Christopher Switlyk was convicted of four counts of knowingly disposing of and transferring property to prevent the government from seizing it, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2232(a). The charges stemmed from a 2010 criminal case where Switlyk pleaded guilty to drug conspiracy and money laundering, resulting in a multi-million dollar forfeiture judgment. Despite this judgment, Switlyk had previously buried gold coins and silver bars in a friend's backyard in 2012. After his release in 2017, he purchased real estate in Florida and a Tesla. In November 2022, the government moved to seize these new assets as substitute property for the outstanding forfeiture judgment. Upon learning of the freeze, Switlyk transferred the properties and the vehicle to his father, backdating the sale documents to predate the government's order. The government later charged him with obstruction, and he argued at trial that the district court erred by admitting evidence of his prior buried assets and by excluding evidence of alleged threats and promises made by a prosecutor during a subsequent settlement negotiation.
The Eleventh Circuit reviewed the district court's evidentiary rulings for an abuse of discretion. First, regarding the alleged prosecutorial threat, the court found the evidence irrelevant. The alleged threat occurred in February 2023, months after Switlyk transferred the assets in November 2022. Because the crime was committed in November, a statement made later could not prove Switlyk's intent at the time of the transfer. The court noted that admitting such evidence would confuse the jury regarding the timeline of the offense. Second, regarding the alleged promise by a prosecutor that assets would be removed from the forfeiture list if documentation was provided, the court held that even if not hearsay, the statement was irrelevant to the transfer of the Tesla, which occurred before the alleged phone call. For the Tampa property, the court reasoned that while the statement might have had some probative value, the risk of misleading the jury was too high, as they might have accepted the prosecutor's statement as fact rather than as evidence of the defendant's state of mind. Finally, the court addressed the admission of evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) regarding Switlyk's 2012 act of burying gold and silver. The court applied a three-part test, finding the evidence relevant to prove intent and motive, which were central issues since Switlyk pleaded not guilty. The court determined the prior act was not too remote in time because it involved the same forfeiture judgment and similar conduct. The risk of unfair prejudice was mitigated by the district court's limiting instructions to the jury, which clarified that the evidence was to be used only to determine intent, not character.
The decision reinforces the Eleventh Circuit's willingness to admit evidence of prior bad acts under Rule 404(b) when the defendant's intent is a material issue and the prior acts are sufficiently similar and related to the charged offense. It clarifies that post-crime statements by government officials regarding settlement or threats are generally irrelevant to the defendant's state of mind at the time of the offense and thus inadmissible. The conviction stands, and Switlyk remains subject to his 18-month sentence.