Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • AG Response in Opposition To Excluding Murdaugh Financial Crimes

    Uploaded by

    ABC News 4
    16K views24 pages
    According to the South Carolina Attorney General's Office, never-before shared witness testimony establishes an earlier timeframe for when coworkers at Murdaugh's former law firm first suspected something nefarious might be going on regarding Murdaugh's now well-known financial crimes.

    Original Title

    AG Response in Opposition to Excluding Murdaugh Financial Crimes

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    According to the South Carolina Attorney General's Office, never-before shared witness testimony establishes an earlier timeframe for when coworkers at Murdaugh's former law firm first suspected something nefarious might be going on regarding Murdaugh's now well-known financial crimes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    16K views24 pages

    AG Response in Opposition To Excluding Murdaugh Financial Crimes

    Uploaded by

    ABC News 4
    According to the South Carolina Attorney General's Office, never-before shared witness testimony establishes an earlier timeframe for when coworkers at Murdaugh's former law firm first suspected something nefarious might be going on regarding Murdaugh's now well-known financial crimes.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 24
    STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA. COUNTY OF COLLETON COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT (Case Nos: 2022-GS-15-00592 2022-GS-15.0059%, 2022-G8-15-00594 2022-GS-15-00595 STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA. ORDER OF NON-DISCLOSURE RICHARD ALEXANDER MURDAUGH, (OF JUROR INFORMATION DEFENDANT. Considering the natwe of the case and in the interest of justice, the Court finds that an Order should be issued prohibiting the disclosure of the identity of, and certain identifying information pertaining to jurors summoned to appear It is therefore Ordered that all parties, counsel, court personnel, agents, employees, law ‘enforcement, and media shall be, and are hereby barred and restrained from disclosing the name, ‘address, employment, and any other personal identifying information of any juror summoned in ‘the above trial. This Order does not prohibit the internal use of juror information by the Court and ‘counsel for case preparation. All jurors shall only be identified by juror number. ‘This Order shall remain in effect unless and until modified by further Order. Any violation is punishable by contempt of cour. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. DEC.29 2029 14:08 WU OLLETINCOSS, REBECA AL I an Presiding Judge ‘Columbia, South Carolina ‘December 28, 2022 ‘STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA ) INTHE COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS ) FOR THE FOURTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT ‘COUNTY OF COLLETON ) ‘State of South Carona, ) Case Nos: 2022-08-15-00502 ) 12022-GS-18-00503, ) 2022-GS.18-00504 v ) 12022-GS-16-00805 ) ) REPLY TO DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN Richard Alexander Murdaugh, }, OPPOSITION TO STATE'S MOTION IN LIMINE } TO ADMIT EVIDENCE OF MOTIVE Defendant. ) ) ‘The Stete, by and through the undersigned attomeys, in response to “Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to Motion in Limine re: Evidence of Other Ciimes and Bad Acts" MIO" fled December 19, 2022, replies as follows: Defendant, having been provided a clear roadmap of the State's evidence ateady In his possession, protests—as he must—that he cannot follow said map despite its clarity. Defendant proclaims that no part of the perfect storm looming over hhim on June 7, 2021, nor the combination of ts squalls, could have blown open the scope of his crimes to public view and condemnation. This Court should recognize Defendant's argument for what itis: an attempt, unsupported by law or fact, to divide ‘and hide the factors which drove him to gun down his wife and child, such that he might then declare at trial that he had no reason to kil. Defendant's argument is another attempt to effectuate part ofthe State's argued motive: selt-victimization for gain. The realty for Defendant is that he had never had to face accountability throughout his lif, but on June 7, 2021, he was simply running out of options to avold rot just accountabilty ~ but the certainty of long prison time, financial ruin, and permanent damage to the prominence of his family name from which he had benefited for so long. Regardless, Defendant's attempts to undermine the evidence are more o:aa Page 1 of 18, arguments they can meke to the jury as opposed to bases for evidentiary exclusion. |. PMPED’S INQUIRY INTO THE MISSING FEES WAS NOT AN ISOLATED MATTER, BUT A RECURRING ISSUE WHICH CULMINATED IN THE CONFRONTATION OF JUNE 7, 2021. First, as to Defendant's assertion that the question of the missing fees was an ‘isolated matter, Defendant asserts contrary to the facts available to him through ‘transcripts of swom testimony, ‘The evidence to be introduced at trial will show that, in ‘addition to and at about the same time as the fees in the Chris Wilson matter came to ‘the attention of PMPED staf, they had flagged a different fle—Estate of Hershberger— because they noticed part of the fee recovered was written to "Forge," and not in the manner to effectuate a structured fee. PMPED staff inquired about the Hershberger fee piior to the murders and informed Defendant he had not property structured the fee, to ‘which Defendant replied he was only attempting to put money in Maggie's name because of “the boat accident” and that Michael Gunn, of Forge Consulting, had been trying to get him to structure fees. Thus, when staff later confronted Defendant regarding the missing fee from Chris Wilson's offic, they did so in the context of having ready recently inquired about the portion ofthe Hershberger fee sent to “Forge,” which they only later discovered went not to Forge Consulting, but to Defendant. Both inquities were suspended by the murders. {Witness A SG testimony 11/18/21 pp. 40-51}; (Witness E SGJ testimony 11/16/21 pp. 36-54). "Rene 8. Beach, eo: Gregory M. Parker, Ine al2019-CP-25-00111. Page 2 of 18 iL ANY ADMISSION OF WRONGDOING BY DEFENDANT ON OR BEFORE JUNE 7, 2021, WOULD HAVE IMMEDIATELY LED TO THE DESTRUCTION OF HIS LIVELIHOOD AND BEGUN THE INEVITABLE REVELATION OF HIS SIGNIFICANT CRIMINAL WRONGDOING. ‘Second, it should be self-evident to the Cour, let alone Defendant, that a plain admission by Defendant that he was stealing fees in either instance described above, let alone both, would have undone his entire world, Indeed, Defendant did uttmately ‘admit to stealing money from the law firm and it did undo his entire world. ‘As was testified to before the State Grand Jury back in November of 2021, a PMPED staffer went to Defendant on June 7, 2021, closed his office door, and demanded that Defendant provide “proof that you don't have the fees from the case [with Chris Wilson] because | have reason to believe you do. And I need proof that you don't’. Defendant (falsely) responded “I Chris Wilson's account. I promise you its all there." The inquiry only got stopped that time because Defendant received notice his father had been put back in the hospital and the outlook was terminal. {Witness A SGJ testimony 11/18/21 pp. 38-38; 44-45); Witness E SGJ testimony 11/16/21 pp. 63- 65). As was testified in the State Grand Jury, the partners at PMPED were extremely serious about getting to the bottom of it because they did not want to be a party to Defendant's attempt to hide assets because of the boat case ~ after hearing he had said that it what he wanted fo do. {Witness A SGJ testimony 11/18/21 pp. 42-43}; {Witness B 8GJ tootimony 5/17/22 pp. 75-78, 78-80); {Witness D 8C3 teotmony 6121/22 pp. 106-107). ‘As tested to inthe State Grand Jury in November of 2021 and Mey and .une of 2022, the shock and outpouring of sympathy in the wake of the murders stopped PMPED's inquiry into the Chris Wilson fees “in its tracks". {Witness A SGJ testimony Page 3 of 18 41/18/21 pp. 37-38); {Witness B $6J testimony $/17/22 pp. 113-14); (Witness C ‘S64 testimony 6/21/22 pp. 73-74}; {Witness D SGJ testimony 6/22/22 pp. 132-135) {Witness & SGJ testimony 11/16/21 pp. 68-60}. ‘After the murders, Defendant was able fo put together enough money to replace the fees from the Chris Wilson case to stave off the inquiry, by borrowing $250,000 from ‘law partner, getting $350,000 from Palmetto State Bank through Russell Laffitte on ‘loan’ that was not even booked until almost a month later, and by tricking Chris Wilson into cover the remaining $192,000 when he sent the fees to PMPED as If they had been inWilson's trust account all along {Witness F SGJ Testimony 11/17/21 pp. 174-178}. “The time the murders gave Defendant did work to stave of the inquiry that would have certainly started the process that would have caused Defendant o lose everything he had enjoyed in a life of respectability and prominence — and face certain long prison time. Because when ~ months later - a PMPED staffer found in his office the original Cris Wilson check made out to Defendant direct, realized Defendant had been lying all along, and brought it to the firm leadership ~ it did in fact set off an inquiry that eventually to his resignation, a report to law enforcement, and @ State Grand Jury investigation that has uncovered Defendant's alleged fraud for over a decade. {Witness A SGJ testimony 11/18/21 pp. 50-51); {Witness B SGJ testimony 5/17/22 pp. 119.126): (Witness © SGJ testimony 6/21/22 pp. 100-111}; {Witness D SGI testimony 6/22/22 pp. 136-142}: {Witness E SGJ testimony 11/16/21 pp. 91-04). ‘The Chris Wilson fee matter not only had the potential to start the process to unravel everything and expose Defendant for what he was to the world including nearly fone hundred white-collar felonies, it in fact did unravel everything. It just took a tittle Page 4 of 18 tonger to happen because of the murders, and might never have happened Ifthe check \was not uncovered in September 2021 Had Defendant admitted to his law firm that he was stealing fees, let alone client money, a8 opposed to his intial explanation that he was merely bumbling a structured fee to shelter assets, PMPED would have been obliged to suspend him from the firm ‘and report him to the Office of Disciplinary Counsel. See Rule 8.3(c), RPC, Rule 407, SCACR (A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial queston as to that lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority); Rule §.1(a), RPC, Rule 407, SCACR (‘A partner in 4 law fim, and a tawyer who individually or together with other lawyers possesses comparable managerial authority in a law firm, shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the firm has in effect measures giving reasonable assurance that all lawyers in the firm conform to the Rules of Professional Conduct). South Carolina Supreme Court precedent shows that an attomey can and will be disbarred for stealing a fraction of what Defendant is alleged to have stolen in the matter with Cris Wiison alone. See, gonerally, In ro Mose, 416 S.C. 1, 785 S.E.2d 364 (2016) (dlabarring an attomey for diverting $77,000 in fees rightfuly owed to his law firm); n re Beldwin, 411 S.C. 75, 767 8.6.24 192 (2014) (disbarring an attomey for diverting $4,000 in fees rightfully owed to his law firm). Upon Defendant's discovery as a thief and his admissions as such, PMPED did in fact report him to ODC and SLED. After Defendent’s admissions through counsel, the Supreme Court did in fact disbar him in an unprecedented near-summary fashion. Matter of Murdaugh, 436 S.C. 636, 875 S.E.2d 58 (2022); Matter of Murdaugh, Page $ of 18 437 S.C. 15, 875 SE.24 625 (2022). Defendant's frauds would have been revealed upon any inspection of his books. ‘That something is amiss, and that Defendant was converting enormous sums into cash while he was sustained by a mix of unexplained income and the most generous ‘overdraft policy ever conceived, including large transfers from the fake Forge account into which PMPED trust account checks had been deposited, is immediately evident ‘upon review of any given year of statements, The fraud is especially obvious from 2015 ‘forward, as one need only follow transactions back from Palmetto State Bank, to Bank cof America, tothe fake “Forge” account at Bank of America. M,_ THE CONFRONTATION OF JUNE 7, 2021, FROM THE DISCOVERY OF ‘THE CANCELED CHECK ON SEPTEMBER 2, 2021, INVOLVED THE SAME UNDERLYING SUBJECT MATTER AND DEFENDANT'S ATTEMPT ‘TO DISTINGUISH THE TWO ONLY REINFORCES THE STATE'S THEORY OF MOTIVE. ‘Third, Defendant argues his schemes were not undone by the missing fees from the Chris Wilson matter (and Defendant doesn't even acknowledge the Hershberger rratter), because PMPED was prompted to resume inspection of him by the discovery of the cancelled check written to Forge in Defendant's office on September 2, 2021. Defendant's argument seems to concede the very point the State intends to make at ‘rat the murders stopped PMPED's intemal investigation until a new event—the

    You might also like