Criminal – Securities fraud

Listen to this article

Where a jury found a defendant guilty of securities fraud, his conviction and sentence should be affirmed because (1) any error in admitting evidence summarizing his bank account activity was harmless, (2) sufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict, (3) the lower court’s loss calculation was fully supported by reliable evidence, and (4) the defendant has failed to show that the restitution award was legally invalid.

“Carlos Maldonado appeals his securities fraud conviction and sentence. He contends that the district court improperly admitted at trial ‘summaries’ of his bank records under Federal Rule of Evidence 1006, even though they were rife with hearsay, and that insufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict. He also argues that the court miscalculated his sentence because it incorrectly determined the number of victims and their total losses. Finally, he claims that the court was wrong to order him to pay restitution based on harm to individuals not identified in the indictment. Our review reveals no basis for disturbing the jury’s verdict, the sentence imposed, or the restitution order. As a result, we affirm. …

“In 2005, Maldonado formed a company called Business Planning Resource International Corporation (BPRIC). BPRIC’s purported mission was to raise money to develop various businesses and to help individuals ‘facilitate the resources [they] need to maximize [their] productive development.’ Promoters for BPRIC, some of whom were insurance agents, persuaded clients to enter into financial agreements with the company. These agreements were generally called ‘Productive Development Contracts.’ Each client made an initial monetary contribution and received the promise of a fixed rate of return. But the size of the initial contributions, the amount of earnings guaranteed, and the duration of the agreements varied. For example, one client agreed to give BPRIC $15,000 in exchange for 17% annual earnings for five years. Another client agreed to pay BPRIC $50,000 in exchange for 50% annual earnings for one year.

“Ultimately, BPRIC failed to fulfill its contractual obligations to its clients. In 2016, a grand jury indicted Maldonado on one count of securities fraud and fifteen counts of bank fraud. … The government alleged in the indictment that Maldonado ran a Ponzi scheme, meaning that he recycled money from later investors to pay earlier investors, even though BPRIC never turned a profit. …

“We now analyze each of Maldonado’s legal claims, moving chronologically through the stages of his prosecution. First, Maldonado argues that the district court improperly admitted evidence summarizing his bank account activity under Federal Rule of Evidence 1006. We conclude that any error in admitting this evidence was harmless. Second, Maldonado challenges the jury’s finding that the Productive Development Contracts were securities, contending that insufficient evidence supported this conclusion. We disagree, both because Maldonado misreads our precedent defining ‘investment contracts’ and because sufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict. Finally, Maldonado challenges the district court’s loss calculation and its restitution order. We conclude that the court’s loss calculation was fully supported by reliable evidence, and that Maldonado has failed to show that the restitution award was legally invalid.”

United States v. Maldonado-Vargas (Lawyers Weekly No. 01-235-25) (35 pages) (Rikelman, J.) Appealed from the U.S. District Court for the District of Puerto Rico (Docket No. 22-1735) (Nov. 14, 2025).

Click here to read the full text of the opinion.