UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA UNITED STATES, v. PAUL MICHAEL GUERTIN, Case No. 1:21-cr-262 (TNM) Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Paul Michael Guertin stands accused of committing wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Count I), and obstructing an official proceeding, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1512(c)(2) (Count II). He seeks dismissal of the Indictment, arguing that his alleged misconduct—false statements relating to a routine security clearance renewal—does not support an offense under either provision. The Court agrees. Although both statutes are notoriously capacious, they have limits, and the Government strays beyond those limits here. I. Guertin is a former Foreign Service Officer in the U.S. Department of State. 1 During part of his ten-year tenure, Guertin served at the U.S. Consulate in Shanghai adjudicating visa applications. He also served in the Department of State’s Intelligence & Research Division in Washington, D.C. As a condition of his employment, Guertin had to pass periodic background- and security-clearance investigations. 1 In considering a motion to dismiss, a court “is limited to reviewing the face of the indictment.” See United States v. Payne, 382 F. Supp. 3d 71, 73 (D.D.C. 2019). So the Court will rely exclusively on background facts alleged in the Indictment. See ECF No. 1. In 2010 and 2016, Guertin allegedly lied on his background investigation questionnaire, the Standard Form 86 (SF-86). According to the Government, Guertin failed to disclose certain information required by the SF-86—a sexual relationship with a foreign national whose visa application he had adjudicated; certain financial problems arising out of gambling activity; and an undisclosed loan agreement with two Chinese nationals collateralized by Guertin’s home. 2 Guertin also allegedly lied to State Department investigators during the background investigation to conceal this information. A federal grand jury indicted Guertin, charging him with wire fraud, see 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (Count I), and obstructing an official proceeding, see id. § 1312(c)(2) (Count II). Indictment ⁋⁋ 20–36, 37–38. Guertin now moves to dismiss the Indictment, arguing the Government has not alleged facts supporting a conviction under either Count. See Mot. to Dismiss (MTD), ECF No. 21. The motion is ripe for resolution and the Court has jurisdiction. See 18 U.S.C. § 3231. II. An indictment must contain “a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(c). A defendant may move to dismiss an indictment on grounds that it fails to state an offense. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3)(B)(v). “The operative question is whether the[] allegations, if proven, are sufficient to permit a jury to find that the crimes charged were committed.” United States v. Payne, 382 F. Supp. 3d 71, 74 (D.D.C. 2019) (cleaned up). 2 The SF-86 prominently warns applicants that false statements can lead to prosecution under 18 U.S.C. § 1001. For reasons known only to the Government, it charged Guertin with two other, more serious (but less applicable) offenses instead. 2 III. The Indictment charges Guertin with wire-fraud in …
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals