- 56 -
from unlawful activity.13 Petitioners rely exclusively on Jay
Hoyt’s Federal conviction in Oregon to establish the elements of
a theft under State law. However, since we held above that
petitioners cannot rely solely on Jay Hoyt’s conviction to
establish theft from the partnerships, petitioners must prove
they were the victims of a theft under the applicable law of the
jurisdiction where the alleged thefts occurred.
Petitioners state that they rely on the Oregon criminal
statutes because Jay Hoyt was convicted of Federal crimes in
Oregon and each partnership was formed and operated in Oregon.
As we previously determined, the specific crimes Jay Hoyt was
convicted of violating in Oregon were perpetrated against
individual investors and were not thefts of partnership property.
Further, petitioners’ claim that the sheep partnerships were
formed and operated in Oregon is factually incorrect. As
previously discussed, eight of the sheep partnerships at issue
were formed in California and one partnership was formed in
Nevada.
Not only were a majority of the partnerships formed in
California, but the record shows that the majority of sheep
operations were performed in California. All of the agreements
were entered into in California between California or Nevada
partnerships and Barnes Ranch, a sole proprietorship operated in
13 Or. Rev. Stat. secs. 164.170 and 164.172 (2001), are
both money laundering statutes.
Page: Previous 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011