Archive
65 Count Indictment Against Texas Man for Bankruptcy Fraud and Structuring Financial Transactions
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas announced charges against Jack Texas Alves. The grand jury returned a 65 count indictment against Mr. Alves for one count of bankruptcy fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 152 and 64 counts of structuring domestic financial transactions in violation of 31 U.S.C. 5324(a)(3).
The indictment alleges that in a bankruptcy court filing on May 23, 2008, Mr. Alves falsely stated the amount of cash he had in his possession was $4,000 when in fact, Mr. Alves knew he possessed substantially more cash which he concealed from the bankruptcy court and creditors. The indictment further alleges that Mr. Alves engaged in a pattern of structuring bank deposits, totaling more than $100,000 in a 12 month period, for the purpose of evading reporting requirements. According to a detailed list in the indictment, from February 24, 2010 until May 12, 2011, Mr. Alves made a total of 64 bank deposits-each one between $5000 and $8100.
Not mentioned in the accouncement or the indictment is whether Mr. Alves’ bank notified FinCEN of these transactions by filing suspicious activity reports or SARs. The indictment dates all of the transactions and it isn’t suprising that the bank caught on to Mr. Alves activities. For example, Mr. Alves made a deposit almost every business day for nearly two months. Each deposit was shy of the standard trigger for reporting purposes, $10,000. Bank’s are instructed to report structured transactions when series of deposits in a short duration of time add up to an amount that would have otherwise been reported if deposited together. Furthermore, banks are prohibited from telling a person that they filed an SAR about them to FinCEN. Thus, Mr. Alves likely had no idea that the bank had sent the SAR to FinCEN where it was being processed by analysts who eventually coordinated with law enforcement officials about the transactions.
The indictment also indicates that the government is seeking forfeiture of two bank accounts currently seized. Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 981(a)(1)(C), 28 U.S.C. 2461 and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedures Rule 32.2, the government is seeking to forfeit funds that Mr. Alves alledly concealed from the bankruptcy court and creditors. Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 5317(c)(1)(A) and Rule 32.2 the government also seeks forfeiture of the funds involved in the structured transactions. The funds the government looks to forfeit amount to nearly $400,000.
The author of this blog is Erich Ferrari, an attorney specializing in Federal Criminal Defense matters. If you have any questions please contact him at 202-280-6370 or ferrari@ferrari-legal.com.
Tax Evasion and Filing a False Tax Return – The Government’s Back-up Plans
Previously in this blog we discussed federal offenses such as money laundering, bulk cash smuggling, unlicensed money transmitting businesses, and smurfing. These are all serious offenses in their own right; offenses that can send someone to prison for up to 20 years. But as is the case in many financial crimes there are two offenses related to all the above that the goverment can additionally charge someone of at its own discretion. They are tax evasion and filing a false tax return.
Although these tax crimes are separate and distinct from the other financial crimes mentioned, the conduct of the underlying financial offense often overlaps and quite organically evolves into a subsequent tax crime. For example, someone who launders money, smuggles cash, or structures payments isn’t likely to truthfully report this illicit income in their tax returns. But let’s take a closer look at the offenses and understand why the government can convict someone of the tax offenses even if it cannot convict the person for the underlying financial crimes that originally motivated its investigation.
Tax evasion, 26 U.S.C. 7201, is the more serious of the two tax crimes because it carries the harshest penalties. An individual defendant can be charged with a separate tax evasion charge for every year the defendant evaded taxes. For each tax evasion charge the defendant faces a maximum penalty of 5 years and a $100,000 fine. For corporate defendants the fine could be as steep as $500,000 for each offense.
There does not need to be a filing or a false statement to convict someone of tax evasion. All the government must do is demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant (1) underpaid taxes; (2) engaged in an affirmative act of evasion or attempt to evade; and (3) acted willfully. So even if the government doesn’t catch a defendant smuggling cash out of the country it can still charge him with tax evasion if it later finds out that the money was put into an overseas bank account with the intent of evading tax liabilities.
Filing a false tax return, 26 U.S.C. 7206, is very similar to the offenses of false statements and perjury. Each individual ‘false’ filing can be charged as a separate offense and an individual defendant can face prison sentences as lengthy as 3 years and a $100,000 fine per offense. Corporate defendants can be fined as much as $500,000 per offense.
For the government to successfully prosecute someone under this offense they must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant (1) signed the tax return or related document; (2) signed under penalty of perjury; (3) the return or related document was in fact false; (4) the falsity was material; and (5) the defendant acted willfully. Most people file their taxes but probably don’t report illicit funds in their returns. By under-reporting or concealing material facts about the sources of income may subject a defendant to the provisions of this statute. For example, a defendant that fails to accurately mention in his return the funds that he received from overseas because they were under the $10,000 reporting requirement may never be investigated for a structured transaction offense but could very well be investigated for filing a false tax return. The government may not be able to prove that the underlying transaction was intended to evade a reporting requirement; but the government knows the money exists in the defendant’s account and that it is unaccounted for in the return.
It is evident that the government has plenty of tools in its kit when it suspects someone of committing a financial crime. With the ever growing link between global terrorism and financial crime it would be unwise to expect the government to withold from using any of its tools to prosecute people.
The author of this blog is Erich Ferrari, an attorney specializing in Federal Criminal Defense matters. If you have any questions please contact him at 202-280-6370 or ferrari@ferrari-legal.com.
Smurfing: Individuals Structuring Monetary Transactions to Evade Reporting Requirements Can Be Imprisoned
The federal government has the authority to criminally prosecute individuals who structure their transactions in a manner that evades the $10,000 reporting requirements. See 18 USC 5324. Penalties range from 5 years in prison, to fines, or both. Enhanced penalties, including up to 10 years of imprisonment, can be assessed in aggravated cases like ones establishing a pattern of illegal activity or involve the violation of other federal laws, like economic sanctions. Of particular interest to the authors of this blog is part (c)(3) of this statute which prohibits individuals from structuring their monetary transactions to or from international locations. The statute states that “no person shall, for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements of section 5316, structure or assist in structuring, or attempt to structure or assist in structuring, any importation or exportation of monetary instruments.” The unfortunate reality of this law is that it targets U.S. persons who have family or friends overseas who may support or depend on one another financially.
Traditionally, federal laws regarding currency transaction reporting (CTR) targeted financial institutions such as banks, currency exchanges, credit unions, and other institutions that deal with large sums of currency. The definition of “financial institution” has always been broader than “depository instititution” and also includes pawnbrokers, travel agencies, and auto dealerships among others. These institutions would have to file a report whenever a currency transaction of over $10,000 took place. The laws never required individual customers to file the actual report, only the financial institution the individual was transacting with had to file a CTR. The obvious reaction by people who wanted to avoid having their transactions reported to the government was to structure their transactions so that no single transaction would be over $10,000. This practice was commonly referred to as “smurfing.” And since the reporting laws only targeted financial institutions, many individuals were able to escape liability. A few unlucky people were prosecuted under 18 USC 371 for conspiring to defraud the United States before any anti-structuring statutes existed, but that was not enough for Congress. Accordingly, in 1986, Congress decided to specifically target individuals who utilized the $10,000 loophole by passing 18 USC 5324.
Somewhat disturbingly, Chapter 53 of the U.S. code also empowers the Department of the Treasury to pay a reward to individuals who provide information which leads to a recovery of a criminal fine, civil penalty, or forfeiture for violations of these reporting and anti-structuring laws. The reward can be as high as 25% of the net amount of the fine, penalty, or forfeiture collected. A law that already targets U.S. persons who have family or friends overseas who may depend on or support one another is exacerbated by the fact that their neighbors now have an incentive to disclose the conduct to the government.
The author of this blog is Erich Ferrari, an attorney specializing in Federal Criminal Defense matters. If you have any questions please contact him at 202-280-6370 or ferrari@ferrari-legal.com.
