A former U.S. Navy Reserve officer, Jeromy Pittmann, has had his convictions upheld by the First Circuit Court of Appeals for his role in a scheme to provide fraudulent letters of recommendation for Afghan nationals seeking visas to enter the United States. The court affirmed Pittmann’s convictions on all four counts: conspiracy to commit bribery and false writing, bribery, false writing, and conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering.
The Scheme Uncovered
The case stems from Pittmann’s time in Afghanistan, where he served multiple deployments and worked with Afghan interpreters. After his last deployment, he remained in contact with Ghulam Rabani, an Afghan businessman who owned a company that provided interpreters to the U.S. military. In early 2018, Rabani contacted Pittmann with a proposition: he had individuals seeking Special Immigrant Visas (SIVs) who needed letters of recommendation from American supervisors. These visas are specifically for Afghan nationals who worked for or on behalf of the U.S. government or NATO.
The letters of recommendation were crucial for the SIV applications. They needed to detail the applicant’s work duties, highlight their “faithful and valuable service,” and assess any threats they might face due to their employment. The recommender had to have personal knowledge of the facts presented in the letter.
Pittmann agreed to the scheme. He and Rabani negotiated a price per letter, eventually settling on a fee. Pittmann then requested information about the applicants, indicating he needed to write something specific about their work. Rabani provided the necessary details, including the applicants’ roles as translators and the locations where they worked. Rabani also provided a template for the letters.
Pittmann then sent draft letters to Rabani, who made suggestions and requested some edits. Eventually, Pittmann sent the finalized letters. Rabani then informed Pittmann that he had received the payment from the applicants and would send Pittmann his share. The payment was transferred via Western Union. Pittmann then sent an invoice for “consultant services” to make the payment appear legitimate. When the National Visa Center later requested verification of the recommendation letters, Pittmann approved them.
The court found that Pittmann’s actions constituted criminal activity, leading to his conviction.
Key Arguments and Court’s Reasoning
Pittmann challenged his convictions on several grounds. The central argument was that the evidence presented wasn’t sufficient to prove the letters contained false statements. He argued that the government needed to prove falsity for each count.
The court examined the false-writing statute, which requires the government to prove a material, false statement was made within the government’s jurisdiction, and that the person knew the statement was false. Pittmann argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove the letters he wrote contained false statements.
The appeals court reviewed the evidence and found that there was sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude the letters were false. The court focused on the fact that the letters claimed Pittmann had personal knowledge of the applicants and their character, using phrases such as “I have known [the applicant] to be a diligent, polite and hardworking individual.” However, emails presented at trial showed Pittmann admitting that he didn’t “recognize them all” and asking Rabani which names to approve. The court reasoned that the jury could have reasonably concluded that Pittmann’s opinions about the applicants’ character were not based on personal knowledge, making the statements in the letters false.
The court also addressed Pittmann’s challenge to his conviction on the bribery charge. Pittmann argued he should have received a lesser-included offense instruction on illegal gratuities. However, the court found that Pittmann failed to request such an instruction at trial, and therefore waived his right to raise this argument on appeal.
Finally, Pittmann challenged his conviction for conspiracy to commit concealment money laundering. He argued that the financial transaction in the money laundering charge was the same as the bribery, which would be improper. The court disagreed, stating that the money laundering charge was based on the creation of a false invoice to disguise the payment for the letters, not the payment itself. The court found that this was a separate and independent act of concealment. The court also rejected the argument that the false invoice could not be a financial transaction because it was created before the payment was received.
The Court’s Decision
The First Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision on all counts. The court found sufficient evidence to support the convictions for false statements, and that Pittmann had waived his argument regarding the bribery instruction. The court also rejected Pittmann’s arguments regarding the money laundering charge, finding that the creation of the false invoice constituted a separate act of concealment.