DAVID BOOKHARDT, APPELLANT,
v.
STATE OF FLORIDA, APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
David Bookhardt appeals his securities fraud convictions, challenging whether his investment scheme involving unsecured promissory notes constituted the sale of 'securities' under Florida law. The court affirmed, holding that the promissory notes issued to multiple investors with promised high returns constituted securities, and that expert testimony on the meaning of securities was properly admitted.
The court held that the investment scheme involved the sale of securities within the meaning of section 517.021(18), Florida Statutes, because promissory notes are specifically included in the statutory definition of 'security,' and the notes were issued in connection with raising money for investment from multiple investors. The court also held that expert testimony on whether the investments constituted securities was properly admitted because the term 'security' has a specialized legal meaning that would be helpful to lay persons.
[1] An unsecured promissory note issued in connection with raising money for investment constitutes a "security" under Florida securities law.
[2] The sale of unsecured promissory notes offering high rates of return to multiple investors constitutes the sale of a "security" under Florida securities law.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“We have no hesitation in concluding that the investment scheme set up by the defendant involved the sale of a "security" within the meaning of section 517.021(18), Florida Statutes.”
Establishes the court's holding that the promissory notes constituted securities under Florida law.
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceBookhardt held himself out as a financial adviser and offered investment opportunities with high rates of return to six victims. He collected large su…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Sale Of Unregistered Securities cases and more on FLexlaw
COBB, Judge.
We grant rehearing, withdraw our previous opinion and substitute in its place the following.
The defendant appeals challenging the denial of his motions for judgment of acquittal on charges prosecuted under Chapter 517, Florida Statutes, dealing with the sale of unregistered securities,1 sale of securities by an unregistered dealer,2 and fraudulent securities transactions.3 The defendant argues that the state failed to prove that the transactions between himself and the six named victims involved the sale of a “security” under section 517.021(18), Florida Statutes.
The defendant held himself out as a financial adviser and offered his elient/victims investment opportunities with high rates of return. The defendant took large sums of money from multiple investors for investment and gave them unsecured promissory notes. These monies, however, were deposited into the defendant’s personal accounts and used by him to pay various debts and for personal uses. None of the money was returned to the investors.
We have no hesitation in concluding that the investment scheme set up by the defendant involved the sale of a “security” within the meaning of section 517.021(18), Florida Statutes. See Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. 56, 110 S.Ct. 945, 108 L.Ed.2d 47 (1990)(involving sale of unsecured promissory notes). Under section 517.021(18)(a), a “security” includes a note. This case is distinguishable from Rudd v. State, 386 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980), rev. denied, 392 So. 2d 1380 (Fla.1981), which involved a single loan from the alleged victim to the defendant. Here there were multiple investors, each of whom was offered investment opportunities with high rates of return. The unsecured promissory notes were issued in connection with the raising of the money for investment.
We likewise reject the defendant’s claim that the trial court erred in allowing expert testimony on the issue of whether the investments offered by the defendant were securities. The term “security” as used in Chapter 517 has a specialized legal meaning and testimony from an expert in the field of securities law would be helpful to a lay person in understanding the term. See § 90.703, Fla. Stat. See generally McMullen v. State, 23 Fla. L. Weekly S207 (Fla. April 9, 1998). Expert opinion testimony is not objectionable merely because it includes an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact. § 90.703, Fla. Stat. The expert testimony did not relate to an issue on which the expert lacked actual knowledge, compare Gamble v. State, 644 So. 2d 1376 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994), Fluellen v. State, 703 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 3d DCA 1997), and the trial court instructed the jury that it could believe or disbelieve any or all of the expert’s testimony.
AFFIRMED.
W. SHARP and HARRIS, JJ., concur. . § 517.07, Fla. Stat. . § 517.12, Fla. Stat. .§ 517.301, Fla. Stat.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Hosner v. State (Fla. 2d DCA 2022)…' enumeration of many types of instruments superfluous."); Githler v. Grande, 289 So. 3d 533, 539 (Fla. 2d DCA 2019) ("In short, per Landreth, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, we don't have to ask if it's a pig."); Bookhardt v. State, 710 So. 2d 700, 701 (Fla. 5th DCA 1998) (promissory notes were securities within the meaning of section 517.021(18),2 Florida Statutes (1998) (citing Reves, 494 U.S. 56)); see also Muhammad v. State, 782 So. 2d 343, 359 (Fla. 2001) ("[T]he trial court's ruling on…
Authorities Cited
- Reves v. Ernst & Young, 494 U.S. 56 (U.S. 1990)
- Rudd v. State, 386 So. 2d 1216 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980)
- Antwain Gamble v. State, 644 So. 2d 1376 (Fla. 5th DCA 1994)
- Fluellen v. State, 703 So. 2d 511 (Fla. 1st DCA 1997)