Opinion ID: 729641
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Enhancement for Use of Sophisticated Means

Text: 58 The sentencing guidelines allow an upward adjustment of two levels for use of sophisticated means in a tax evasion case. U.S.S.G. § 2T1.1(b)(2). A determination of whether conduct constitutes sophisticated means is a question of fact for the District Courts and is reviewed for clear error. Although the conspiracy at issue here was complex, the sophisticated means enhancement requires the sentencing court to look at the actions taken by the individual. A defendant involved in a complex or repetitive tax conspiracy is not automatically given a sophisticated means enhancement if his or her personal involvement did not constitute sophisticated means. 59 Kraig did not personally open the Swiss bank accounts or set up the shell corporations--this was the work of the Panamanian law firm. While the evidence demonstrates that Kraig undoubtedly knew of their existence and function in the conspiracy, his personal involvement with them was minimal. 60 A close question is presented as to Kraig's personal use of sophisticated means. Although we might have reached a different conclusion than the District Court, we must accept the findings of fact of the district court unless they are clearly erroneous and shall give deference to the district court's application of the guidelines to the facts. 18 U.S.C. § 3742(e). We would violate this admonition were we to substitute our judgment on this issue. 61