UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-4205

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SOOKYEONG KIM SEBOLD, a/k/a Sophia Kim,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, 

District Judge. (1:12-cr-00434-LMB-1)

Submitted: November 25, 2013 Decided: December 3, 2013

Before MOTZ, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Kevin R. Brehm, 

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for 

Appellant. Kathryn Keneally, Assistant Attorney General, Frank 

P. Cihlar, Chief, Criminal Appeals & Tax Enforcement Policy 

Section, Gregory Victor Davis, Joseph B. Syverson, Tax Division, 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Sookyeong Kim Sebold was convicted by a jury of filing 

a false individual income tax return and criminal tax evasion, 

26 U.S.C. §§ 7201, 7206 (2012), both with respect to Sebold’s 

2005 federal individual income tax liability. The district 

court sentenced Sebold to 24 months’ imprisonment. She appeals, 

arguing that the Government failed to prove that her conduct was 

willful within the meaning of the statutes of conviction. The 

evidence presented at Sebold’s trial, viewed in the light most 

favorable to the Government, see United States v. Burgos, 94 

F.3d 849, 854 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc), was as follows.

Between 2002 and 2005, Sebold stole approximately 

$810,000 from her employer, the Korean Cultural and Freedom 

Foundation (KCFF), a nonprofit organization devoted to 

supporting the Universal Ballet Company, a Korean ballet 

company. Sebold was KCFF’s treasurer and had signatory 

authority over its bank accounts. She used her authority to 

divert funds sent to KCFF into her own bank accounts, which she 

then used to support her gambling and day-trading habits, among 

other things. In 2005 alone, Sebold spent over $58,000 at 

casinos using her debit card, and withdrew another $86,000 in 

cash from ATM’s located near casinos. William Pangoras, the 

operations controller for Bally’s Atlantic City, testified that 

Sebold made 34 gambling trips to Atlantic City in 2005, 
3

totalling 180 hours of playing time, and involving $167,845 in 

cash transactions. Sebold also engaged in extensive daytrading, sometimes trading the same stock ten times in one day. 

In one month alone in 2005, Sebold placed over 800 buy and sell 

orders. 

On her 2005 federal income tax return, Sebold reported 

zero wage income and zero total income. She claimed a short-term 

capital loss of $277,962, attributable to losses sustained in 

her day-trading activities with money stolen from KCFF. Sebold 

testified that she completed the return personally. She does 

not deny that she stole the funds from KCFF; rather, Sebold 

argues that the Government failed to prove that she knew that 

those funds were reportable as taxable income.*

We will uphold a jury’s verdict if there is 

substantial evidence in the record to support it. Glasser v. 

United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942). In determining whether 

the evidence in the record is substantial, we view the evidence 

in the light most favorable to the Government, and inquire 

whether there is evidence that a reasonable finder of fact could 

 * I.R.C. § 61 defines gross income as “all income from 

whatever source derived” and includes gains from illegal 

activities. See James v. United States, 366 U.S. 213 (1960) 

(overruling Commissioner v. Wilcox, 327 U.S. 404 (1946)). 
4

accept as adequate and sufficient to establish a defendant’s 

guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Burgos, 94 F.3d at 862. In 

evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, this court does not 

review the credibility of the witnesses and assumes that the 

jury resolved all contradictions in the testimony in favor of 

the Government. United States v. Kelly, 510 F.3d 433, 440 (4th 

Cir. 2007).

A conviction “under section 7206(1) requires proof 

that: (1) a person made or subscribed to a federal tax return 

which he verified as true; (2) the return was false as to a 

material matter; (3) the defendant signed the return willfully 

and knowing it was false; and (4) the return contained a written 

declaration that it was made under the penalty of perjury.”

United States v. Presbitero, 569 F.3d 691, 700 (7th Cir. 2009).

In order to sustain a conviction under § 7201, the Government 

must prove that: (1) Sebold owed a substantial income tax 

liability; (2) that she attempted in any manner to evade or 

defeat the payment of that tax; and (3) that she did so 

willfully. United States v. Wilkins, 385 F.2d 465, 472 (4th 

Cir. 1967). A formal assessment is not required to prove tax 

evasion. See United States v. Silkman, 156 F.3d 833, 835 (8th 

Cir. 1998).

Convictions under both §§ 7206 and 7201 require the 

Government to prove that Sebold’s actions were willful. See
5

United States v. Aramony, 88 F.3d 1369, 1382 (4th Cir. 1996) 

(filing false tax returns). Failure to supply an accountant with 

accurate information is evidence of willfulness. United States 

v. Useni, 516 F.3d 634, 650 (7th Cir. 2008). And, although 

willfulness cannot be inferred solely from an understatement of 

income, willfulness can be inferred from making false entries or

alterations, or false invoices or documents, destruction of 

books or records, concealment of assets or covering up sources 

of income, handling of one’s affairs to avoid making the records 

usual in transactions of the kind, and any conduct, the likely 

effect of which would be to mislead or to conceal. Spies v. 

United States, 317 U.S. 492, 499 (1943). 

We have reviewed the record, including the trial 

testimony, and find that the jury heard sufficient evidence of 

willfulness to support its finding of guilt. Accordingly, we 

affirm Sebold’s conviction. We dispense with oral argument 

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented 

in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

AFFIRMED