UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

HAMMOND DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

vs. ) Cause No. 2:14-cr-93 

)

JAMES SCHAEFER, )

)

Defendant. )

OPINION AND ORDER

James Schaefer is charged with one count (Count 11) of conspiracy to conceal

assets. (DE 48 at 13-14.) Schaefer was formerly an accountant who appears to have

worked for two firms owned by codefendant Jack Weichman, Weichman & Associates

and MMDS. The indictment alleges that Schaefer conspired with Weichman and his

son, codefendant Ari Weichman (“Ari”), to defraud Weichman’s chapter 11 creditors by

concealing income, assets, and funds on monthly cash flow reports filed in Weichman’s

bankruptcy proceedings and on tax returns. (Id.) Schaefer moves to dismiss Count 11 on

grounds that he had no duty of disclosure to the United States Trustee or Weichman’s

creditors and because “it is not fair” that Schaefer must “wait until trial to learn of the

evidence of his purported agreement . . . to commit bankruptcy fraud.” For the reasons

below, Schaefer’s motion to dismiss is denied.

Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7(c)(1) provides that an indictment “must be

a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the

offense charged” and for each count must cite “the statute, rule, regulation, or other

provision of law that the defendant is alleged to have violated.” An indictment
complies with Rule 7(c)(1) and is constitutionally adequate, so long as “it states the

elements of the crime charged, informs the defendant of the nature of the charge so she

may prepare a defense, and enables the defendant to plead the judgment as a bar

against future prosecutions for the same offense.” United States v. Agostino, 132 F.3d

1183, 1189 (7th Cir. 1997) (citations omitted). 

Count 11 more than satisfies Rule 7(c)(1). The count notes the statutory basis for

the charge (18 U.S.C. §§ 152, 371) and sets out the elements of the conspiracy. (DE 48 at )

More specifically, it explains that Jack Weichman was obligated to pay unsecured

creditors in his chapter 11 bankruptcy with income from Weichman & Associates and

MMDS and that Schaeffer and his codefendants agreed on a scheme to avoid those

payments. (Id.) The indictment alleges that Schaefer knowingly and intentionally

prepared the firms’ tax returns and monthly cash flow reports to show hundreds of

thousands of dollars as paid to defendant Ari Weichman when they were not. (Id. at 14-

16.) It further alleges that the cash flow reports Schaefer prepared did not reflect

amounts Jack Weichman paid to Ari Weichman and to American Express for personal

expenses. (Id. at 16-17.) 

This is more than enough information to allow Schaefer to prepare a defense

against conspiracy and to enable him to plead the judgment against future prosecutions

for the same offense. Further, and as Schaefer conceded in his reply, Schaefer can be

charged for conspiracy to commit bankruptcy, even if he is not charged with the

underlying bankruptcy fraud. (DE 122 at 3 (citing Gebardi v. United States, 287 U.S. 112,

2
121 (1932)). Accordingly, Rule 7(c)(1) is satisfied. 

Nevertheless, Schaefer argues that the indictment is defective because “[t]he

government . . . has never provided a shred of information in support of the assertion

about an agreement between Schaefer and Weichman to defraud creditor[.]” (DE 122 at

2.) But those are evidentiary issues, and this is not the time to “test the strength or

weakness of the government’s case, or the sufficiency of the government’s evidence.”

United States v. Moore, 563 F.3d 583, 586 (7th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted). The task at

hand now is evaluating the sufficiency of the indictment, and in doing, so the

allegations contained in the indictment are taken as true. Id.

For these reasons, Schaefer’s Motion to Dismiss the Indictment (DE 119) is

DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

ENTERED: August 5, 2016

s/ Philip P. Simon 

CHIEF JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

3