United States v. Villalobos

748 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2014)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

The government was investigating Rabbi Yemeni, the director of the Los Angeles Chabad Israel Center (Center), because of his efforts to help Israeli nationals obtain visas to come to the United States under the pretext that they were religious workers at the Center. Those taking part would not work at the Center but would be paid as if they were. They would then return to Rabbi Yemeni the money paid to them by the Center. Orit Anjel (Orit) came to the United States, as a religious worker at the Center. Orit was accompanied by her husband Avraham Anjel (Avi). Orit purportedly worked at the Center, and Avi received her paychecks. Avi regularly cashed the checks at a bank, and, in turn, gave the money to Rabbi Yemeni. In 2009, Orit received a letter from Rabbi Yemeni terminating her work at the Center. When Orit was terminated, Avi engaged D, a lawyer, to help him recoup the money he had paid to Rabbi Yemeni. D learned that the government wanted to interview Orit as part of its investigation into Rabbi Yemeni's scheme. D approached Rabbi Yemeni, and later Rabbi Yemeni's lawyer, Benjamin Gluck (Gluck), and demanded payment. D contends that he was merely helping the Anjels recover back wages for Orit's work at the Center that Rabbi Yemeni had improperly required them to remit to him. The government claimed D was attempting to extort Rabbi Yemeni, and that in return for payment, D promised that Orit would do 'whatever it is we need her to do,' including impeding the investigation, lying to investigating Assistant U.S. Attorney Keri Axel (Axel), and repeating those lies to the grand jury. Gluck agreed to record subsequent communications with D. Gluck recorded his conversations both in person and over the phone, in which D discussed various aspects of the plan to pay D in return for Orit's favorable testimony during the investigation. D was arrested after Gluck gave him a cash payment, shortly before Orit's scheduled meeting with Axel. D was charged with one count of attempted extortion, and one count of endeavoring to obstruct justice. D was convicted on both counts and appealed. D contends that the district court erred when it instructed the jury that all threats to testify or provide information are 'wrongful' under the Hobbs Act if made with the intent to induce or take advantage of fear. D contends that he had a lawful claim to the property he demanded on behalf of Orit and that as such his actions were not 'wrongful' in the sense required by the Hobbs Act.