Source: https://federaltaxcrimes.blogspot.com/2011/03/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 19:51:09+00:00

Document:
1. New FBAR form (Form TD F 90-22.1).
2. New FinCen FBAR regulations effective 3/28/11, previously discussed here.
Beginning March 28, 2011, the recently published final FBAR regulations will be effective and should be referenced, along with the revised FBAR form and instructions, when answering FFA-related questions on 2010 tax and information returns.
I have recently had several blogs arising from the Larson and Pfaff petition relating to the concepts of aider and abetter liability and causer liability under 18 USC §§ 002(a) and (b), respectively. (To review those, click on the labels below.) Contemporaneously, in the Tax Fraud and Money Laundering class that Larry Campagna and I teach at the University of Houston Law School, we recently covered the lesser included offense concept. So, I present today one case where these concepts came together. I think it nicely illustrates the lesser included offence concept in a nontraditional setting where it is used to save a conviction after the prosecution blurred the roles of the two types of liability under 18 USC § 2.
Note to Readers: This blog initially discussed only the opinion on Preliminary Sentencing Findings. I have since obtained the subsequent sentencing opinion. I accordingly ad a link to the sentencing opinion and a short discussion of it at the end of this blog.
Only 3 defendants have been tried recently amidst the Government's juggernaut against foreign bank accounts. All were convicted. I have previously discussed here, 2 of those defendants, father and son, who were convicted and sentenced to 40 months each. I want to talk today about the other whose prosecution, technically, did not arise from that juggernaut, but who was tried for foreign bank account violations during the ongoing juggernaut. He is James A. Simon whom I have discussed before here.
Mr. Simons' prosecution apparently arose from an investigated that predated the UBS brouhaha from whence the flurry of criminal charges arose. He had a number of criminal issues beyond just failing to report and pay tax on income stashed in foreign banks and filing the required FBAR. He did not plead and was convicted of multiple counts as will be noted.
I will fill in more facts when I get them and will then update the spreadsheet.
As I noted in an earlier blog titled More on 18 USC § 2(b) Liability from the Larson / Pfaff / Ruble Case, the Government asserted criminal liability for tax evasion directly under 7201 and also asserted liability under 18 USC § 2(b). Judge Kaplan described these as the first and second theories of criminal liability for evasion. There was a third theory -- aiding and abetting liability -- often called accomplice liability -- under 18 USC § 2(a). Accomplice liability requires that a principal commit the crime; if a defendant aids and abets the actual principal, the accomplice is deemed a principal.
I thought I would offer readers the Judge Kaplan's instructions on accomplice liability (from pp. 5243-5246 of the transcript).
I have updated the spreadsheet.
1. Is an accused person deprived of the right under Article III and the Sixth Amendment to be tried only by a jury of the community where venue is proper, when factual questions determinative of whether venue has been correctly laid are determined solely by a jury selected in the place challenged by the defendant as incorrect?
2. Where venue is a contested factual issue in a criminal trial, does the government bear a burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt or only by a preponderance of the evidence?
In the indictment, the Government relied upon both direct liability for their conduct under 7201 and upon 18 USC § 2. The instructions make clear that the Government was relying upon 2(b) (although it also relied on 2(a) as I shall note in a later blog). I provide the instructions below and, after doing that, will provide some further discussion of 2(b) liability from a case differentiating the 2(a) and 2(b) concepts.
2. Whether for ten of the twelve counts of conviction petitioners’ conduct was too remote from the taxpayers’ returns to be charged under 26 U.S.C. §7201.
Addendum 3/7/10: Bill Singer's Street Sweeper Blog (Forbes).
Petitions for certiorari have been filed in the criminal convictions of John Larson, Robert Pfaff and R.J. Ruble in the massive KPMG-related criminal case which drew fame in an earlier iteration (United States v. Stein before 13 defendants were dismissed for prosecutorial abuse). The Second Circuit summary affirmance of the convictions of Larson, Pfaff and Ruble is here. The petition for John Larson and Robert Pfaff is here. The petition for R. J. Ruble is here..
Christos Bagios another Swiss banker has been charged with the Klein / defraud conspiracy (18 USC 371). Bagios worked serially with UBS AG, UBS Swiss Financial Advisors AG and then with Credit Suisse Private Advisors. The charge was made by complaint. (The complaint (with affidavit) is here and is posted with the permission of Tax Analysts). Interesting underlying facts alleged in the affidavit supporting the complaint that, if true, continues to paint a damning, even if predictable, picture for the Swiss banks. The focus of the misconduct alleged relates to Bagios' time with UBS AG and UBS Swiss Financial Advisors AG.
Bagios was arrested earlier. In the hearing on the complaint, the magistrate judge held that there was probable cause to charge Bagios and required a $500,000 corporate surety bond and $150,000 cash bond.
While at UBS, Bagios is alleged to have conspired with Renzo Gadola, who previously pled (see here) and gave incriminating information on Bagios. Kevin Downing is reported to have represented by telephone during the hearing that "Bagios and Gadola worked together in a UBS unit focused on helping American tax evaders." Also reported is that DOJ officials represented that "they had reached out to Bagios to see if he would cooperate with ongoing tax fraud investigations but said he had not responded."
"I always acted in the name of the bank and according to their instructions," Agustoni told Reuters via telephone.
"It's not the case that I did anything independently, the bank was always informed and my actions were checked by my bosses," Agustoni said.

References: § 2
 § 2
 § 2
 § 2
 § 2
 §7201
 v.