On
November 17th federal agents conducted an extraordinary raid on the
prominent Martinsburg law firm of Martin and Seibert. Because the feds aren't talking, people are
asking "why" and the only information released so far has been by
Martin and Seibert themselves through an almost laughable press release that
claims Martin and Seibert was the victim of a smear campaign by former
employees and/or insiders and THAT'S the reason the feds raided them. Sorry, not buying it.
Because
of the potential disruption to dozens of pending cases and even more cases on
appeal federal judges do not issue
search and seizure warrants for law firms recklessly. The evidence of criminal behavior normally
has to be strong enough to earn a conviction before the FBI is allowed to
confiscate client files.
So, what
does all of that mean? It means that
that the FBI did not raid Martin and Seibert’s offices because the FBI was
trying to protect Martin and Seibert, it means that the FBI almost certainly
had incriminating evidence against them.
OK, what
KIND of incriminating evidence? Well,
let’s look at which federal agencies attended the FBI’s November 17th
party. The press reports do not mention
the Postal Inspectors. Often, they are
involved if a law firm sends padded (fraudulent) bills (invoices) to their
clients in the mail. Mail fraud - 18
U.S. Code § 1341 - can get you 20 years and, with special circumstances, as
much as 30 years. Sending a padded bill
by email is essentially the same crime.
If you are a willing participant in the crime you’re subject to the same
penalties.
So, if a
lawyer knowingly sent a padded bill they would be in serious trouble,
and any administrative employee that knew the bill was fraudulent would be
facing the same charges. Again; however,
there has been no reports that the postal inspectors are involved.
OK, what
about tax fraud? If Martin and Seibert
were being investigated for tax fraud the IRS should have been part of the
raid. There was no mention of the IRS in
the published reports.
So,
what’s left? Terrorism? I seriously doubt it. Counterfeiting? I don’t think so. That’s the domain of the Secret Service and
they’re not reported as being part of the raid.
Drugs? Martin and Seibert may not
have the most luxurious offices in the world but they don’t remind me of a meth
lab.
That
leaves just the FBI and the Federal Bureau of Investigation is normally the
lead investigative agency for public corruption cases. That covers fixing public contracts and bids,
and bribing public officials. That
covers state, county, and city officials and employees, which means anyone
holding an elected or appointed office.
Yeah,
but if the FBI is after a councilman or judge why did they raid Martin and
Seibert? Well, the FBI probably obtained
incriminating evidence that implicated someone like that; however, the FBI
(normally) takes pride in being absolutely certain they can convict a public
official before they arrest them, and the most common method of getting
indictable evidence against a public official is normally to convince a
co-conspirator to testify against them.
Which
leads us back to Martin and Seibert. Will
the FBI find incriminating files against a public official on Martin and
Seibert’s computers or in their filing cabinets? Probably not; however, if a former Martin and
Seibert employee or insider has provided the FBI inside information then the
investigation can focus on illegal activity other than public corruption. Once the investigators have a thread to begin
pulling then they might find enough to indict someone on a different matter,
which they can use as leverage to convince that person to assist in an
investigation of a public official for some consideration on the other
charges. You might remember that Martin
and Seibert has admitted that their problems started with former employees.
Another
tool the FBI uses to persuade individuals to cooperate is the law - 18 U.S.
Code § 1001- that says that lying to a federal investigator during an
investigation is punishable by up to 5 years in prison. Former Speaker of the United States House of
Representatives Dennis Hastert just pled guilty to that. This means that if anyone being asked a question
during an interview that’s part of an investigation lies about what they did,
why they did it, or who told them to do it LIES about ANYTHING they are
probably going to jail. The law does not
excuse someone for being scared they might lose their job or that someone else
ordered them to say what they’re telling the investigator; if someone lies in
the course of the investigation they are in serious trouble. So, if someone at Martin and Seibert lies to
a federal agent during the investigation they are facing the choice of
incarceration or cooperation.
People
can be expected to act in their self-interest so it normally doesn’t take long
for the feds to get the evidence they need to move on to the next step. Where will that be? Wait for the next raid and don’t be surprised
if it’s at a public building. Then the
federal investigators will begin asking new questions and if any of those
individuals are foolish enough to lie then they will face the decision of
incarceration or cooperation.
Eventually,
there will be justice.
