Opinion ID: 998844
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: False Statements to the IRS.

Text: Dr. Zamzam made several false statements to the IRS for the purpose of concealing corporate and personal income. Even if the jury credited Mrs. Zamzam's testimony at trial that she primarily handled the Corporation's and their personal financial affairs, at a minimum, 7 the jury could have reasonably inferred that Dr. Zamzam had knowledge of Mrs. Zamzam's diversionary activities from her testimony that she never kept her diversionary activities a secret from her husband and from Dr. Zamzam's admission to Special Agent Gannaway that he personally made some of the entries in the Corporation's cash receipts journal and some of the deposits into the Corporate Account. Therefore, the jury could have reasonably inferred that when Dr. Zamzam stated to Agent Baker on May 7, 1993, that all of the deposits to the PMM Account that were not reported as taxable income were either derived from certificates of deposit that were cashed upon maturity, the proceeds of tax-free bonds, or money that was withdrawn and then redeposited, he did so with knowledge of the statement's falsity and with intent to conceal the Corporation's and his unreported taxable income. Likewise, the jury could have reasonably inferred that when Dr. Zamzam stated in a letter dated July 23, 1993 to Agent Baker that all of the funds deposited into the PMM Account had already been taxed, he did so with knowledge of the statement's falsity and with intent to conceal the diverted corporate income from the IRS. Finally, the jury could have reasonably inferred that on June 29, 1994, when Dr. Zamzam stated to Special Agent Gannaway that all corporate income was recorded in the daily receipts journal and directly deposited into the Corporate Account, he made the statement with knowledge of its falsity and with intent to conceal the diverted corporate income from the IRS. B. The Handling Of The Corporation's Affairs To Avoid Making The Records Usual In Transactions Of The Kind. The evidence before the jury firmly established that the diversionary scheme avoided recording the diverted corporate income in the Corporation's daily receipts journal and on the Corporation's bank statements. Thus, the diversionary scheme avoided making the usual records that would have easily revealed the Corporation's receipt of the diverted income. Because the evidence supports the inference that Dr. Zamzam was aware of the diversionary scheme, this is circumstantial evidence of his willfulness on all counts. C. The Transfers Of Assets To Foreign Banks. The jury was entitled to infer from Dr. Zamzam's transfer of $1,100,000 from the PC Account containing diverted corporate 8 income to a foreign bank account in 1991 that Dr. Zamzam was attempting to conceal such income from the IRS. Furthermore, the jury was entitled to infer that Dr. Zamzam was attempting to conceal diverted corporate income from the IRS from Dr. Zamzam's actions the day after he met with Special Agent Gannaway on May 3, 1995 and for the next few weeks in directing his stockbrokers to wire more than $800,000 to a Swiss bank account. All of this conduct by Dr. Zamzam is circumstantial evidence of his willfulness on all counts. In sum, the evidence establishing Dr. Zamzam's false statements to the IRS for the purpose of concealing the diverted corporate income from the IRS, his knowledge that the diversionary scheme avoided making the records usual in transactions of the kind, and his transfers of large amounts of financial assets to foreign banks during the years relevant to the counts of conviction is more than sufficient to support the jury's finding of willfulness on all counts for which Dr. Zamzam was convicted. Accordingly, we affirm all of Dr. Zamzam's convictions.2 AFFIRMED _________________________________________________________________ 2 Dr. Zamzam makes two other arguments in support of his challenge to all of his convictions. First, he contends that the documentary evidence gathered by Agent Baker should have been suppressed as gathered in violation of his due process rights under the Fifth Amendment, because Agent Baker did not obtain an IRS Form 2848 from Fuller, which is a power of attorney, as mandated by the Internal Revenue Manual. We hold Dr. Zamzam waived his right to challenge the admission of this evidence on appeal by failing to move for its suppression below without just cause to excuse his failure. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 12(b)(3); 12(f); United States v. Ricco, 52 F.3d 58, 62 (4th Cir. 1995) (relying on Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3) and 12(f) to hold (1) defendant waives right to assert claim that evidence was obtained in violation of his rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments by failing to file a motion to suppress the evidence before trial without just cause to excuse such failure, and (2) defendant's objection at trial could not suffice to preserve his constitutional objections). Second, he argues that the district court abused its discretion by admitting the evidence establishing the transfers in 1990 and 1991 to foreign bank accounts. We hold this argument is without merit. 9