Search results
People also ask
Did Michael Arata work on a house in Pensacola?
How long does Arata stay in prison?
Are Peter Hoffman & Arata a prison scrub?
How long will Arata serve in New Orleans?
Jun 29, 2020 · Michael Arata, convicted in film tax credit scheme, in jeopardy of losing law license. In response to the appeals court, Feldman added a year to Arata’s probation, from four to five years ...
Peter M. Hoffman, age 63, of Los Angeles, California, and Michael P. Arata, age 47, of New Orleans, Louisiana, were charged in a six count indictment by a federal grand jury with conspiracy...
Mar 11, 2014 · Peter M. Hoffman, a Los Angeles entertainment lawyer and producer, and Michael P. Arata, a New Orleans lawyer, actor and production company operator, face conspiracy and wire fraud charges ...
Nov 18, 2014 · PETER M. HOFFMAN, age 63, of Los Angeles, California; MICHAEL P. ARATA, age 47, of New Orleans, Louisiana; and SUSAN HOFFMAN, age 69, of New Orleans, Louisiana were charged yesterday in a twenty-two count Superseding Indictment by a Federal Grand Jury, announced United States Attorney Kenneth Allen Polite, Jr.
- Order and Reasons
- Background
- A.
- B.
- Arata Does Not Dispute The Facts Regarding The Submission of The Legal Fees.
- Arata Does Not Dispute The Facts Regarding The Departure Studios Film Equipment.
- C.
- Motion to Dismiss -- Prejudicial Joinder
- Conspiracy - Withdrawal
Before the Court are two motions: (1) the government's motion to vitiate the proffer agreement with Arata; and (2) Michael Arata's motion to dismiss for prejudicial joinder or, alternatively, to sever. For the reasons that follow, the Court defers ruling on the government's motion pending a limited evidentiary hearing, and Arata's motion is DENIED.
Peter and Susan Hoffman and Michael Arata were partners in various movie-related business ventures. One such venture was the purchase and renovation of a dilapidated mansion on Esplanade Avenue in New Orleans, which they turned into a post-production film editing facility. This federal white collar criminal case arises from the government's allegat...
1. Legal Standard: Material Breach by a Preponderance of the Evidence The parties agree that the procedure articulated in this Court's October 8, 2014 Order and Reasons applies to the government's request for a judicial determination that Mr. Arata breached the proffer agreement. See United States v. Hoffman, No. 14-22, 2014 WL 5040721, at *3(E.D.L...
The Court turns to consider the parties' arguments and the evidence that places the arguments in context. The government focuses on what it considers to be four material misrepresentations made by Arata during the proffer. The source of these purported misrepresentations is Government Exhibit A, the FBI 302 summarizing the proffer meeting. The gove...
(a) Arata does not dispute that his involvement with legal fees occurred after his 8/6/09 withdrawal. (b) It is undisputed that "Mr. Arata was aware that Mr. Hoffman was attempting to include [legal] fees...." (c) It is undisputed that Arata and Jerry Daigle joked about the legitimacy of the legal fees on 12/24/09. (d) It is undisputed that Arata i...
(a) Arata does not dispute or address the fact that he repeatedly told the auditors and the State that the equipment had been purchased from a vendor, not contributed by a business partner. Ex. U, V, and W. (b) Arata does not dispute or address the fact that he conducted circuitous transfers of funds to make it appear as if the equipment had been p...
Finally, the Court turns to analyze the merits of the evidentiary dimension of the parties' dispute as to material breach. The government agreed to not use in its case-in-chief against Arata any statements or information contained in his proffer. In exchange, Arata agreed to be "completely truthful." Has the government proven by a preponderance of ...
Mr. Arata claims he withdrew from any alleged conspiracy on August 6, 2009, well before the submission of the second and third tax credit applications; thus, any evidence submitted at trial concerning post-withdrawal conduct will prejudice him. Accordingly, he seeks relief under Rule 14(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, for prejudicial...
Although there is certainly some support in the record for Arata's affirmative defense of withdrawal, this is an issue that patently turns on factual controversies, which are best deferred to consideration by the jury after development of the record at trial. See United States v. Jimenez, 622 F.2d 753, 755-56 (5th Cir. 1980)). Because Arata's prese...
Apr 28, 2015 · New Orleans attorney and actor Michael Arata and his two partners in the multimillion-dollar renovation of a Marigny mansion were convicted by a jury Monday for defrauding a state tax credit...
MICHAEL P. ARATA, SUSAN HOFFMAN ORDER AND REASONS Before the Court is Michael Arata's motion to dismiss Counts 22 through 25 of the second superseding indictment. For the reasons that follow, the motion is DENIED without prejudice. Background Peter and Susan Hoffman and Michael Arata were partners in various movie-related business ventures.
