Source: http://federaltaxcrimes.blogspot.com/2014_12_01_archive.html
Timestamp: 2017-03-27 16:18:28
Document Index: 616559061

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 7212', '§ 7212', '§ 7206', '§ 7206', '§ 7206', '§ 7201', '§ 7206', '§ 7206']

Federal Tax Crimes: December 2014
N.T. Butterfield Bank.,
siwsspartners,
Sovereign Mgmt,
The U.S. Justice Department has a mixed record of success in prosecuting offshore bankers, lawyers and advisers accused of helping U.S. taxpayers cheat on their taxes. Since 2008, the U.S. has charged 38 people, including bankers from Switzerland’s three top wealth managers -- UBS Group AG, Credit Suisse Group AG and Julius Baer Group Ltd. On Nov. 3, federal jurors in Fort Lauderdale, Florida, acquitted Raoul Weil, the former head of wealth management for UBS, who was accused of conspiring to help thousands of U.S. clients use Swiss banking secrecy to evade taxes. Weil was the highest-ranking bank executive charged by the U.S. Of the 38, 25 have yet to answer the charges in court, and most live in Switzerland. Seven pleaded guilty, two were convicted at trial, two await trial and two were acquitted, including Weil. Here are the cases:
According to the second superseding indictment and evidence introduced at trial, David Kalai and Nadav Kalai were principals of United Revenue Service Inc. (URS), a tax preparation business with 12 offices located throughout the United States. David Kalai worked primarily at URS’s former headquarters in Newport Beach, California, and later at URS’s location in Costa Mesa, California. Nadav Kalai, who is David Kalai’s son, worked out of URS’s headquarters in Bethesda, Maryland, as well as the URS locations in Newport Beach and Costa Mesa. David Almog was the branch manager of the New York office of URS and supervised tax return preparers for URS’s East Coast locations. * * * * The second superseding indictment and the evidence introduced at trial established that the co-conspirators prepared false individual income tax returns that did not disclose the clients’ foreign financial accounts nor report the income earned from those accounts. In order to conceal the clients’ ownership and control of assets and to conceal the clients’ income from the IRS, the co-conspirators incorporated offshore companies in Belize and elsewhere and helped clients open secret bank accounts at the Luxembourg locations of two Israeli banks, Bank A and Bank B. Bank A is a large financial institution headquartered in Tel -Aviv, Israel, with branches worldwide. Bank B is a mid-size financial institution, also headquartered in Tel Aviv, with a presence on four continents. As further proven at trial, the co-conspirators incorporated offshore companies in Belize and elsewhere to act as named account holders on the secret accounts at the Israeli banks. The co-conspirators then facilitated the transfer of client funds to the secret accounts and prepared and filed tax returns that falsely reported the money sent offshore as a false investment loss or a false business expense. The co-conspirators also failed to disclose the existence of, and the clients’ financial interest in and authority over, the secret accounts and caused the clients to fail to file FBARs with the U.S. Treasury. \ * * * * The evidence at trial established that David Kalai and Nadav Kalai each failed to file FBARs for calendar years 2008 and 2009 concerning a foreign account held at Bank A in Luxembourg. The bank account was held in the name of a nominee corporation in Belize and held over $300,000. I think the banks are Bank Leumi and Bank Hapoalim, both Israeli banks.
A major Israeli international bank admitted that it conspired to aid and assist U.S. taxpayers to prepare and present false tax returns to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) by hiding income and assets in offshore bank accounts in Israel and elsewhere around the world. A deferred prosecution agreement between the Bank Leumi Group and the Department of Justice was filed today in the Central District of California that defers prosecution on a criminal information charging the bank with conspiracy to aid and assist in the preparation and presentation of false tax returns and other documents to the Internal Revenue Service. This unprecedented agreement marks the first time an Israeli bank has admitted to such criminal conduct which spanned over a 10 year period and included an array of services and products designed to keep U.S. taxpayer accounts concealed at Bank Leumi Group’s locations in Israel, Switzerland, Luxembourg and the United States. The Bank Leumi Group’s parent company is Bank Leumi le-Israel, B.M. Bank Leumi le-Israel is one of Israel’s largest banks, with subsidiaries in seven countries and more than 13,000 employees. Other subsidiary banks entering into this deferred prosecution agreement include The Bank Leumi le-Israel Trust Company Ltd., the oldest and largest of all bank trust companies in Israel; Leumi Private Bank S.A., a Switzerland-based subsidiary; Bank Leumi (Luxembourg) S.A., a Luxembourg-based subsidiary; and Bank Leumi USA, a FDIC-insured, full-service commercial bank with offices in California, Florida, Illinois and New York. According to documents filed in the case, to account for their criminal conduct, Bank Leumi Group will pay the United States a total of $270 million. Of this total payment, $157 million represents a penalty for U.S. taxpayer accounts held at Leumi Private Bank in Switzerland. This $157 million penalty is consistent with the department’s Swiss Bank Program, which permits certain Swiss Banks to avoid prosecution by making a full and complete disclosure of their U.S. taxpayer-held accounts and paying substantial penalties. The agreement further provides that Bank Leumi Luxembourg and Leumi Private Bank will cease to provide banking and investment services for all accounts held or beneficially owned by U.S. taxpayers. * * * * According to the filed statement of facts, from at least 2000 until early 2011, the Bank Leumi Group took affirmative and extensive steps to assist U.S. clients in concealing their assets offshore, including:
* * * * According to documents filed in the case, as part of its agreement with the department, the Bank Leumi Group provided the names of more than 1,500 of its U.S. account holders. As part of the agreement, the Bank Leumi Group will continue to disclose information to the government regarding its cross-border business and provide testimony and information regarding other investigations. For articles I just picked up, see
In this action, the Court granted the IRS permission to serve what are known as “John Doe” summonses on FedEx Express, FedEx Ground, DHL, UPS, Western Union, the FRBNY, Clearing House, and HSBC USA. The IRS uses John Doe summonses to obtain information about possible tax fraud by individuals whose identities are unknown. The John Doe summonses direct these eight entities to produce records that will assist the IRS in identifying U.S. taxpayers who, from the years 2005 through 2013, used Sovereign’s services to establish, maintain, operate, or control any foreign financial account or other assets; any foreign corporation, company, trust, foundation or other legal entity; or any foreign or domestic financial account in the name of such foreign entity. * * * *\ Sovereign is a multi-jurisdictional offshore services provider that offers clients, among other things, the formation and administration of anonymous corporations and foundations in Panama as well as offshore entities. Related services provided by Sovereign include the maintenance and operation of offshore structures, mail forwarding, the availability of virtual offices, re-invoicing, and the provision of professional managers who appoint themselves directors of the client’s entity while the client maintains ultimate control over the assets. As a result of a DEA investigation of online narcotics trafficking known as OPERATION ADAM BOMB, the IRS learned that Sovereign was involved in assisting U.S. clients with tax evasion. During the IRS’s investigation of Sovereign’s conduct, one taxpayer, making a voluntary disclosure of tax non-compliance to avoid prosecution, reported that Sovereign helped the taxpayer form an anonymous corporation in Panama that the taxpayer used to control assets without appearing to own them. The IRS investigation also determined that Sovereign uses Federal Express, UPS, and DHL to correspond with U.S. clients, and Western Union to transmit funds to and from clients in the U.S. In addition, the IRS learned that the wire services operated by the FRBNY and Clearing House, and the U.S. correspondent bank accounts that HSBC USA holds for Sovereign’s banks in Panama and Hong Kong, are likely to have records of financial transactions between Sovereign and its clients in the U.S. By obtaining information from these entities through John Doe summonses, the IRS expects to be able to identify Sovereign’s U.S. clients who may be avoiding or evading taxes.
Yet, over this period, Kaminsky did not disclose his UBS account or other foreign financial accounts to the U. S. Treasury Department as required, and thereby concealed several hundred thousand dollars in taxable income, interest, and dividends from the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS). In addition, in 2007 and 2008, Kaminsky omitted his UBS account and associated income from Free Applications for Federal Student Aid (FASFA) that he electronically filed with the U.S. Department of Education in order to qualify for need-based federal financial aid assistance to fund his tuition for an Executive MBA program at Emory University. At the time of the FASFA applications, Kaminsky controlled over a half million dollars in his UBS account, which would have made him ineligible for federal student loan assistance. On June 30, 2008, the U.S. Department of Justice sought court approval to compel UBS to disclose the identities of U.S. accountholders who may be using UBS accounts to hide assets overseas and thereby evade U.S. taxes. The request and the order authorizing it were widely reported by the media throughout the United States, which coverage continued throughout 2008 and 2009 as the U.S., UBS, and Switzerland negotiated a resolution and UBS began disclosing U.S. account holders to the IRS. Following this news, Kaminsky closed his UBS account and transferred the balance of his UBS account to an account that he controlled at HSBC Bank in Hong Kong. Further, in spring 2010, Kaminsky filed FBARs for his Swiss and Hong Kong accounts for the very first time, also filing amended individual income tax returns for 2007 and 2008 that disclosed the previously unreported income in his UBS account. However, in his amended 2007 and 2008 returns, and in his subsequently filed returns for 2009 through 2011, Kaminsky still failed to report nearly $150,000 in taxable income earned from his business activities in the virtual world, “Second Life.” Read more »
III. Count Seven Count Seven charges Huff with corruptly endeavoring to obstruct and impede the due administration of the tax laws by causing 02HR employees to, inter alia, file false Forms 941, cease filing Forms 941, cease making payments to the IRS, divert funds intended for the IRS, and conceal from 02HR's clients its failure to make payments to the IRS, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7212. Indictment ¶ 21. Extrapolating from cases successful prosecutions under Section 7212, Huff argues that a conviction under this provision requires "proof of a scheme [either] to conceal income or to impede an IRS investigation or proceeding, neither of which is alleged in the Indictment." Def's Reply at 18-19. Huff is correct that it is difficult to find cases in which defendants have been convicted under Section 7212 without either impeding an IRS proceeding or, more often, concealing their own income. However, the mere lack of cases falling outside this dichotomy does not transform the two precedential patterns into statutory requirements. First, courts have found that the "omnibus clause" under which Huff has been charged is, as its title implies, subject to an expansive interpretation. See United States v. Kelly, 147 F.3d 172, 176 (2d Cir. 1998) (noting that "the second or 'omnibus' clause is not so limited, and renders criminal 'any other' action which serves to obstruct or impede the due administration of the revenue laws" and that "the plain language of section 7212 does not support [a] narrow interpretation of the statute").
The Bank of Israel recently sent Israeli banks a draft procedure requiring banks to receive from their foreign clients a declaration that they have paid the required tax on the income in their Israeli bank accounts in their country of residence. In general, under the draft legislation, the procedure requires that every foreign resident customer (both new and existing ones) will have to present data about the source of their wealth and income, and declare that he has paid the legally required taxes in their country of residence. In addition, the client is required to sign a consent to waive their right to bank secrecy with respect to any other banking jurisdiction. The Bank of Israel also allows the banks not to open an account for foreign residents who do not provide all the required data and to freeze an account or refuse banking services in cases that expose the bank to the risk of violating overseas law. The banks have been forced to require such declarations from their US customers already as part of implementation of the FATCA rules.
The former Principal Vice President of Bechtel Corporation and General Manager of the Power Generation Engineering and Services Company (PGESCo) pleaded guilty today in connection with a $5.2 million kickback scheme intended to manipulate the competitive bidding process for state-run power contracts in Egypt. * * * * In his plea agreement, Elgawhary admitted that, from 1996 to 2011, he was assigned by Bechtel – a U.S. corporation engaged in engineering, construction and project management – to be the general manager at PGESCo, a joint venture between Bechtel and Egypt’s state-owned and state-controlled electricity company (EEHC). PGESCo assisted EEHC in identifying possible subcontractors, soliciting bids and awarding contracts to perform power projects for EEHC. Elgawhary admitted to accepting a total of $5.2 million from three power companies, which they paid to secure a competitive and unfair advantage in the bidding process. According to court documents, the power companies and their consultants paid more than $5.2 million in kickback payments into various off-shore bank accounts under the control of Elgawhary, including various Swiss bank accounts. As Elgawhary admitted in his plea agreement, he attempted to conceal the kickback scheme by routing the payments through various off-shore bank accounts, including Swiss bank accounts, under his control. Elgawhary also sent various documents and “Representation Letters” to Bechtel executives and members of the PGESCo Board of Directors in Maryland, falsely certifying that he had no knowledge of any fraud or suspected fraud at PGESCo, and that there were no violations or possible violations of law or regulations that should have been considered for disclosure in PGESCo’s financial statements. Elgawhary also admitted that, in further attempt to conceal the scheme, he made misrepresentations to counsel for Bechtel when he was interviewed in April 2011. Elgawhary also admitted to conspiring to launder the proceeds of the scheme and to obstructing and impeding the administration of U.S. tax laws by falsely claiming that he maintained only one foreign bank account, denying that he received any income from a foreign bank account, and failing to report any of the kickback payments as income for the tax years 2008 through 2011. * * * * The case is being investigated by the FBI’s Baltimore Division and IRS-CI’s Washington D.C. Field Office. Significant assistance was provided by the Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs, and law enforcement counterparts in Switzerland, Germany, Italy, Saudi Arabia and Cyprus. I previously reported on the charges in Corporate Corruption Case Charged With Swiss Bank Accounts to Hide the Loot (Federal Tax Crimes Blog 2/10/14), here. As I noted there, it is not clear why the charges did not cover FBAR violations, but, of course, the Government has a veritable smörgåsbord of charges that it can make in this type of fact pattern. More charges will not have a great effect on sentencing or on the message sent from the prosecution and conviction and would likely be viewed as piling on. Note also that the tax perjury charge apparently did not indicate that there was a pending investigation that was the object of the obstruction. See Sixth Circuit Holds that § 7212(a)'s Omnibus Clause Requires Knowledge of a Pending Proceeding / Action and Intent to Obstruct (Federal Tax Crimes Blog 12/13/14), here.
Thousands of rich Australians have come forward to declare billions of dollars in untaxed assets and income stashed in bank accounts in Switzerland and in other countries. The rush comes as what the Australian Taxation office says is the last tax amnesty it will ever offer comes to an end. In a warning to anyone feeling reluctant to come forward, ATO said it has an "informer" who has already handed them a list of 122 Australians with Swiss bank accounts.To date, 1750 Australians have declared a total of $240 million in income and $1.7 billion in assets under the amnesty and another 800 expected to make voluntary disclosures. * * * * The Tax Office is also using powers offered under Australia's new treaty with Switzerland to request information from Swiss authorities to help them gather a case against five rich people that the ATO suspect have hidden income and assets offshore but who have not been cooperating. * * * * Switzerland proved to be the most popular destination for undeclared wealth (585 individual disclosures were made about money and assets hidden there), followed by the UK (299 disclosures), Israel (231 disclosures), Singapore (123 disclosures), Hong Kong (115 disclosures) and Liechtenstein (43 disclosures). * * * * Mr Cranston confirmed that most of the people who had come forward were the children and grandchildren of rich migrants families. They had been left to clean up tax messes inherited from their migrant parents and grandparents, who upon migrating to Australia in the 1950s and 1960s, had stashed money away in secret Swiss bank accounts - a practice that was common at the time."It's a clean-up exercise of the past," Mr Cranston said. The majority of those involved are wealthy Australians, classified by the Tax Office as having with net assets greater than $5 million, and high-wealth individuals with net assets worth more than $30 million. Mr Cranston said the bulk of disclosures related to "managed type investments, securities, interest bearing accounts and dividends". The amnesty, which was first revealed in January and officially announced by the Tax Office in March, gives reduced penalties and caps penalties back on to four years, not the entire time money and assets have been hidden. Those making voluntary disclosures have also been given an assurance that they will not be investigated or referred for criminal investigation on the basis of that information. Initially taxpayers that were caught up in official ATO audits were prohibited from participating in the amnesty, dubbed by the agency as "Project Do It". But "we've allowed a couple in for various reasons because the audit was on small minor matter and had nothing to do with ...international arrangements," Mr Cranston said.ATO assistant commissioner, international, David Allen, said a recently updated treaty with the Swiss had greatly increased their powers to hunt down individuals dodging tax. On top of this, the OECD and G20 are working on a common reporting standard that will see information held by banks and other financial institutions shared between tax authorities. Mr Allen said the Tax Office would be undertaking its first information exchange with Swiss authorities under the new treaty on December 22nd, just days after the amnesty closes (on December 19). "That first request is about a series of (five) high-wealth individuals that have we have concerns about and that we suspect may have a Swiss bank account," he said. "We also have an informer via a treaty country that has given us a list of Australians with Swiss bank accounts. There's 122 names on the list. This is significant as its first time we've made a request for information and we are confident that they [Swiss authorities] will supply the information that we need. This is not a fishing expedition."He said the agency had also separately been given information Posted by
Leumi, Israel's second largest bank, expects to pay 1.4 billion shekels ($355 million) to settle a U.S. investigation into whether it helped American clients evade taxes, mainly through its private bank in Switzerland. The process is expected to be completed by the middle of January 2015, if not by the end of this year, Leumi's legal adviser Hanan Friedman told parliament's economics committee on Wednesday, according to a statement from the committee. A source told Reuters last week that Leumi would likely pay $270 million to the U.S. government and another $130 million to New York State's Department of Financial Services (DFS), which regulates certain banks in the state.
"After the (Leumi) investigation is completed, we will examine ... the responsibility of the bank's managers," David Zaken, Israel's banking regulator, told the panel. Financial daily Calcalist reported on Wednesday that as part of the final settlement Leumi's U.S. activities will be supervised by U.S. regulators. The bank has started the process of transferring client assets in its Swiss private banking business to Julius Baer. Posted by
With international banking secrecy on the verge of being wiped out, pressure is mounting to give Swiss tax authorities the power to force banks to hand over data in cases of suspected tax evasion by Swiss citizens. Although the government has bowed to international pressure and committed to the automatic exchange of information with foreign tax authorities from 2017, the Swiss still have the option of keeping their bank account information secret from the Swiss tax office. “Foreign tax authorities can access any and all information concerning their citizens from Swiss tax authorities, while these same authorities remain bound and gagged in the face of their own tax evaders,” says Jean-Christian Lambelet, professor emeritus of economics at the University of Lausanne. “It’s obvious that this two-speed system is not tenable.” Lambelet’s opinion is widely shared by banking and finance experts canvassed by swissinfo.ch. “It’s just a question of time. Banking secrecy is obsolete, it wronged us. To keep it uniquely for the Swiss would send the wrong signal to the rest of the world,” says finance consultant Daniel Spitz. Aware of the problem, finance minister Eveline Widmer-Schlumpf has been trying since 2010 to inject more transparency into Switzerland’s taxation system. Notably, criminal tax law has been revised to allow for severe penalties for tax offences, including for tax evasion – defined in Switzerland as “forgetting” to declare revenues or fortunes.Convincing the Swiss Chasing down tax evaders would enable the government to compensate in part for lost revenue due to the Corporate Tax Reform III that will end tax privileges for foreign multinationals. For the cantons, a number of which are experiencing budget difficulties, chasing tax dodgers could deliver a much-needed boost to the state finances. “It’s essential that the tax office is given more powers so that it can investigate suspected cases of fraud,” says Georges Godel, finance minister for canton Fribourg. But resistance is fierce. Having received a drubbing during the consultation process, the government has already backed down on some key issues. The final proposal, which will be delivered at the end of 2015, will not authorise the cantons to gain access easily to the banking data of people suspected of hiding their revenue.
Next, Taylor contends that the district court erroneously instructed the jury regarding § 7206(1)'s requirement that a defendant act "[w]illfully." We agree with Taylor that the instruction in question is somewhat incomplete. The district court instructed the jury that "[t]he term willfully, as used in these instructions to describe the defendant's state of mind, means that he knowingly performed an act deliberately and intentionally as contrasted with accidentally, carelessly or unintentionally." Missing from its explication of the pertinent standard is the longstanding recognition that § 7206(1)'s willfulness requirement obligates the government to prove the defendant's "voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty." Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 201 (1991); see United States v. Pomponio, 429 U.S. 10, 12 (1976). Nevertheless, Taylor concedes that, because he made no objection at trial to the instruction in question, our review is only for plain error. See Knowles, 623 F.3d at 385. This requires a showing of (1) error (2) that is plain, (3) that affects substantial rights, and (4) that "seriously affects the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings" such that we should exercise our discretion to correct it. United States v. Miller, 734 F.3d 530, 536-37 (6th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). Even assuming that an error is "plain," a defendant's substantial rights ordinarily are affected only if the error was "prejudicial"; that is, if it "affected the outcome of the district court proceedings." United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 (1993). And unlike under a typical harmless error analysis, see O'Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432, 437-38 (1995), the party seeking relief on the basis of plain error bears "[t]he burden of persuasion [*8] . . . to make a specific showing of prejudice." United States v. Jones, 108 F.3d 668, 672 (6th Cir. 1997) (en banc). Taylor has made no such showing. We have observed that a willfulness instruction is the inverse of an instruction on a good-faith defense, see United States v. Damra, 621 F.3d 474, 502 (6th Cir. 2010), and Taylor argues only that the district court's instruction improperly failed to require the jury to decide whether he acted in good faith in failing to report as income the funds that he obtained from his investors. But the remaining elements of § 7206(1), unlike those of many other criminal tax statutes, see, e.g., 26 U.S.C. §§ 7201, 7203; Cheek, 498 U.S. at 193-94, overlap in significant ways with the tax code's generally applicable willfulness requirement because they require a finding regarding the defendant's subjective beliefs. See United States v. Tarwater, 308 F.3d 494, 506 (6th Cir. 2002) (characterizing § 7206(1) as a "perjury statute"). Even under the district court's partially incomplete instruction, the jury was permitted to convict Taylor only after it found that he "deliberately and intentionally" filed tax documents that he did "not believe to be true and correct as to every material matter." 26 U.S.C. § 7206(1). In other words, even absent the willfulness requirement, the jury in convicting Taylor needed to find that he knew and believed that his income was reportable before it could find that he purposefully filed tax forms that he subjectively believed were materially false. As a result, Taylor's argument rings hollow when he claims that the result of his trial would have been different if the jury had been more precisely instructed. After all, in finding him guilty even under the incomplete instruction, the jury necessarily rejected Taylor's assertion that he subjectively believed that he did not need to report the income in question to the IRS. The jury found that Taylor knew that he was providing materially false information to the IRS but did it anyway. Thus, for the proper jury instruction to have made a difference in Taylor's case, the jury would have had to accept his argument that he in good faith did not know that it was unlawful for him to deliberately lie to the IRS about a material tax matter. Read more »
Americans can no longer count on being warned beforehand that information about a Swiss account might be provided to the IRS or the U.S. Justice Department ("DOJ"). By the time notice is given, it may well be too late for the account holder to make a voluntary disclosure. The article notes that, pursuant to the DOJ Program for Swiss Banks the DOJ and, of course, the IRS will be receiving aggregate data from the banks that will permit "group" requests -- I call them John Doe requests because they function like John Doe summons and subpoenas -- to be made under the exchange of information provision of the double tax treaty, with the Swiss competent authority and the banks then being required to identify the taxpayers within the group (scope of the characteristics in the request).