Archive
Texas Man Accused of Falsely Billing Medicare and Medicaid is Arrested
Lawrence T. Taylor, the Defendant, has been indicted on charges of health care fraud and conspiracy to commit health care fraud. The indictment, returned on Wednesday December 12, 2012 in the Southern District of Texas, formally charged the Defendant with the following nine counts:
Count (1) – 18 U.S.C. 371 – Conspiracy to commit health care fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1347; and Conspiracy to violate the Anti-Kickback statute in violation of 42 U.S.C. 1320a-7b(b)(2)(A); and
Counts (2)-(9) – 18 U.S.C. 1347 – Health care fraud.
Like in most federal indictments, the Defendant is charged with a combination of substantive offenses (8 counts of actual health care fraud) and the inchoate offense of conspiracy (for entering into an agreement to commit health care fraud and violate the Anti-Kickback statute).
By charging the Defendant with conspiracy the Government is able to thoroughly describe the background story leading up to the substantive fraud offenses. This is because the “overt acts” of a conspiracy can be as benign as incorporating a business or leasing office space, if those acts were indeed undertaken to further the criminal goal of the conspiracy. In this case the Government lists the Defendant’s formation of 1866ICPAYDAY.COM LLC, his leasing of office space, and his registration of a d/b/a all as overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, effectively casting the Defendant’s otherwise normal business activities as criminal acts.
Additionally, by charging the defendant with conspiracy, the Government can also significantly increase the loss amount of the alleged fraud. Unlike specific instances of fraud, a conspiracy can last for many years and encompass all of the acts of a defendant, criminal or otherwise. In essence, it gives the Government broad discretion to use as many of the Defendant’s own actions against him. As such, the Government is able to increase the loss amount to $1,238,823.85 when the 8 specific counts of fraud in the indictment only add up to $24,065.60.
If the Defendant is eventually convicted of an offense, defense counsel should argue for a lesser loss amount at sentencing, especially if some of the Defendant’s claims to Medicare and Medicaid were in fact legitimate. Pushing back against the Government’s asserted loss amount is critically important at sentencing because an increased loss amount correlates directly with an increased sentence according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission’s Guidelines Manual.
Depending on how much of the Defendant’s business activities are eventually proven to be fraudulent, defense counsel may also have the opportunity to argue against the “willfulness” element of the fraud counts. Isolated instances of medically unnecessary claims to Medicare or Medicaid can be cast as legitimate mistakes, instead of criminal acts. To determine whether the Government’s allegations are broader than what is reflected in reality requires defense counsel to thoroughly review the Defendant’s business and patient records. Upon this review, defense counsel will be able to effectively compare the Defendant’s version of the facts against the Government’s allegations.
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@ferrariassociatespc.com.
Grand Jury Returns Indictment Against Virginian for Conspiracy and Tax-Related Offenses
On July 10, 2011 the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia announced that a federal grand jury has indicted Jeffrey Charles, of Mathews County, Va., for conspiring with his daughter and son-in-law to defraud the United States. The docket also indicates that a warrant has been issued in this matter.
According to the indictment, Charles conspired with his daughter and son-in-law to impair and impede the IRS in ascertaining, computing, assessing and collecting federal income taxes. The government charged this count under the general conspiracy statute, 18 U.S.C. 371. General conspiracy makes it a crime for two or more persons to agree to work together to commit any federal crime, so long as the participants in the conspiracy undertake any act, commonly referred to as an overt act, to further the underlying criminal activity. This overt act itself does not have to be a criminal act or illegal. Accordingly, in its indictment, the government alleges no less than 21 overt acts in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy to defraud the United States of tax revenue.
The indictment also alleges that Charles aided and assisted in the preparation of three false tax returns in his daughter’s name for tax years 2000, 2001, and 2005, and attached false documents to each tax return. The statute, 26 U.S.C. 7206(2), makes it a criminal offense for anyone to assist in the filing of a false return. The statute specifically disregards whether or not the fraudulent information or falsity was included with the knowledge or consent of the person authorized or required to present the documents to the IRS. Therefore, tax preparers can be liable for this offense even if the taxpayer himself intentionally produced false or fraudulent information. In such a scenario the tax preparer would have to demonstrate that they could not have reasonably known the information presented to them was false.
As alleged in the indictment, Charles also filed a false tax return in his own name for tax year 2006 in which he allegedly falsely reported earning $0.00 income. Since this count is with regards to Charles’ own tax return, the count is charged as 26 U.S.C. 7206(1), which targets the actual taxpayer or the person obligated to file, not the preparer.
An interesting note about this case is that according to the indictment Charles was affiliated with an organization known as the American Rights Litigators (ARL) (a.k.a. the Guiding Light of God Ministries). The organization is a tax protest group located in Lake County, Florida. As alleged in the indictment, Charles utilized materials provided by this organization to fulfill his alleged criminal endeavors.
However, it may be constitutionally improper for the government to use Charles’ affiliation with this group against him at trial. Using someone’s political affiliations against them in the court of law gets dangerously close to offending the First Amendment. Therefore, defense counsel in this matter should probably attempt to limit its usage in court and look into whether the investigation into Charles was originally initiated due to his association with this protest group.
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.
Check Cashers in Brooklyn, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles Charged for Allegedly Evading Anti-Money Laundering Laws
On June 14, 2012 seven individuals and four check cashing businesses were charged in the Eastern District of New York and the Central District of California for their alleged roles in separate schemes to violate the Bank Secrecy Act (“BSA”). The defendants allegedly failed to follow reporting and anti-money laundering requirements for transactions totalling more than $50 million. A total of four indictments were filed.
Two of the indictments were returned in Los Angeles and named three individuals and two check cashing businesses. The other two indictments were returned in Brooklyn and named four individuals and two check cashing businesses. All seven individual defendants were arrested or surrendered to authorities. Those named in the indictments include Belair Payroll Services, Bargain Island, G&A Check Cashing, and AAA Cash Advance, all check cashing businesses. The individuals names in the indictments include Craig Panzera, Lasha Goletiani, Zhan Petrosyants, George Gonchar, Karen Gasparian, Humberto Sanchez, and Diana Brigitt.
The four indictments charge the defendants with failure to file currency transaction reports (“CTRs”) or falsely filing CTRs, as well as failure to have an effective anti-money laundering program, all violations under the BSA.
The BSA is a set of laws and regulations enacted by Congress to address an increase in criminal money laundering through financial institutions, which include check cashing businesses. Check cashers enable people to cash checks without having to go to a bank account or maintain a bank account. A check casher will typically charge a fee for this service.
Under the BSA, financial institutions, including check cashers, are required to file a CTR with the Department of Treasury for any transaction involving more than $10,000 in currency. As part of the CTR, the check casher is required to verify and accurately record the name and address of the individual who conducted the currency transaction, the individual on whose behalf the transaction was conducted, as well as the amount and date of the transaction. CTRs are important law enforcement tools for uncovering criminal activity.
The BSA also requires financial institutions, including check cashing businesses, to maintain an effective anti-money laundering (AML) program. The purpose of an AML program is to effectively detect and prevent attempts to facilitate money laundering. Check-cashing businesses are therefore required to have written policies and procedures regarding CTR filings, records maintenance and responses to law enforcement.
According to the indictments, despite these regulations, check-cashing businesses are a common venue for individuals who want to anonymously cash large numbers of checks to facilitate fraud and money laundering schemes. According to the indictments, the use of check cashers to launder money is particularly prevalent in the area of health care fraud, where fraudulent health care businesses commonly convert the proceeds of their fraud into cash by presenting checks to check cashers who they know will not ask for proof of the payee’s identity and will either not file CTRs or file false CTRs.
The BSA is intended to assist both the private sector and the government in its detection and prevention of criminal money laundering. By implementing these regulations, financial institutions provide law enforcement agencies from around the world with valuable insight into the banking and financial activities of people from all walks of life. Although the specific conduct of those named in the indictments may not in any way be connected to the criminal activity they’re designed to detect, the allegations of noncompliance with CTRs and anti-money laundering programs are in and of themselves considered criminal conduct.
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.
Former Virginia Man Sentenced for Bank Fraud and Identity Theft Scheme Targeting Young Navy Sailors
On June 6, 2012 the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia announced that Lionel Jason Haynes was sentenced to seven years and three months in prison for bank fraud (18 U.S.C. 1344) and aggravated identity theft (18 U.S.C. 1028A(c)). He was also ordered to pay $181,960 in restitution.
According to court documents and proceedings, Haynes, a former Navy sailor, executed a scheme to defraud Navy Federal Credit Union (NFCU) by victimizing young, impressionable sailors. Posing as a Chief Petty Officer, Navy SEAL or as a representative of the Navy’s Fleet and Family Services Center, Haynes would approach a sailor on Navy Base Norfolk and offer assistance to help him purchase a car.
He would ask for their personal identifying information and bank account information under the pretense of needing it to determine pre-approval for an auto loan. Once he received this information, he accessed their NFCU bank account, requested an auto loan, and changed the mailing address to an address to which he had access. He received the check, wrote down the fraudulent vehicle information, forged their name, and had an associate (the purported seller) cash the check. He victimized 14 different sailors in this manner.
In its sentencing memorandum the government requested 60 months’ imprisonment for bank fraud, plus 24 months for identity related fraud. Although the defense moved for a downward departure, it is apparent that no such departure was granted by the sentencing judge. Mr. Haynes was sentenced to exactly what was requested by the government and prescribed in the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. Unfortunately for Mr. Haynes his request to have his identity theft conviction run concurrently was denied, probably because the statute specifically prescribes the sentence to run consecutively. As such, instead of serving 5 years and 3 months in prison, he will serve 7 years and three months.
Not all was lost however. According to sentencing documents the judge did grant Mr. Hayne’s request to be placed in a prison near his family in New York and ordered him to continue his education while in prison. Court documents made it clear that Mr. Haynes was in college during the sentencing phase of the case.
This case was investigated by the Navy Criminal Investigative Service (NCIS) and prosecuted by the U.S. Attorney’s Office of the Eastern District of Virginia.
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.
Former Executive at Gourmet Foods Company Sentenced to 30 Months in Prison for Embezzling Over $1 million from Her Employer
In the Central District of California, a woman was sentenced on February 13, 2012 for embezzling more than $1 million from her employer, a Santa Barbara-based gourmet food company. Lisa Sackie, 48, was sentenced by United States District Judge George H. Wu, who also ordered the defendant to pay $1.1 million in restitution to Future Food Brands, the parent company of Santa Barbara Bay Foods.
Sackie pleaded guilty to two counts of mail fraud in August of 2011, admitting that she wrote company checks to herself and to pay for personal expenses. Sackie pleaded to an information, and subsequently waived her right to a grand jury indictment. Sackie’s decision to plead to an information and waive her right to an indictment likely benefited her in sentencing because she admitted guilt early in the process and saved government resources. In fact, according to her sentencing memorandum and the sentencing guidelines, Sackie was facing a sentencing range of 33 to 41 months. Accordingly, Sackie was sentenced to 33 months in prison, the very bottom of her recommended sentencing range. Although her attorneys’ request for a variance of 33 months of probation was denied, Sackie benefited from cooperating, as reflected in the judge’s determination to sentence her at the bottom of the applicable range.
According to the plea agreement the government agreed to bring no additional charges against the defendant based upon her scheme to defraud her employer. Thus, instead of facing a multitude of fraud counts, Sackie only faced the maximum penalty of two fraud counts. Had Sackie not agreed to a plea agreement early on, the government would have likely convened a grand jury and charged her with a multitude of fraud counts dating as far back as 2004, which is when the government alleges Sackie’s scheme to defraud had begun. Depending on the full extent of the circumstances a defendant faces, it may be prudent to plea early, much like Sackie, and not put the government to its constitutional burden of proving a case.
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.
Switzerland’s Oldest Bank Indicted on U.S. Tax Charges
The US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York recently announced the first ever indictment of a Swiss bank. The indictment, returned by the grand jury and unsealed on February 2, 2012, alleges that Wegelin & Co. conspired with US taxpayers and others to hide from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) more than $1.2 billion in secret assets and the income these accounts generated.
Concurrent with this indictment, the US government seized more than $16 million from Wegelin’s correspondent bank account in the United States, in accordance with a civil forfeiture complaint and seizure warrant. Wegelin is charged in a superseding indictment with Michael Berlinka, Urs Frei and Roger Keller, three client advisers at the bank who were previously charged with the same conspiracy.
The government alleges that the defendant’s conspiracy in this case corresponds with Swiss banking giant UBS’ announcement on or about July 17, 2008 that it was closing its US cross-border banking business. UBS thereafter began notifying clients that they could continue to maintain undeclared accounts at Wegelin and certain other Swiss private banks. It was at this time that Wegelin’s executive committee, including its managing partners affirmatively decided to capture the illegal US cross-border banking business lost by UBS by opening new undeclared accounts for US taxpayer clients fleeing UBS.
The defendants in this case are currently only charged with conspiracy. However, their alleged conduct in the indictment could open them up to various other offenses. For example, the indictment alleges the transmission of a long list of checks and wire transfers from Wegelin to US taxpayers for the purpose of repatriating funds from these undeclared accounts. This list of transactions shows that most of the amounts transferred were under the $10,000 reporting requirement and sent to the same recipient over relatively short periods of time. Such behavior, if proven to have been undertaken to evade reporting requirements, is known as structuring, or “smurfing,” and is prohibited under the anti-structuring statute. The indictment also alleges that Wegelin instructed clients to carry cash and to avoid taking more than $10,000 with them on international flights, all to allegedly avoid reporting requirements. According to the statute, each such transaction can be charged as a separate and distinct offense. Therefore, defense counsel will have to take into consideration the possibility of a multi-count superseding indictment against the defendants when negotiating with prosecutors.
Another interesting observation for defense counsel to consider is the fact that the US taxpayer clients are identified as co-conspirators but have not yet been named as defendants themselves. These unindicted co-conspirators might have provided the US government with information about Wegelin’s alleged wrongdoing in exchange for proffer letters or non-prosecution agreements. Alternatively, the government may have merely agreed to delay the return of any such indictments to see how cooperative or useful these co-conspirators prove to be against Wegelin. When weighing the multitude of factors impacting the defendants’ decisions to accept plea agreements, defense counsel should recognize that all such witnesses will be particularly susceptible to cross-examination should this case go to trial.
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.
U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York Announces Extradition of Four Israeli Defendants Charged in Multi-Million Dollar Fraud Scheme
The US Attorney for the Southern District of New York recently announced that four defendants have been extradited from Israel on charges relating to their participation in multiple lottery telemarketing fraud schemes. Many of those charged in two indictments in 2008 and 2009 have already been arrested and have either plead guilty to conspiracy and/or fraud charges or been found guilty by bench trial.
The four recently extradited include Avi Ayache, Yaron Bar, and Ian Kaye, all of whom were arrested in Israel back in July of 2009 awaiting extradition to the United States. The fourth man, Shai Kadosh, who was indicted back in September 2008 was a fugitive until he was arrested in Israel in December of 2011.
The four men and their co-conspirators allegedly operated phony “lottery prize” schemes out of numerous boiler rooms in Israel. The schemes targeted hundreds of victims, mostly elderly, throughout the United States. To identify potential victims, the defendants purchased from list brokers the names and contact information of U.S. residents who subscribed to sweepstakes lotteries. They then contacted the victims and solicited information about their finances by falsely telling them they had won a substantial cash prize that they would receive as soon as they paid the necessary fees and taxes. In reality, there was no lottery prize. Collectively, the American victims in these lottery fraud schemes lost approximately $25 million.
Ayache, Bar, Kaye, and Kadosh are each charged with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and mail fraud through telemarketing, which carries a maximum penalty of 30 years in prison. In addition, Ayache, Bar, and Kadosh are each charged with two substantive counts of wire fraud through telemarketing, each of which carry a maximum potential penalty of 30 years in prison. Ayache and Bar are also charged with conspiracy to commit money laundering, which carries a maximum potential penalty of 20 years in prison. The enhanced fraud penalties are a result of the telemarketing scheme employed by the defendants. According to 18 U.S.C. 2326 there is up to a 10 year penalty enhancement when the fraud is carried out by telemarketing and targets at least 10 elderly people over the age of 55.
The government will also seek forfeiture and mandatory restitution of up to $25 million in substitute assets to recover the defendants’ ill-gotten gains.
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.
Former Investment Fund Manager from Los Angeles Charged with Defrauding Investors
John Farahi, of Bel Air Estates, California, was named in a 41-count indictment returned on December 7, 2011 by a federal grand jury. The former investment fund manager defrauded investors out of millions of dollars by falsely promising investors their money would be invested conservatively to purchase corporate bonds backed by the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) and then collaborating with his corporate counsel to cover-up the fraud.
Farahi, a former Reno, Nevada City Council Member and Farsi-language radio investment advisor, instead used the investment funds for a variety of personal purposes, including to support his family’s lavish lifestyle, to make Ponzi payments to early clients of his investment fund, and to trade in high-risk and speculative future options trading. Farahi was able to attract many of his clients through his daily radio show in which he touted a conservative investment philosophy. Most of his clients were members of the Southern California Iranian-Jewish community.
In the face of huge trading losses at the end of 2008, Farahi allegedly tried to extend the scheme by drawing down extensively on lines of credits at banks while making false statements to those banks about his financial condition. The victim banks included TARP recipients Bank of America and U.S. Bank as well as Sun West Bank.
The indictment charges Farahi with 16 counts of mail fraud, one count of wire fraud, five counts of offering for sale unregistered securities, four counts of loan fraud, one count of aggravated identity theft, five counts of alteration of documents, one count of suborning perjury, one count of concealing a material fact, one count of witness tampering. If he is convicted of the 40 counts in which he is charged, Farahi would face a statutory maximum sentence of 717 years in federal prison.
It is alleged that Farahi’s scheme lasted from 2005 until 2010. The Securities Exchange Commission (SEC) had filed a federal complaint alleging violations of federal securities laws against Farahi and other in January 2010. Many of the charges Farahi now faces are derived from his attempts to mislead, conceal, and redirect the SEC’s investigation. Otherwise known as cover-up crimes, targets of federal investigations often get themselves into more trouble early on in an investigation by lying to investigators or acting unethically. Now that the SEC has referred the case to the DOJ for criminal prosecution, Farahi now faces a significant number of charges in addition to his initial fraud scheme.
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.
Former Portfolio Manager Charged with Fraudulently Overvaluing Hedge Fund Assets
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York announced that hedge fund portfolio manager Michael Balboa was arrested on December 1, 2011 on charges related to his alleged scheme to overvalue by more than $80 million the assets of Millennnium Global Emerging Credit Fund (the “Hedge Fund”), the hedge fund at which he was employed. Balboa, a resident of the United Kingdom, was arrested in New York City and was presented before U.S. Magistrate Judge Gabriel Gorenstein the same day. Mr. Balboa was also subject to an SEC complaint alleging many of the same facts. The case was referred to Justice for criminal prosecution.
As alleged, Balboa, along with co-conspirators, manipulated the valuation process at his former hedge fund to make it appear financially stronger than it really was and for his own personal gain. U.S. Attorney Preet Bhara stated that those actions of Balboa harmed the fund and deceived its investors.
The Indictment alleges that Balboa served as the portfolio manager for the Hedge Fund from December 2006 to October 2008, when it ceased operation. The Hedge Fund’s strategy was to invest in a portfolio of corporate and soveriegn debt instruments in emerging countries. The Hedge Fund utilized an independent valuation agent (the “IVA”) to determine its “net asset value” (“NAV”), which is the value of the Hedge Fund’s assets, less liabilities and estimated costs of sale/liquidation. The Hedge Fund referenced the role of the IVA in a variety of documents that were sent to its investors and prospective investors, including an offering memorandum, monthly newsletters, and responses to due diligence questionnaires (“DDQs”). In one DDQ, the Hedge Fund noted that “[t]here are no assets valued in house,” and that the IVA “calculates the NAV of [the Hedge Fund] independently of Millennium Global.” The Hedge Fund relied on the IVA’s determinations in advising its investors of the Hedge Fund’s month-end NAV and NAV per share.
From January 2008 through October 2008, Blaboa allegedly instructed two co-conspirators (“CC-1” and “CC-2”) to provide the IVA with substantially inflated prices for one of the Hedge Fund’s securities – payment-adjusted warrants from the Government of Nigeria (the “Nigerian Warrants”). CC-1 and/or CC-2 provided these overvalued prices to the IVA. Although the Nigerian Warrants traded between $145 and $258 from January 2007 to October 2008, CC-1 and/or CC-2 provided the IVA with price valuations or “marks” ranging from $531.25 to $3,500.00, at various times throughout this period. The IVA then used these falsely inflated marks in computing the monthly NAV for the Hedge Fund. This caused the IVA to overstate the NAV by tens of millions of dollars. These overstatements were communicated to investors through, among other things, monthly newsletters that outlined the NAV and NAV per share of the Hedge Fund.
Balboa is charged with one count of conspiracy to commit securities fraud and wire fraud, one count of securities fraud and one count of wire fraud. The conspiracy count carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison, and the substantive counts each carry a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.
The investigation leading up to the charges Balboa now faces were brought in coordination with President Obama’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force, an interagency task force designed to wage an aggressive, coordinated, and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. Individuals involved in the financial industry should strive to follow protocol at all stages of their dealings to avoid being caught up in an investigation by this formidable body.
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.
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.
