Case: 17-15767 Date Filed: 02/12/2019 Page: 1 of 4
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________
No. 17-15767
Non-Argument Calendar
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 8:13-cr-00580-JDW-TBM-1
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus
INGRID MCBRIDE RICH,
Defendant-Appellant.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(February 12, 2019)
Before WILSON, NEWSOM, and HULL, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Case: 17-15767 Date Filed: 02/12/2019 Page: 2 of 4
Ingrid Rich appeals her sentence of 48 months’ imprisonment for making a
false claim against the Internal Revenue Service, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 287,
and corruptly impeding the administration of the internal revenue laws, in violation
of 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a). Rich contends that the government presented insufficient
evidence at trial for a reasonable jury to convict her of either crime. After careful
review of the testimony and supporting evidence presented, we disagree and
affirm.
We review challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a
criminal conviction de novo, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to
the government and drawing all reasonable inferences in favor of the jury’s verdict.
United States v. Croteau,
819 F.3d 1293, 1304 & n.6 (11th Cir. 2016) (citations
omitted). “We will not reverse unless no reasonable trier of fact could find guilt
beyond a reasonable doubt.” United States v. Farley,
607 F.3d 1294, 1333 (11th
Cir. 2010) (citation omitted).
To establish that Rich made a false claim in violation of § 287, the
government had to prove that (1) Rich presented a claim against a United States
agency, (2) the claim was false, fictitious, or fraudulent, and (3) Rich knew the
claim was false, fictitious, or fraudulent.
Croteau, 819 F.3d at 1305. First, Rich
acknowledges that she presented a “claim” against the IRS within the meaning of
§ 287. See Reply Br. of Appellant at 4; see also United States v. Pointon,
590 F.
2
Case: 17-15767 Date Filed: 02/12/2019 Page: 3 of 4
App’x 920, 924 (11th Cir. 2014) (citing United States v. Branker,
395 F.2d 881,
889 (2d Cir. 1968), for the proposition that a false claim against the government
can be made by endorsing and cashing a check to which one is not entitled); United
States v. Allen,
13 F.3d 105, 108 (4th Cir. 1993) (same). Second, the witness
testimony and exhibits offered during the trial clearly demonstrated that Rich’s
refund check was fraudulent. Rich did not pay the money indicated on her tax
return; therefore, she was not entitled to any refund, much less $510,222. Third,
because “guilty knowledge can rarely be established by direct evidence” for crimes
involving fraud,
Croteau, 819 F.3d at 1304 (quotations omitted), we allow mens
rea to be proven by circumstantial evidence. United States v. Santos,
553 U.S. 507
(2008). The government’s unchallenged account of the convoluted transactions
that Rich made to hide these funds from IRS investigators sufficed for a reasonable
juror to conclude that Rich knew she was not entitled to the refund.
To establish that Rich impeded the administration of the tax laws in
violation of § 7212(a), the government had to prove that she “corruptly . . .
obstructed or impeded, or endeavored to obstruct or impede, the due administration
of the internal revenue laws.”
Croteau, 819 F.3d at 1307 (internal quotation marks
and modifications omitted). A defendant acts “corruptly” when she “seek[s] to
thwart the efforts of government officers and employees in executing the laws
enacted by Congress.” United States v. Popkin,
943 F.2d 1535, 1540 (11th Cir.
3
Case: 17-15767 Date Filed: 02/12/2019 Page: 4 of 4
1991). Rich transferred the proceeds of her fraudulent refund check through ten
different bank accounts, numerous cashier’s checks, debit withdrawals, and
business entities. The IRS ultimately recovered only $4700—testament, as the
district court suggested, to the IRS’s unproductive efforts, but also adequate for a
reasonable juror to conclude that Rich obstructed the administration of the tax laws
in violation of § 7212(a).
In sum, the government’s nine witnesses and extensive exhibits provided
sufficient evidence for a rational jury to convict Rich of both offenses. The
government demonstrated that Rich deposited a fraudulently-obtained tax refund
check into her bank account, then repeatedly moved and dispersed the proceeds in
a bid to evade detection and recovery. Accordingly, we affirm.
AFFIRMED.
4
