United States v. Cincotta

The federal government (plaintiff) charged Mystic Fuel Corporation (Mystic) (defendant) and its two major shareholders, Edward Cincotta and John Zero (defendants), with conspiring to defraud the Department of Defense using false claims and documents. Mystic had a contract to deliver heating oil from Union Petroleum Corporation to Fort Devens. Mystic picked up shipments for Fort Devens but sold the shipments to its own clients instead. Mystic falsely told Fort Devens authorities it had delivered the shipments, so the Department of Defense paid Mystic. Cincotta signed all company checks, bids, and contracts as Mystic’s treasurer and had relatives working in the company office. Zero hired Mystic’s truck drivers, handled dispatch and delivery orders, and supervised billing and accounting. Cincotta’s secretary testified that together Cincotta and Zero made all major decisions and rules governing Mystic’s daily operations. Although Zero normally gave drivers instructions for Fort Devens deliveries, Cincotta gave instructions in Zero’s absence. A Union Petroleum executive testified he dealt with either Cincotta or Zero regarding Fort Devens and perceived Cincotta as supervising Mystic’s whole operation. The Fort Devens supply clerk and ordering officer said Zero and Cincotta came in twice weekly to have her sign fuel tickets acknowledging deliveries. If someone else brought in tickets without the receiving information, the supply clerk would call Zero or Cincotta, who gave her the information to use. Several truck drivers described the duo collectively as instructing deliveries. Cincotta requested acquittal at the close of the government’s case, arguing the evidence did not show he personally participated in the conspiracy. Mystic also requested acquittal, arguing the government did not show the scheme benefitted Mystic. The trial judge denied acquittals and instructed the jury on when conscious avoidance of knowledge suffices to demonstrate criminal intent. The judge did not include balancing language about willful blindness constituting knowledge of a fact only if the person does not subjectively disbelieve that fact, but the defense did not request it. The jury found Mystic, Cincotta, and Zero guilty. All three appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the denial of acquittals, and the avoidance-of-knowledge instruction. Zero also claimed the trial judge raised an unconstitutional presumption of guilt by stating that a “great deal of evidence” showed what Zero did.