Category: Banking Expert Witness

  • Banking Expert’s Opinions Regarding the Card Processing Industry Admitted

    Banking Expert’s Opinions Regarding the Card Processing Industry Admitted

    This action is about holding Chargebacks911 (“CB911”), its CEO (Monica Eaton) and its former CEO (Gary Cardone) accountable for their roles in keeping a massive online Keto diet pill scam (the “Keto Racket”) profitable, viable, and undetected while it victimized Plaintiffs and tens of thousands of other consumers across the country.

    Defendants filed a motion to exclude the testimony of two of Plaintiffs’ experts, Kenneth Musante and Kerrie Merrifield

    Musante opined that Global e-Trading, which does business as Chargebacks911, “provided critical and necessary support which allowed the fraudulent merchants to continue processing consumer payments. But for [Global e-Trading’s] assistance, the fraud would have either been muted or ended much sooner than it otherwise did.”

    Merrifield was “retained to review the documents and the ‘shipping,’ ‘refunds,’ and ‘charge backs’ Excel spreadsheets produced in the [case] in order to determine the differences between amounts that were charged United States customers that purchased either the, ‘buy 2, get 1 free’ (referred to as 3 bottles) or ‘buy 3, get 2 free’ (referred to as 5 bottles) promotion of either Instant Keto, Ultra Fast Keto Boost, or Keto Boost products, and the amounts these customers expected to be charged and is offset by any refunds and charge backs.” She opined that the total damages for the Keto Entities’ diet pill scheme is $18,779,274.

    According to Plaintiffs, they offered “Merrifield as an expert for only one thing: to filter and calculate numbers from hundreds of thousands of rows in a spreadsheet. Her assignment was to find select rows in a spreadsheet with values that fit into criteria that Plaintiffs’ counsel provided and to perform math on those values.”

    Banking Expert Witness

    Kenneth Musante has a Bachelor of Science in Managerial Economics, an MBA, and “graduated from the Pacific Coast Bankers School in Seattle, WA.” He has has more than thirty years’ experience with the banking industry and with the major credit card companies, such as Visa, Mastercard, Discover, American Express.

    Get the full story on challenges to Kenneth Musante’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study. 

    Accounting Expert Witness

    Kerrie Merrifield is a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) and has over 35 years of experience accounting with an emphasis on forensic accounting and damages calculations. She has been the Director of Litigation Support for Axiom Forensics since 2008. 

    Want to know more about the challenges Kerrie Merrifield has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report. 

    Discussion by the Court

    Kenneth Musante

    Global e-Trading maintained that Musante’s report included numerous impermissible legal conclusions, lacked a reliable methodology, and would not be helpful to the jury and is irrelevant.

    However, Musante pointed to the documents he reviewed in reaching his opinions based on his experience in the banking and card processing industries. And, in his deposition, Musante explained that he reviewed the complaint and other materials in the case, created an outline based on that review and his experience.

    While Defendants may have legitimate questions about Musante’s conclusions based on his document review or take issue with the documents he relied upon, the Court held that these issues can be explored on cross-examination.

    While the Court understands Plaintiffs’ position that Musante used the words “fraud” and “fraudulent” in the vernacular sense, the Court is concerned with the potential to confuse the jury by use of these words with legal significance. It is likely a jury would believe Musante was offering a legal conclusion that certain transactions legally constituted fraud. Thus, the Court prohibited Musante from using the words “fraud” and “fraudulent” in offering his expert opinions. However, the Court declined to exclude Musante’s use of the phrase “sham transactions” in relation to the microtransactions scheme or the term “bad actors.” Neither “sham” nor “bad actor” is a legal term of art, and the Court is not concerned about jury confusion over the use of these words.

    Moreover, it is permissible for Musante to testify — among other things — that, in his opinion, Global e-Trading “was instrumental” in helping the Keto Entities continue accessing card processing and selling its keto diet pills to consumers. While Musante’s opinions touch on an ultimate issue, Musante does not merely instruct the jury on what result to reach.

    Kerrie Merrifield

    Defendants also sought to limit the testimony of Kerrie Merrifield. Global e-Trading insisted that Merrifield is unqualified to offer certain opinions, her methodology is unreliable, and her opinions unhelpful to the jury such that her opinions should be excluded under Rules 702 and 403.

    Qualification

    Global e-Trading insisted that Merrifield was not qualified “to testify competently regarding the matters she intends to address,” specifically regarding “the price U.S. consumers expected to pay for their purchase.” But, indeed, Plaintiffs insisted that they were not offering Merrifield as an expert on consumer expectations.

    Although Merrifield’s calculations required an assumption about what consumers expected to pay, the Court did not interpret Merrifield as offering an expert opinion regarding consumer expectations.

    Reliability 

    Merrifield “reviewed various documents that were produced” in discovery and performed “various technical steps” “along with applying forensic accounting procedures in order to properly extract the data needed and to perform an accurate analysis.”

    She filtered through data and used data within large spreadsheets of payment and shipping information to calculate the class-wide damages in this case.

    The fact that the documents and spreadsheets Merrifield consulted were provided by Plaintiffs and that Merrifield consulted Plaintiffs’ counsel regarding certain assumptions did not render Merrifield an unreliable “mouthpiece” for Plaintiffs’ counsel.

    While Defendants may have legitimate questions about Merrifield’s reliance on the data within the spreadsheet or any assumptions underlying her analysis, the Court held that these supposed problems can be explored on cross-examination.

    Helpfulness to the Jury

    The Court also determines that Merrifield’s opinions and calculations will be helpful to the jury. Defendants are incorrect that Merrifield’s analysis involved “a simple math calculation that most kids in junior high could perform.” Rather, as Plaintiffs point out, the data Merrifield sifted through to make her calculations “is on a spreadsheet containing over 414,000 rows” such that she “had to use advanced Excel techniques to arrive at her numbers.” It is certainly helpful to the jury to have an analysis of the voluminous data from the spreadsheets provided to them rather than reviewing all the data in the spreadsheets themselves to reach a damages calculation.

    The Court held that Merrifield’s damages calculation, made after sorting through the voluminous data, will help the jury decide what damages to award, if it finds Defendants liable.

    Held

    • The Court granted in part and denied in part Defendant Global E-Trading, LLC’s Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Kenneth J. Musante.
    • The Court denied Defendant Global E-Trading, LLC’s Daubert motion to exclude the testimony of Kerrie Merrifield.

    Key Takeaway:

    The Court considered all of Musante’s opinions, with the exception of his use of the legal terms “fraud” and “fraudulent,” helpful to the jury. The card processing industry and its procedures are unfamiliar to the average juror. For that reason, the Court held that Musante’s opinions regarding that industry and whether Defendants’ practices violated the rules of that industry or assisted the Keto Entities will be helpful to the jury. 

    Moreover, the Court held that Merrifield’s consideration of Plaintiffs’ counsel’s hearsay statements, which a reasonable damages expert would consider in conducting her analysis, was permissible under Rule 703.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Sihler Et Al V. Global E-Trading, Llc Et Al
    Docket Number: 8:23cv1450
    Court Name: United States District Court, Florida Middle
    Order Date: May 16, 2025
  • Banking Expert Witness Not Allowed to Opine on the Materiality of Documents Submitted

    Banking Expert Witness Not Allowed to Opine on the Materiality of Documents Submitted

    A grand jury indicted Rasta Khalid Walid (“Walid”) on 17 counts, including failure to pay legal child support, bank fraud, false statements to a bank, engaging in monetary transactions, and false, fictitious, and fraudulent claims.

    Walid filed a notice disclosing the proposed testimony of two expert witnesses he intended to use at trial:

    1. Conor Newman, a certified public accountant, offers testimony regarding issues of Walid’s use of general accounting principles and Walid’s understanding of the tax code and regulations.
    2. Steve Bryant, a banking and paycheck protection program (“PPP”) expert, offers testimony regarding issues related to PPP loans.

    In response, the Government filed a motion in limine to exclude Walid’s expert testimony of Conor Newman and Steve Bryant.

    Banking Expert Witness

    Accounting Expert Witness

    Conor Newman is a Certified Public Accountant with Boyle, Deveny, and Meyer, a Montana accounting firm that provides consulting and tax services across the United States. He is responsible for services in the areas of compiled financial statements, tax consulting and compliance, and accounting system software consulting.

    Get the full story on challenges to Conor Newman’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.  

    Banking Expert Witness

    Steve Bryant is the Vice President of Commercial Lending at First Security Bank of Missoula, a division of Glacier Bank.

    Bryant has been in commercial lending since 2008. In 2020, Bryant played a critical role in reviewing and approving or declining Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans.

    Want to know more about the challenges Steve Bryant has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.  

    Discussion by the Court

    The Court ruled in part from the bench on the scope of expert testimony. It allowed the parties to reserve further objections during the trial. The Court sought to clarify the scope of expert testimony at trial.

    Conor Newman

    Walid sought to elicit testimony from Newman regarding issues of Walid’s use of general accounting principles, the complexity of the tax code, and the procedural requirements for submissions like Walid’s. Newman made several findings in his report that addressed Walid’s mental state during the preparation of the report. Some of Walid’s charges requires the government to prove that Walid knew the claim was false, fictitious, or fraudulent. Newman sought to testify that Walid “held the incorrect belief” that Walid thought he had properly filed the forms. However, the Court held that Newman’s testimony with regard to Walid’s knowledge of whether he knew what he was filing was potentially fraudulent properly would be limited.

    The Court held that Newman could testify to what Walid’s filings looked like compared to others in similar circumstances for the jury to make inferences about Walid’s state of mind at the time he filed his taxes. The Court held that Walid may also testify to his own experience about what he knew at the time the claims were filed but may not use Newman to convey to the jury, Walid’s state of mind at the time he prepared his taxes.

    Steve Bryant

    Walid also sought to elicit testimony from Bryant regarding issues related to Paycheck Protection Program (“PPP”) loans. Specifically, Bryant sought to testify about documents relevant to approving or denying PPP loans and offer an opinion on the submissions for PPP loans from Walid to certain banks.

    The Government contended that Bryant should not be allowed to testify to the materiality of what Walid submitted. Count 15 in the Indictment, requires Walid to have made statements that were “material” and “had a natural tendency to influence or were capable of influencing” a financial institution. The parties agree that this testimony properly may be limited through objection at trial and instructing the jury on the legal definition of “material”.

    The Court allowed Walid’s expert to testify based on their expert opinion on a review of Walid’s submissions to the Internal Revenue Service and financial institutions, but Walid’s proposed experts shall not testify to Walid’s willfulness or Walid’s personal knowledge of filing fraudulent, fictitious, or false claims. The Court reserves ruling on any other expert testimony until trial.

    Held

    The Court granted in part the Government’s motion in limine as follows:

    1. Walid’s expert Newman shall not testify to whether Walid knew the claim Walid filed was false, fictitious or fraudulent.

    2. Walid’s experts shall not testify to an ultimate issue of the crime charged.

    3. Walid’s expert Bryant shall not testify to Walid’s intent to defraud any financial institution.

    4. Walid’s expert Bryant shall not testify to the materiality of documents submitted by Walid to any financial institution.

    Key Takeaway:

    The Court allowed Newman to testify about Walid’s use of general accounting principles and Walid’s understanding of the tax code and regulations but prohibited him from opining on Walid’s mental state or willfulness in filing fraudulent claims. Similarly, the Court allowed Bryant to discuss documents and processes related to Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans but barred him from testifying about Walid’s intent to defraud financial institutions or the materiality of submitted documents. These limitations preserved the jury’s role in determining Walid’s intent his state of mind.

    Case Details:

    Case caption: United States v. Walid
    Docket Number: 6:23cr12
    Court: United States District Court for the District of Montana, Helena Division
    Dated: January 17, 2025