Richard Maike, Doyce Barnes, and Faraday Hosseinipour are attempting to avoid conviction.
Following their jury conviction in September, the trio has requested an acquittal and retrial.
On September 21st, Maike (right) submitted the acquittal and fresh trial requests. The Department of Justice responded on November 4th.
Among the arguments in favor of acquittal and a fresh trial are:
testimony from several DOJ expert witnesses, with respect to “the legal definition of a pyramid scheme” and being “unqualified to offer an opinion about pyramid schemes”; testimony from a retired FBI Special Agent (retired December 2021 but worked on the case from beginning to end), that is alleged to have not been “first-hand personal knowledge” when it was; testimony from an IRS Revenue Agent (Maike argues an expert witness should have testified on tax fraud instead of an IRS Revenue Agent); testimony from an IRS Revenue Agent ( (despite the court overruling objections raised during trial)
In general, “the evidence presented at trial was inadequate to establish the defendants’ convictions.”
Jury instructions pertaining to Maike withholding information from his accountants do not appear on “jury instruction on tax evasion” (this relates to Maike’s “good faith” argument, essentially attempting to shift blame to his accountants); issues with statutes of limitations on the then alleged fraudulent acts; It should be noted that the DOJ called “over 30 witnesses” throughout the Infinity2Global trial. While not expressly stated above, the DOJ has responded to all of the above-mentioned points.
I haven’t gone into depth since it’s primarily about legal procedural difficulties, the intricacies of which aren’t especially fascinating.
Aside from the aforementioned difficulties, Faraday Hosseinipour (right) has thrown her attorneys under the bus.
This is from the Department of Justice’s response filing;
Hosseinipour claims that trial counsel failed to provide proper assistance in plea bargaining.
The US met with Hosseinipour in person for four hours to discuss “pending charges” and “potential next steps.”
The US “exhaustively went through the details of the [proposed] plea bargain… and how the process would function if Hosseinipour elected to accept the plea agreement” during the discussion.
Hosseinipour turned down the deal because the US “would not give me anything less than a felony, and I had earlier said that I did not want to plead guilty to a crime.”
There is no indication in the record of a failure to transmit a plea offer or undertake plea talks.
Due to the activities of trial counsel, Hosseinipour chose to go to trial rather than enter a plea.
Instead, according to the evidence, Hosseinipour and the US evaluated the plea offer for four hours before Hosseinipour opted not to take it.
Hosseinipour, like any defendant convicted at trial, now wishes she had pled guilty, but sorrow is insufficient to warrant a fresh trial.
The Strickland Basis is a long-standing Supreme Court decision that “set the standard for assessing when an ineffective lawyer violates a criminal defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel.”
The specifics aren’t relevant to this article, but further information may be found on Wikipedia at Strickland v. Washington.
Hosseinipour also claims that trial counsel was ineffective because he “failed to present some points,” shown a “inability to raise adequate objections,” and “left a crucial witness, Anzalone, unimpeached.”
Hosseinipour claims trial counsel failed to “conduct discovery, object to evidence admission, interview witnesses, review necessary documents, file motions with actual merit, produce exhibits, impeach biased witnesses, properly examine witnesses, focus on the trial, return Hosseinipour’s calls and emails, observe the attorney-client privilege, and present or even look into exculpatory evidence.”
Given the generality of Hosseinipour’s assertions — her request contains no citations to the trial record — applying the Strickland test is challenging.
Furthermore, to the degree that Hosseinipour includes specific concerns, the trial record refutes them.
Hosseinipour demands an evidentiary hearing despite having failed to precisely provide any facts or argument to support her move for ineffective assistance.
The Court should dismiss this request because Hosseinipour’s motion contains inadequate evidence of poor assistance of counsel.
Given the several delays leading up to the Infinity2Global trial and the volume of evidence given, Maike’s Barnes’ and Hosseinpour’s petitions appear desperate.
I don’t anticipate any opposition from the court, but a decision on the motions has yet to be issued.
Maike, Barnes, and Hosseinipour are expected to be sentenced on December 12th. We will keep you updated.