The Brief Writer

David Safavian was convicted on three counts of concealing material facts and making false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(1) and one count of obstructing justice.

The prosecution arose from investigations into a golfing trip that he took with the infamous lobbyist Jack Abramoff while Safavian was chief of staff of the General Services Administration ("GSA").

Safavian and Abramoff had been close friends when Safavian became chief of staff. Shortly after he arrived at the new job, Abramoff asked him about two GSA-controlled properties. The two men emailed each other about the properties, but nothing ever came of Abramoff buying the properties as they remained with the GSA through Safavian's tenure.

During the back-and-forth about the properties, Abramoff invited Safavian to join him on a 5-day golf outing in Scotland. Prior to joining Abramoff on the trip, Safavian requested an ethics opinion about whether he could receive the trip as a gift. In his request, Safavian said that Abramoff "has no business before the GSA." The ethics opinion indicated that he could receive Abramoff's chartered plane ride as a gift. Safavian went on the trip and paid for most of his own expenses (specifics are contained in the opinion). He also gave Abramoff a check for $3,100 which Abramoff had said was the cost of the trip.

The GSA Office of Inspector General subsequently investigated the trip and GSA agent Gregory Rowe interviewed Safavian twice. Rowe testified at trial that Safavian told him that he "paid for the trip," including airfare, and that Abramoff did not have any business with GSA. Savafian did not mention the trip's weekend in London or Abramoff's interest in the GSA properties. In a separate congressional investigation, Safavian stated in a letter to the subcommittee that Abramoff "did not have any business before the agency."

A grand jury indicted Safavian on three counts of “falsify[ing], conceal[ing] and cover[ing] up by a trick, scheme, and device material facts” in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(1) and two counts of obstruction in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1505 (Counts 1 and 4). Counts 1 and 3 were based on Safavian’s interviews with GSA inspector Rowe. Count 2 was based on Safavian’s request for the ethics opinion. And Counts 4 and 5 related to his letter to the Senate Committee.

At trial, Safavian testified that, in his view, Abramoff was "not doing business with GSA" because he was not exchanging property or services for money nor did he have a business relationship with GSA.

With regard to the conviction relating to the ethics opinion, the court held that the evidence submitted at trial was insufficient. The court reasoned that an ethics opinion is just an ethics opinion and a government employee seeking such an opinion may decide not to follow its advice. The court went on to explain that the government failed to identify a legal disclosure duty with regard to the opinion except by reference to some vague standards of conduct for government employees.

Significantly, the court also struck down the government's argument that "once one begins speaking when seeking government action or in response to questioning, one must disclose all relevant facts." The court held that section 1001 does not demand "that individuals choose between saying everything and saying nothing."

The court also held that the district court abused its discretion in denying Safavian the benefit of expert testimony on the subject of what "doing business" with GSA meant.  The appellate court said "doing business" has both an ordinary meaning and a GSA meaning and the jury should have been able to hear what Safavian's expert had to say about the GSA meaning.

The Department of Justice has issued a press release regarding new charges against Martin Weisberg, the former corporate partner of an international law firm.

The indictment alleges that WEISBERG assisted a corporate client establish a $30 million escrow account and advised the client that the account could not earn interest for the client’s benefit. In fact, WEISBERG caused the $30 million to be placed into an interest-bearing account. Between August 2007 and October 2007, the account earned approximately $1.6 million in interest, and WEISBERG caused approximately $1.3 million to be wired out of the account without the client’s knowledge. WEISBERG allegedly concealed the fraud by telling the client that the bank did not produce monthly account statements, and instead, WEISBERG sent letters to the client with false account balances.

The escrow fraud was uncovered in the aftermath of WEISBERG’s earlier indictment on securities fraud charges currently pending in the Eastern District of New York. Those charges stem from a conspiracy through which discounted shares of two public companies were issued to offshore nominee entities that were controlled by two individuals who, among other things, allegedly kicked back a portion of their trading proceeds to WEISBERG and others.