Mr. Jowdy.

Q. And if that loan document proves to be phony, then you are lying. Correct?

MR. HALEY: I object to the form.

THE COURT: Sustained as to form.

(Id. at 4598.) Kenner further testified that none of his clients obtained a copy of that loan agreement. (Id. at 4599.)

Kenner also said that CMG received funds related to the Hawaii Project pursuant to consulting agreements that Constantine had signed. (Id. at 4654-57.) In addition, Kenner testified that a disclosure letter to Hawaii Project investors did not mention Constantine’s involvement in that endeavor. (Id. at 4657; Defs.’ Exh. Ken-ner-93.) Kenner also acknowledged that the dates on the consulting agreements were backdated. (Tr. 4676-77.)

In ‘addition, on cross-examination, the recording of the August 2010 Home Depot conversation between Kenner and Constantine was played. (Tr. 4773.) The jury heard the following dialogue:

• CONSTANTINE: So, I know you’re not gonna believe anything I tell you, but I’m gonna try anyway.

KENNER: Okay.

CONSTANTINE: There’s huge misunderstandings between us that- cultivated and got exponentially worse when you stopped communicating with me. We have a — and I don’t care if you tell them this — we have a bunch of half-wit idiots that you know how smart or stupid they are, in uh, translating for us, which is like a ridiculous game of telephone that I’ve ever, the most ridiculous.... I’ve said it fifteen times. I understand that you’re crazy and you’ve got big balls, and you understand that I’m crazy and I’ve got big balls, so we’re gonna crash and everybody’s gonna die. It’s not Jow-dy; it’s me. And it’s not — and I know you, so I have a — everything’s done and buttoned up with a bow on it.... I fixed your whole life and my whole life, and for some reason in the midst of all this you f***ing blew a gasket and aré trying to bury us all. I mean, I don’t understand. The whole Eufora thing is done, Everyone thinks we’re lying and playing games.

[[Image here]]

KENNER: I haven’t done anything yet. CONSTANTINE: Yes you have. You— you don’t realize what you have. You know the things' that were surrounding you that you were afraid of slamming doors in my office? It’s all coming down. And it’s gonna be bad, dude. It’s gonna be bad for them; it’s gonna be bad for all of us.

[[Image here]]

Do you know the sh**storm that’s gonna come down on you if this thing goes to the mat? Do you have any idea? Do you remember the things that happened? I mean, you think that this is only to protect me? I’m protecting you; I’m protecting Tim too. I’m protecting everybody, And you think that I’m the enemy and you think that you’re gonna cut a deal to f*** me up? They’re not gonna f***ing pinch the guy who drove the getaway car, they’re gonna pinch the guy that f***ing robbed the bank. And I know you think I robbed the bank, but I have answers for everything. Everything. In writing, and I’m trying to make it stopi

[[Image here]]

I’m gonna apologize to you right now because the way it sounds, it does sound like I’m, cutting you out of the loop and I’m being a dick, but I’m not. And you took it, and you ran with it Phil, and you’ve created a sh**storm that may not be fixable, and I’m here to tell you that I’ll put this sh** over here. You’re in deep f***ing sh** if this stuff happens. You are in deep sh**. The f***ing FBI is all over this f***ing thing and they’re not asking about anybody else and I’m trying to stop you from burning down your own life.

[[Image here]]

You know, I don’t even have a car anymore. I’m f***ing done. Everything is leveraged to the hilt. I’m f***ing broker than, you are. So, what are they gonna do to me? Lock me up? Big f***ing deal. 'For what, jaywalking? Let’s go. I’m not worried about me. I’m worried about— frankly, I’m worried about you and a couple other people. And I know why they’re playing so hardball with Tim, because he has liability too. What do you think is gonna happen when seven hundred thousand dollars shows up, going from the players that already bought it the first time, to the bank account, back to Tim Gaar — to, Eufora’s bank account — back to Tim Gaarn’s account, to your account? Like, this is not gonna look good, right? There’s so much sh** .that you’re not thinking about in this whole equation that needs to. just be put to bed and move forward productively, and 1⅛ here to ask you to not blow, -burn down, the house.

[[Image here]]

And Tim? Tim’s got friends in high places, but Tim has liability, which is why these people are pushing so hard. Because when I was trying to cover Tim ... I accidentally got sh** that I wasn’t — you think I was trying to burn you but I wasn’t trying to burn you.

(GX-4500 and GX-4500-T.)

With respect to his involvement in the attémpted “hostile takeover” of Eufora, Kenner said that other Eufora investors advised Privitello not to accept a return of his share in'that company. (Tr. at 4953-54.)

c. Constantine’s Case

i. Sergei Gonchar

1. Direct Testimony

Sergei Gonchar (“Gonchar”) is an NHL player who resides in Florida. (Tr. at 4796.) He testified that he had a business relationship with Kenner and that he invested in the Hawaii Project and Eufora. (Id. at 4788^1801.) Gonchar said that Ken-ner told him that he opened a Northern Trust line of credit in his name to fund the Hawaii Project that was secured by $1 million from Gonchar’s bond portfolio. (Id. at 4801.) He further testified that he lost that security when interest payments on the line of credit were not made and subsequently recovered approximately $500,000 from Northern Trust in a settlement agreement. (Id. at 4801-02.)

With respect to Eufora, Gonchar said that he invested $250,000 after speaking with Kenner about-that company. (Id. at 4802-03.)

In addition, Gonchar testified that, after speaking with Kenner and Constantine, he contributed $250,000 to the GSF to fund litigation against Jowdy ,by wire dated May 5, 2009 to the Richards Escrow Account. (Id. at 4805-07; GX-767.) He said that he received an e-mail on May 18, 2009 sent by Kenner that sought approval for a $250,000 contribution to the Global Settlement Fund .for, iwter alia, (1) the payment of .legal fees, which Gonchar understood to be related to the Jowdy litigation; (2).pub-. lie relations fees; (3) settlement costs and protective advances; and (4) the acquisition . of an additional interest in Eufora. (Tr. at 4808-12; Defs.’ Exh, C-294.) Regarding the Eufora component, Gonchar testified:

I understood from that that, since we put money into Global Settlement Fund, and Tommy was — the group put money and the return we were going to get percentage of the real estate investment or Eufora company and all those things we were putting money into this return, we were going to get some of the percentage from those businésses.

(Tr. at 4812.) In addition, Gonchar said that he replied “acknowledged and approved” to that e-mail the following day, (Id. at 4809.)

Moreover, Gonchar testified that, following that exchange, Constantine asked him if he could use Gonchar’s $250,000 contribution to pay his personal expenses:

Q. •. Okay. After meeting with Mr. Constantine; and Mr. Kenner and after you had received the emails on May 18,2009, and then acknowledged the authorization on the following day, do you recall having a conversation with Mr. Constantine, shortly thereafter, in regards to your contribution that you; made of $250,000?

A. Yes.

Q, , Would you tell us what you recall of that conversation?

A. He asked me if he can use some of that money for his personal use and then he will repay me later.

Q. Did he say why he needed to use the money for his personal use?

A. I just don’t remember all the details like, but back then I thought it was reasonable and I allowed him to use that.

Q. That is in reference to your original contribution of 250,000. Is that correct?

A. Yes, it is.

(Id. at 4817-18; see also id. at 4826-27.)

Gonchar further testified that he subsequently made additional wire transfers approximately totaling more than $1 million to the Richards Escrow Account. (Id. at 4819-20.) He said that those additional contributions were reflected in (1) a September 9, 2009 transfer of $749,985 from “the g55 foundation (gonchar swiss account)” to the Richards Escrow Account; (2) a November 6, 2009 transfer of $362,355.58 from “the g55 foundation (gonchar swiss account)” to the Richards Escrow Account; and (3) a November 30, 2009 transfer of $138,000 to the Richards Escrow Account. (Id.; GX-767.) Gonchar said the September 9, 2009 investment was used to pay a loan that Constantine had taken out to secure patents for Eufora and to increase Gonchar’s stake in that company:

Q. Could you give us the circumstances under which made this contribution. Tell us about it.

A. I remember there was that, I remember that there was a loan was taken by Eufora, and to pay that loan Tommy Constantine put money against — I’m sorry, that Tommy Constantine put patents against the loan, so to get those patents back he need to buy back that loan. So I transferred the money, you know, to that. I mean, this money went to that.

(Tr. at 4820; see also id. at 4821-22 (Gonc-har stating that that contribution was also used to purchase additional equity in Eu-fora on his behalf).) Gonchar further testified that his November 6, 2009 contribution to the GSF was also used to acquire a greater share of Eufora:

I don’t remember exactly what that was for. I just remember that for, that also I was getting additional percentage of the company. But, you know, we talked with [Constantine] and he was back then giving me head’s up on what he was doing. Some of the money, he was using it towards the commercial. He was making, you know, he was giving me the reasons like why we need those money. And that’s why back then I thought it was reasonable and that’s why I give him the money. That’s why I transferred the money.

(Id. at 4822-23.) Likewise, he said that his final November 30, 2009 GSF contribution was for the purpose of buying more Eu-fora equity. (Id. at 4823.) Gonchar testified that he did not recall authorizing any of his three additional investments in the Global Settlement Fund following his original $250,000 contribution to go towards Constantine’s personal use:

Q. And in regards to this money, did you also discuss with Mr. Constantine his use of that for his own personal expenses?

A. [The November 30, 2009] wire transfer? I don’t remember that.

Q. At any point in time after the first conversation regarding the 250, did you give him permission to use monies that you may have transferred?

A I don’t remember that.

(Id. at 4823.) However, Gonchar subsequently said that it was his “understanding [that] it was like as long as [Constantine was] going to pay it back, [Gonchar did not] mind him using the money [Gonchar] was putting in,” which would “include all of the monies that [Gonchar] had put into the Ron Richards’ account[.]” (Id. at 4826-27.)

Finally, Gonchar testified that he hired a forensic accountant to determine whether the money that he and others had contributed to the Global Settlement Fund was being properly spent, and Gonchar said that he remembered being “satisfied” with the investigator’s explanation and thought the “money was spent accordingly .... ” (Id. at 4827-29.)

2. Cross-Examination

On cross-examination, Gonchar testified that Kenner told him about the Northern Trust line of credit and the bond guaranty after that account had already been opened. (Id. at 4845^6.) He also said that the Hawaii Project “[n]ever worked out” and that “[n]obody ever told [him] anything about [Constantine] getting any money from” the Hawaii Project, which he said was separate from Eufora. (Id. at 4846-47.) Likewise, when presented with bank records, Gonchar said that he never intended that $330,000 from his line of credit would go to CMG, stating “I wasn’t [sic] discuss money going from Hawaiian deal to Constantine Management Group.” (Id. at 4850-52; GX-2139, GX-2101, and GX-2102.) In addition, he said that he was not informed when the Hawaii deal was presented to him that his investment in the Hawaii Project would be used to fund real estate developments in Mexico. (Tr. at 4847-48.)

With respect to Eufora, Gonchar testified on cross-examination that he believed that by investing in that company, he “was buying stock.” (Id. at 4853.) He said that Kenner never told him that Constantine was selling his own personal stock in Eu-fora. (Id. at 4855.)

ii. Mark D’Ambrosio

Mark D’Ambrosio (“D’Ambrosio”) resides in Arizona and works in the software industry, and he testified that he met Constantine in 1997 or 1998. (Tr. at 5161-62.) He said that he and Constantine developed the concept for Eufora; that they incorporated the company in or around 2001; and that Constantine, D’Ambrosio, Kenner, Edenholm, Matt Cotrell, and Daniel Kennedy executed Eufora’s operating agreement the following year. (Id. at 5163-67; Defs.’ Exh. C-265.) D’Ambrosio further testified that patents belonging to Eufora were pledged as collateral to obtain a loan in or around 2009 from a company called Neptune Capital. (Tr. at 5218-20.) He said that Gaarn was removed from Eufora’s board of directors in or around July 2010 because, among other reasons, Gaarn was part of a group that was trying to buy the Neptune loan. (Id. at 5234-36.) In addition, D’Ambrosio testified that the Eufora board approved disbursements to Constantine for the payment of his legal representation at Carey Rodriguez Greenberg. (Id. at 5253-54, 5269.) He also said that Privi-tello never requested that his Eufora investment be returned and said that the company offered to refund Kaiser’s and Privitello’s $200,000 loans, which were listed as short-term investments. (Id. at 5257-59; Defs.’ Exh. C-162.) In that regard, D’Ambrosio stated:

Q. Do you remember at any point during the conference call the issue coming up of returning the moneys to either Mr. Kaiser or Mr. Privitello or anyone involved in the $400,000 we’ve been talking about?

A. Yes, it was mentioned again after Tommy had previously offered and wanted to wire the money back to them. It was again noted on the call that we wanted to make sure we sent them back their investment.

(Id. at 5258.)

In addition, D’Ambrosio said that he was aware that Constantine was involved in obtaining financing for the Hawaii Project. (Tr. at 5181-83.)

iii. Jeff Foster

Jeff Foster (“Foster”) works in the financial services industry. (Tr. at 5404.) He met Constantine in or around 2011 through a mutual acquaintance and said that they discussed Eufora’s business. (Id. at 5407-10.) Foster testified that, in or around 2013, he and Constantine signed a memorandum of understanding whereby Eufora agreed to purchase 10,000 cards from Foster’s business, and in return, Foster’s company would perform services for Eufora. (Id, at 5410-11.) However, Foster said that he and Constantine could not find a bank to sponsor that transaction and that their deal was put on hold following Constantine’s arrest. (Id. at 5411.)

iv. Robert Semple

1. Direct Testimony

Robert Semple (“Semple”) resides in Arizona and is a certified public accountant. (Tr. at 5427.) He testified that Gonc-har hired him to conduct a forensic review of the Global Settlement Fund. (Id. at 5432-34.) Sample said that he and his team analyzed . accounting summaries prepared by Richards, Kenner, and accountants at Eufora, as well as additional documents from Constantine and Richards, (Id. at 5434-35.) He further 'testified that Gonc-har did not want a formal report and that Gonchar advised Semple that he had given Constantine money through the Global Settlement Fund for Constantine’s personal use. (Id. at 6458-60.)

In addition, Semple said that he spoke with Nash about the . forensic review and that Nash was satisfied .with Semple’s explanations for certain payments. (Id. at 5461-62.) Moreover, Semple testified that, “consistent with all the emails [he] saw, [he] didn’t see anything that was abnormal, with the exception again of some of the expenditures for attorney fees, which Sergei Gonchar said: Look, we authorized those.” (Id. at 5463.) Semple also said that there were certain expenditures for which he did not have sufficient information to review, such as payments to Sullivan & Cromwell for a proposed Playboy acquisition, but Semple said that Gonchar told him that he and the other NHL players knew of those transactions. (Id. at 5496-97.)

2. Cross-Examination

On cross-examination, Semple said that he did not conduct a certified review and did not write a report, stating:

We didn’t write a report. We basically took the report prepared by Mr. Ken-ner/Richards and then. Mr. Richards report which had a running balance in it, combined the two, and then we compared that to a third document prepared by Eufora.

(Id. at 5521.) In addition, he testified that his forensic review, did not encompass all of the transactions in the Richards Escrow Account, but rather only those that Richards said pertained to the Global Settlement Fund. (Id. at 5523-24.) Semple further said that he relied on spreadsheet that Richards sent him and that he did not have any bank statements or wire transfer records for the Richards Escrow Account when he conducted the forensic review. (Id. at 5524-25.)

In addition. Semple testified as follows when asked about the parameters of his review:

Mr, Gonchar told me that the Global Settlement Fund was an accumulation of funds from roughly 20 players, and the primary purpose of that was the Jowdy litigation, to fund the Jowdy litigation and to fund some PR related to the Jowdy litigation, to make protective payments, to preserve assets that the players were involved in, and to resolve, liquidate some of the issues such as the aircraft.

[[Image here]]

Q. Okay. So when you were doing this analysis that you were hired to do by Mr. Gonchar as to whether the money was used for its intended purpose, you are looking at whether the money was used for Jowdy litigation, aircraft expenses, the Avalon airpark, Eufora, and other investments that were going into bankruptcy. Is that- a fair summary- of what you just said?

A. Generally, yes.

(Id. at 5525-27.) Semple said that he did not make any determination as to whether the Global Settlement Fund was used for its intended purpose and could not reach such a conclusion because his team “never got copies of some of the bills and other' documents that .[they] requested from Mr. Richards.” (Id. at 5528-29.)

v. William Daniel Kennedy

William Daniel Kennedy (“Kennedy”) resides in Arizona. (Tr. at 5589.) He said that he met Constantine through a mutual Mend and they raced cars together. (Id. at 5291-94.) Kennedy testified that he became involved in Eufora through his company at the time, C9 Innovations, and said that he signed Eufora’s operating agreement, obtaining a 10 percent share. (Id. at 5594-95, 5600-01.) He said that he later relinquished two percent of his membership in Eufora to AZ Eufora. (Id. at 5602-04; Defs.’ Exh. C-266.) Moreover, Kennedy testified that he later transferred four percent of his remaining eight percent stake in Eufora to CMG at Constantine’s request. (Tr. at 5605-07.)

B. Relevant Procedural History

. By superseding indictment dated April 22, 2015, the government charged Kenner with conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (Count One); conspiracy to commit money launderings in violation of 18 U.S.C. §. 1956(h) (Count Nine); and seven counts of wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 2 (Counts Two through Eight). (ECF No. 214.) In addition, the government charged Constantine with conspiracies, to commit wire fraud and money laundering (Counts One and Nine) and five counts of- wire fraud (Counts Two through Six). (Id.)

Following a trial that began on May 4, 2015 (ECF No. 239), the jury returned a verdict on July 9,2015 (ECF No. 324). The jury found Constantine guilty on all charges and Kenner guilty on both conspiracy counts. ‘(Id.) In addition, the jury found Kenner guilty on the wire fraud charges in Counts Two through Four and Seven in the superseding indictment, but it acquitted him of the wire fraud charges in Counts Five, Six, and Eight. (Id.)

By letter dated- July 29, 2015, Kenner’s trial counsel, Richard Haley, said that Kenner would not file a Rule 29 motion for a judgment of acquittal with respect to the charges for which Kenner was found guilty, but he said that Kenner intended to join in Constantine’s anticipated Rule 33 motion for a new trial “insofar as" such motion presents common issues of law and fact for the Court’s consideration.” (ECF No. 325.)

On November 23,2015, Constantine filed his Rule 29 and Rule 33 motions. (ECF No- 346.) The government submitted its opposition on April 4, 2016 (ECF No. 370), and Constantine replied on June 9, 2016 (ECF No. 382). Constantine supplemented his motion for a new trial, raising an additional ground of newly-discovered evidence, by brief filed on October 21, 2016. (ECF No. 407.) The government submitted its response to Constantine’s supplemental brief on January 16, 2017 (ECF No. 438), and the Court heard oral argument on Constantine’s motions on February 17, 2017 (ECF No. 463).

Notwithstanding his trial counsel’s prior representation, Kenner filed a separate pro se Rule 33 motion for a new trial on November 28, 2016. (ECF No. 416.) The government submitted its opposition on January 18, 2017. (ECF No. 440.) On February 7, 2017, Jeffrey Pittell, Kenner’s replacement counsel, 6 filed a reply (ECF No. 447), and Kenner also filed a pro se reply on February 13, 2017 (ECF No. 449). After Kenner again replaced his attorney, that counsel, Jesse Siegel, submitted an additional reply on June 6, 2017. (ECF No. 473.) The Court held oral argument on Kenner’s Rule 33 motion on June 22, 2017, and Kenner spoke on his own behalf during that proceeding. (ECF No. 478.)

The Court has fully considered all of the parties’ submissions on defendants’ instant motions. 7

II. Standard op Review

A. Rule 29 Motion for Acquittal

Pursuant to Rule 29(a), a district court shall enter a judgment of acquittal as to “any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(a). However, as set forth below, “ ‘[a] defendant bears a heavy burden in seeking to overturn a conviction on grounds that the evidence was insuffi-dent.’ ” United States v. Lorenzo, 534 F.3d 153, 159 (2d Cir. 2008) (quoting United States v. Cruz, 363 F.3d 187, 197 (2d Cir. 2004)); accord United States v. Pipola, 83 F.3d 556, 564 (2d Cir. 1996) (citing Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 , 62 S.Ct. 457 , 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942)); see also United States v. Tillem, 906 F.2d 814, 821 (2d Cir. 1990) (stating that motions to challenge sufficiency of evidence “rarely carry the day”).

The standard under Rule 29, as articulated by the United States Supreme Court, is “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319 , 99 S.Ct. 2781 , 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979); accord United States v. Finnerty, 533 F.3d 143, 148 (2d Cir. 2008); Lorenzo, 534 F.3d at 159 ; United States v. Irving, 452 F.3d 110, 117 (2d Cir. 2006); United States v. Temple, 447 F.3d 130, 136 (2d Cir. 2006). In other words, “ ‘[a] court may enter a judgment of acquittal only if the evidence that the defendant committed the crime alleged is nonexistent or so meager that no reasonable jury could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Temple, 447 F.3d at 136 (quoting United States v. Guadagna, 183 F.3d 122, 130 (2d Cir. 1999)).

It is important to emphasize that, in evaluating the evidence under this standard, “courts must be careful to avoid usurping the role of the jury when confronted with a motion for acquittal.” United States v. Jackson, 335 F.3d 170, 180 (2d Cir. 2003); see also United States v. Florez, 447 F.3d 145, 154-55 (2d Cir. 2006) (“In assessing sufficiency, we are obliged to view tbe evidence in its totality and in the light most favorable to the prosecution, mindful that the task of choosing among permissible competing inferences is for the jury, not a reviewing court.”); Guadagna, 183 F.3d at 130 (holding that court must bear in mind that-Rule 29 “does not provide [it] with an opportunity to substitute its own determination of ... the weight of the evidence and the reasonable inferences to be drawn for that of the jury” (alterations in original)).

Therefore, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the government means “drawing all inferences in the government’s favor and deferring to the jury’s assessments of the witnesses’ credibility.” United States v. Arena, 180 F.3d 380, 391 (2d Cir. 1999); accord United States v. James, 239 F.3d 120, 124 (2d Cir. 2000) (“[T]he credibility of witnesses is the province of the jury, and [a court] simply cannot replace the jury’s credibility determinations .with [its] own.”). In examining the sufficiency of the evidence, the court also should not analyze pieces of evidence in isolation, but rather must consider the evidence fa its totality. See United States v. Rosenthal, 9 F.3d 1016, 1024 (2d Cir. 1993); see also Guadagna, 183 F.3d at 130 (holding that sufficiency test must be applied “to the totality of the government’s case and not to each element, as each fact may gain color from others”). Finally, “[d]irect-'evidence is not required; ‘[i]n fact, the government is entitled to prove its case solely through circumstantial evidence, provided, of course, that the government still demonstrates each element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt.’” Lorenzo, 534 F.3d at 159 (quoting United States v. Rodriguez, 392 F.3d 539, 544 (2d Cir. 2004)); see also Irving, 452 F.3d at 117 (“A jury may convict on circumstantial evidence alone.”); accord Jackson, 335 F.3d at 180 ; United States v. Martinez, 54 F.3d 1040, 1043 (2d Cir. 1995). However, “if the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the prosecution gives equal or nearly- equal circumstantial support to a theory of guilt and a theory of innocence, then a reasonable jury must necessarily entertain a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Glenn, 312 F.3d 58, 70 (2d Cir. 2002); accord United States v. Cassese, 428 F.3d 92, 99 (2d Cir. 2005).

In short, “[w]here a court concludes after a full analysis of the evidence fa connection with a Rule 29 motion that either of the two results, a reasonable doubt or no reasonable doubt, is fairly possible, [the court] must let the jury decide the matter.” Temple, 447 F.3d at 137 (quoting United States v. Autuori, 212 F.3d 105, 114 (2d Cir. 2000)). On the other hand, “ ‘in passing upon a motion for a directed verdict of acquittal, ... if there is no evidence upon which a reasonable mind might fairly conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the motion must be granted.’ ” Id. (quoting United States v. Taylor, 464 F.2d 240, 243 (2d Cir. 1972)).

B. Rule 33 Motion for a New Trial

Rule 33 states, fa relevant part, that “[u]pon the defendant’s motion, the court may vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 33(a). A district court may grant a Rule 33 motion only in “extraordinary circumstances,” United States v. McCourty, 562 F.3d 458, 475 (2d Cir. 2009), and only if there exists “ ‘a real concern that an innocent person may have been convicted,’ ” United States v. Parkes, 497 F.3d 220, 232 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting United States v. Ferguson, 246 F.3d 129, 134 (2d Cir. 2001)); accord United States v. Bell, 584 F.3d 478, 483 (2d Cir. 2009); see also United States v. Middlemiss, 217 F.3d 112, 122 (2d Cir. 2000) (“Granting Rule 33 motions is not favored and is done with great caution-.”). “The ultimate test on a Rule 33 motion is whether letting a guilty verdict stand would be a manifest injustice.” Ferguson, 246 F.3d at 134 . In deciding a Rule 33 motion, the Court “must examine the entire case, take into account all facts and circumstances, and make an objective evaluation.” United States v. Aguiar, 737 F.3d 251, 264 (2d Cir. 2013) (citation omitted).

III. Discussion

A. Constantine’s Rule 29 Motion

Constantine argues that he is entitled to a judgment of acquittal on all counts because there was insufficient evidence at trial to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he participated in (1) any of the objects of the conspiracies to commit wire fraud and money laundering — namely, defrauding investors in (a) the Hawaii Project, (b) Eufora, and (c) the Global Settlement . Fund; and (2) the transactions underlying the wire fraud charges in Counts Two through Four of the superseding indictment. In addition, Constantine argues that he should be acquitted of the wire fraud charges in Counts Five and Six because the jury found Kenner not guilty on those counts,' and the, trial, evidence proved that Constantine attempted to return the money at issue.,

. For the reasons that follow, the Court disagrees with all of these arguments and denies Constantine’s Rule 29 motion in its entirety.

1. Counts One and Nine; The Conspiracy Charges

- Constantine advances the same grounds for relief with respect to the Count One conviction for conspiracy to commit fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C, § 1349; and the Count Nine conviction for conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of 18 U.S.O. § 1956(h). (See Constantine’s Mot. -for New Trial and Mot. for J. of Acquittal (‘‘Constantine’s Mot, Br.”),: ECF No. 346, at 3 (“[Bjecause Count 9 merely re-alleged allegations from the wire fraud conspiracy, and failed to specify a single substantive crime or provide any independent evidence of a money laundering conspiracy that stood separately from- the wire fraud conspiracy, -the failure of the proof common to both conspiracies establishes that this Court should enter an order of acquittal on Count 9 as well.”).) Accordingly, the Court will address the sufficiency of the evidence with respect to both conspiracy charges together.

a. Applicable Law

18 U.S.C. § 1349 provides that “[a]ny person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense under this chapter shall be subject to the same penalties as -those prescribed- for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy.” 18 U.S.C. § 1349 . Likéwise, 18 U.S.C. § 1966 (h) state's that “[a]ny person who conspires to commit any offense defined in this section or section 1957 shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense the commission of which was the object of the conspiracy.” 18-U.S.C. § 1956(h).

“The essence of conspiracy is agreement. In order to convict a defendant of the crime of conspiracy, the government must show that two or more persons entered into a joint enterprise for an unlawful- purpose, with awareness of its general nature and extent.”, United States v. Torres, 604 F.3d 58, 65 (2d Cir. 2010) (collecting cases); see also United States v. Snow, 462 F.3d 55, 68 (2d Cir. 2006) (“To be guilty of conspiracy, there must be some evidence from which it can reasonably be inferred that-the person charged with conspiracy knew of the existence, of the scheme alleged in the indictment and knowingly joined and participated in it.”). “An individual defendant’s membership in a conspiracy may not be established simply by his presence at the scene of a crime, nor by the fact he knows that a crime is being committed.” United States v. Desimone, 119 F.3d 217, 223 (2d Cir. 1997).

However, “[t]he government’s proof of an agreement does not require evidence of a formal or express agreement; it is enough that the parties have a tacit understanding to carry out the prohibited conduct.” United States v. Nusraty, 867 F.2d 759, 763 (2d Cir. 1989). “Evidence tending to show knowing participation in the conspiracy is also needed, i.e., facts sufficient to draw a logical' and convincing connection between circumstantial evidence of an agreement, and the inference that an agreement was in fact made.” United States v. Jones, 393 F.3d 107, 111 (2d Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). Further, the Second Circuit has noted that “[i]n cases of conspiracy, deference to the jury’s findings is especially important ... because a conspiracy by its very nature is a secretive operation, and it is a rare case where all aspects of a conspiracy can be laid bare in court with the precision of a surgeon’s scalpel.” United States v. Hawkins, 547 F.3d 66, 70 (2d Cir. 2008).

The government must also prove that the defendant joined the agreement with the necessary criminal intent. See United States v. Villegas, 899 F.2d 1324, 1338 (2d Cir. 1990) (“In order to prove a conspiracy, the government must present ‘some evidence from which it can reasonably be inferred that the person charged with conspiracy .knew of the existence of the scheme alleged in the indictment and knowingly joined and participated in it.’ ” (quoting United States v. Sanchez Solis, 882 F.2d 693, 696 (2d Cir. 1989))). “Both the existence of a conspiracy and a given defendant’s participation in it with the requisite knowledge and criminal intent may be established through circumstantial evidence.” Torres, 604 F.3d at 66 (alteration omitted). As the Second Circuit has explained:

A defendant’s knowing and willing participation in a conspiracy may be inferred from ... her presence at critical stages of the conspiracy that could not be explained by happenstance, or a lack of surprise when discussing the conspiracy with others. It may also be established by. evidence that the defendant participated in conversations directly related to the substance of. the conspiracy!!,] possessed items- important to the conspiracy, or engaged in acts exhibiting a consciousness of guilt, such as [making] false exculpatory statements.

In re Terrorist Bombings of U.S. Embassies in E. Africa, 552 F.3d 93, 113 (2d Cir. 2008) (citations omitted).

b. Analysis

Here, the superseding indictment alleged a scheme to defraud orchestrated by Kenner and Constantine, asserting that:

In or about and between August 2002 and April 2013, the defendants KEN-NER and CONSTANTINE devised, implemented, supervised and executed a scheme to fraudulently induce the player-clients and other individuals (collectively, the “Investors”) ... to invest money by falsely stating that the funds would be invested in real estate in Hawaii, Eufora and ah entity known as the “Global Settlement Fund” (hereinafter “GSF”) for the benefit of the Investors when, in truth and in fact, as KENNER and CONSTANTINE then and there well knew and believed, a substantial portion of the money would be improperly diverted to bank accounts controlled by KENNER and CONSTANTINE and used for their personal benefit, for unrelated business ventures and to conceal their scheme to defraud.

(Superseding Indictment (“SI”), ECF No. 214, at ¶ 5.) As discussed more fully infra, the Court instructed the jury that the conspiracy charged in Count One had three separate “objects”:

The three crimes alleged to be an object of the conspiracy in Count One involve wire fraud: the first is the alleged scheme to defraud investors related the Hawaii Land Developments, the second is the alleged scheme to defraud investors related to the Eufora Investments, and the third is the alleged scheme to defraud investors related to the Global Settlement Fund.

[[Image here]]

The government need not prove that the alleged conspirators entered into an agreement to accomplish all three of the unlawful objectives alleged. If you find unanimously that two or more persons agreed to commit any of these three objectives, then this element would be proved.

(Jury Charge, ECF No. 296, at 59; see also id. at 71 (applying conspiracy instructions to Count Nine).)

In his motion for a judgment of acquittal, Constantine contends that “the Government did not establish that Constantine was a member of either of the charged conspiracies (Counts 1 and 9) ... [because as to Constantine there was insufficient evidence to sustain the jury’s verdict as to any object of the conspiracy .... ” (Constantine’s Mot. Br. at 1, 3.) As set forth below, the Court disagrees and concludes that the government adduced sufficient evidence at trial to permit the jury to conclude, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Constantine participated in the scheme to defraud investors in the Hawaii Project, Eufora, and/or the Global Settlement Fund. 8

i. The Hawaii Project

With respect to Constantine’s involvement in the Hawaii Project, the Superseding Indictment charged that:

It was further part of the scheme to defraud that the defendants KENNER and CONSTANTINE unlawfully diverted Investor money for their personal benefit, used money from Investors’ lines of credit for unauthorized purposes, including for their personal benefit, and thereby dissipated the Investors’ money, bonds and equities.

It was further part of the scheme to defraud that the defendant KENNER obtained mortgage loans on properties purchased with the Investors’ money and subsequently diverted the loan proceeds to entities unrelated to the Hawaii land development project, as well as to bank accounts that KENNER and CONSTANTINE controlled.

In or about August 2006, Lehman Brothers Holdings, Inc. (“Lehman”) agreed to finance the development of the Hawaii parcels that were purchased using the Investors’ money. As part of the financing agreement, Lehman made a $6.8 million payment to a company that the defendant KENNER controlled and a $6.9 million payment to a company that the defendant CONSTANTINE and another individual, whose identity is known to the Grand Jury, controlled. KENNER and CONSTANTINE unlawfully diverted certain money from the Lehman loan proceeds for unauthorized purposes, including for- their personal benefit.

(SI at ¶¶ 8-10.)

Constantine argues 'that, “[a]s to the Hawaii investments, there was no evidence offered at the trial showing that Constantine had a role in causing investors to invest in the project, or in establishing the lines of credit, and indeed it was confirmed that Constantine did not meet the investors until years after the investment.” (Constantine’s Mot. Br. at 3.) He points to portions of the government’s summation to assert that the “Government itself recognized the lack of any evidence connecting Constantine to Kenner’s dealings with investors for the Hawaii land developments” and instead relied on “mere association” to inculpate Constantine in the Hawaii Project fraud — a theory that “was insufficient both as a matter of fact and a matter of law.” (Id. at 4-5.) Specifically, 'Constantine asserts that “the Government’s painting of Constantine’s conduct with Urban Expansion as part of a fraud towards'the investors, was unsupported by any evidence ... because Constantine had nothing to do with inducing the investors to invest in Hawaii developments ....” (Id. at 6.)

In response, the government argues that [tjestimony and documents showed that Constantine spearheaded the creation of the Urban Expansion Loan that permitted him and Kenner to extract millions from the Hawaii Project; bank records and business records showed that Constantine obtained a steady stream of proceeds from that loan and other aspects of the, Hawaii Project; and testimony and documents showed that Constantine was involved in efforts to cover up the Hawaii fraud.

(Gov’t Resp. to Defs.’ Post-Trial Mots. (“Gov’t Opp’n Br.”), ECF No. 370, at 24.) The Court agrees.

Setting aside the Urban Expansion and Lehman Brothers loans, there was evidence at trial of payments from Little Isle IV and Ula Makika — Hawaii Project entities controlled by Kenner — to Constantine and his company CMG. For instance, Man-fredi testified that bank records showed several transfers of funds intended for the Hawaii Project to CMG, including a $130,000 wire on December 30, 2004 and a $37,500 wire on April 21, 2005 — both of which came from Little Isle IV.. (Tr. at 2961-63; GX-1751.) He said that, to his knowledge, Constantine did not perform any work on the Hawaii Project that would have entitled him to such payment. (Tr. at 2962.) Moreover, Petrellese testified that, from December 1, 2004 through March 31, 2006, $247,500 was transferred from Little Isle IVs Northern Trust bank account to CMG. (Id. at 3933-34; GX-41.) He also said that, from December 2004 to September 2005, CMG received a net amount of $1,000,900 from Little Isle IV and Ula Makika. (Tr. at 3934; GX-41-B.) Similarly, when asked about how Constantine paid for Untiech’s services, Stewart testified that Constantine told him about “a deal that he had in Hawaii and a deal that he had in Mexico, always assuring me that when those deals came to fruition, everything was going to be great and there would be plenty of money for everybody.” 9 (Tr. at 3675.)

Thus, contrary to Constantine’s contention that the government improperly conflated Kenner’s conduct with his own, a reasonable juror could find, beyond a reasonable doubt and based on these, transferred funds, that Kenner and Constantine had a “tacit understanding” to use the Hawaii Project investments for their own benefit. Nusraty, 867 F.2d at 763 ; see also Torres, 60

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.