Opinion ID: 588111
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Eng's Conviction for Tax Evasion

Text: 18 In April 1990, about six months after the search of the safe and eight months after Interdonato's investigation began, a superseding indictment added to the existing charges against Eng three tax evasion counts relating to the tax years 1986 through 1988. The evidence the government sought to introduce at trial in connection with the tax evasion charges included: 19 (1) the bank statements and records of Eng's personal bank accounts, obtained by post-search subpoenas from Eng's banks; 20 (2) the customer records of the money orders, obtained in the search of the safe, used to pay Long Island Savings Bank (the mortgagee of the 134 Gauldy Avenue property); 21 (3) the documents relating to the 141 Division Street condo, obtained by post-search subpoenas; 22 (4) the documents relating to the purchase of the 26 Bowery building, obtained by post-search subpoenas; 23 (5) the records relating to the National Westminster Bank account of Chinese Moon, obtained by subpoena prior to the search; 24 (6) the records relating to the source of the cashier's checks deposited into, and wire transfers made to, the National Westminster Bank accounts of World Express and Chinese Moon, obtained by post-search subpoenas; 25 (7) the documents relating to the Florida home and boat, obtained by post-search subpoenas; and 26 (8) the other customer records of money orders used by Eng to pay a variety of expenses, and obtained in the search of the safe. 27 This evidence in large part formed the basis for the government's claim that Eng was spending money in excess of his taxable income, that Eng lacked non-taxable sources of the monies being spent, and that Eng had not reported taxable income of about $118,000 in 1986, $39,000 in 1987, and $205,000 in 1988. 28 Eng moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that it was either seized in the unlawful search of the safe, or was the product of materials seized from the safe. In denying Eng's motion, and allowing admission of all the challenged evidence, the district judge stated that I have no difficulty in concluding the inevitable discovery doctrine is clearly applicable here in my view, and that I have no question in my mind what my conclusions are. I have gone through Nixon [sic] versus Williams and the other cases with great care and I am satisfied that the inevitable discovery principle will apply. The district judge initially indicated that he would provide a rather lengthy opinion to support his conclusions. However, the judge later decided not to issue the promised opinion because, in his view, the inevitable discovery doctrine [gave] rise to a conclusion which I thought was compelled under the circumstances. He did not elaborate further on any aspect of the evidence challenged by Eng, or explain what compelled his conclusion that each item of evidence inevitably would have been discovered lawfully absent the search. After a jury trial, Eng was convicted of the tax evasion charges, but was acquitted of the continuing criminal enterprise, money laundering and narcotics charges.