Asset Search News Roundup: August 22, 2010

A Van Gogh goes missing; articles about asset recovery basics; and Barclay's Bank:

  1. Egyptian authorities are trying to recover a Van Gogh that went missing on Saturday after it was stolen from the Mohamed Mahmoud Khalil Museum.  The museum houses a fine art collection worth at least $1.2 billion and the the Van Gogh's theft is described at "Van Gogh $55 Million `Poppy Flowers' Theft in Cairo Blamed on Lax Security".

     
  2. Divorcing spouses, judgment creditors, domestic tax authorities, etc. can all be claimants relegated to an asset search / an asset recovery effort against beneficial owners fraudulently concealing assets.  Articles I have published regarding asset recovery basics include: "Asset Search Indicia For Divorce, Debt Collection & Bankruptcy"; "Recognizing Hidden Assets, The Red Flags"; "An Asset Search In Geneva"; & "A Primer For Gathering Financial Intelligence".

     
  3. Barclays Bank PLC has agreed to forfeit $298 million according to U.S. Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control and the U.S. Department of Justice.  At paragraphs 5 & 6 of the settlement agreement available here, Barclays admits it sometimes concealed the identities of bank customers who were subject to U.S. sanction programs.  Barclay's investment banking division had meanwhile, recently been the financial advisor, the restructuring agent and sole bookrunner for FDIC's $233 million dollar sale of commercial mortgage-backed notes, as explained by a press release.

 

Copyright 2010 Fred L. Abrams

Asset Search News Roundup: July 28, 2010

This "Asset Search News Roundup" features France's richest woman; a retired Orlando police officer; and actor Wesley Snipes:
 

  1. "Police question French heiress over scandal" reports that France's richest woman, L'Oreal heiress Liliane Bettencourt, is suspected of hiding assets from French tax authorities.  Among other things, French authorities are believed to be investigating whether the heiress could have concealed as much as $100 million by laundering through two Swiss bank accounts.
     
  2. Retired Orlando, Florida police officer Amy Bretches was convicted on July 21st of money laundering.  Her indictment alleged that she unlawfully acquired FEMA monies, hiding them via financial accounts / a certificate of deposit.  The jury's July 21st verdict sheet filed in Ms. Bretches' case, shows she was acquitted of one money laundering charge and found guilty of two.
     
  3. Hollywood actor Wesley Snipes lost his appeal this month when his tax fraud conviction was upheld.  Mr. Snipes had been convicted in 2008 of violating 26 U.S.C. § 7203 by failing to file tax returns for the years 1999, 2000 and 2001.  He faces thirty-six months in prison, as discussed by a decision from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

     
  4. (Click On The Image To Read The Court of Appeals Decision)

 

  

 Copyright 2010 Fred L. Abrams

Is There A "John Doe" Summons In HSBC's Future?

My July 11th "Asset Search News Roundup" mentioned that U.S. prosecutors were investigating HSBC since some U.S. taxpayers were suspected of using foreign HSBC bank accounts to facilitate tax frauds.  Swiss prosecutors meanwhile, are separately investigating whether former HSBC employees Hervé Falciani and Georgina Mikhael had illegally accessed bank customer information at HSBC in Geneva.   

 

According to a July 9th Bloomberg.com article, the two former HSBC employees may have violated Swiss bank secrecy laws by allegedly trying to sell confidential HSBC bank customer information.  This information reportedly included the names of thousands of HSBC customers who might have used foreign HSBC bank accounts to hide assets from domestic tax authorities across the globe. 

 

Furthermore, approximately 1500 of these HSBC customers may have hidden assets from the IRS in their foreign HSBC accounts.  What might the IRS do to elicit financial evidence from HSBC, regarding these 1500 suspected tax cheats?  As explained at "Concentrating On Assets Concealed By Cross-Border Elements", one way the IRS can try to gather foreign evidence is by serving a "John Doe" summons

 

If the IRS does serve HSBC with a "John Doe" summons, the IRS would conceivably gather financial evidence about the 1500 and other suspected tax cheats.  The IRS has relied heavily on "John Doe" summonses as a countermeasure against tax frauds with cross-border elements.  As of December 2008, the IRS had issued more than 150 "John Doe" summonses in connection with its Offshore Credit Card Program.

 

Copyright 2010 Fred L. Abrams

Asset Search News Roundup: July 20, 2010

Alleged medicare fraud, joint tax audits and recovered art are discussed by this "Asset Search News Roundup":
 

  1. Federal prosecutors announced Friday that ninety-four people were charged with participating in an alleged attempt to defraud the Medicare program out of $251 million.  A Department of Justice press release explained that arrests related to the case were made in Miami, New York, Detroit and Baton Rouge.
     
     
  2. IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman's June 8th speech before the OECD, described the anticipated use of joint audits of businesses engaged in cross-border activities.  Joint audits could be conducted by tax authorities from different countries, sharing information in their fight against international tax fraud.
     
     
  3. Eleven paintings that had gone missing after WWII from the Pirmasens municipal museum's collection were just recovered and returned to Germany.  Among the returned paintings were three by German genre painter Heinrich Buerkel.  As set forth by a press release, the grand-niece of deceased U.S. serviceman Harry Gursky had alerted U.S. officials about the paintings and surrendered them.  The late Mr. Gursky might have stolen the paintings after the allied invasion of Germany in 1945.  He may have brought the paintings into the U.S. and is believed to have hidden them in his basement.


    (One Of Heinrich Buerkel's Paintings Returned To Germany)

     

    Photo Courtesy of ICE

    Copyright 2010 Fred L. Abrams

Asset Search News Roundup: July 11, 2010

Today's "Asset Search News Roundup" examines the criminal investigation into HSBC and the SEC's case against Kenneth Wayne McLeod's estate:

 

  • "U.S. Widens Tax Inquiry Into HSBC" reports that prosecutors are "ramping up their criminal investigation" of HSBC after U.S. taxpayers allegedly used foreign HSBC accounts to hide undeclared assets.  My April 21, 2010 "Asset Search News Roundup" mentioned these same U.S. taxpayers, who were accused of using foreign HSBC accounts to conceal assets from the IRS. 

 

  • "Hundreds of Federal Agents Fall Victim to Ponzi Scheme" essentially describes the June 24, 2010 securities fraud case brought by the SEC against the estate of recently deceased Kenneth Wayne McLeod.  Mr. McLeod died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound on June 22nd in Jacksonville, Fla.  He allegedly ran a 22-year Ponzi scheme at his retirement benefits consulting firm and is thought to have defrauded agents from the FBI, ICE and DEA and others, out of $34 million dollars.  The securities fraud complaint filed by the SEC against Mr. McLeod's estate is available here:

 

 (Click On The Complaint To Read It)
 
 

 

  

 Copyright 2010 Fred L. Abrams

Asset Search News Roundup: June 16, 2010

The financial fraud investigation connected to Minneapolis money manager Trevor Cook is thought to have widened; Andrew B. Silva is sentenced in Virginia for tax fraud; and the delay in disclosing the names of some UBS AG bank customers:

 

Copyright 2010 Fred L. Abrams

Asset Search News Roundup: June 2, 2010

This "Asset Search News Roundup" highlights an updated tax protocol, a $40 million dollar asset recovery and the sentencing of New York securities fraudster Matthew D. Weitzman:

 

  1. On May 27, 2010 the Organisation For Economic Co-Operation And Development announced that the United States and ten other countries agreed to an updated tax protocol which provides for increased cooperation in the fight against tax fraud with cross-border elements.

     
  2. A U.S. Department of Justice press release explained that over $40 million dollars was recovered by asset forfeiture for injured investors in Japan who supplied funds to suspected Ponzi schemer Isamu Kuroiwa.  Mr. Kuroiwa is thought to have defrauded 30,000 plus victims out of about $1 billion dollars.

     
  3. As more fully set forth here, securities fraudster Matthew D. Weitzman of Armonk, N.Y. was sentenced last week to 97 months in prison.  A June 10, 2009 SEC civil complaint  had alleged that an injured investor in late March 2009 discovered part of the fraud and apparently confronted Mr. Weitzman about it.  Page 13 of the sentencing memorandum in Mr. Weitzman's criminal case meanwhile, emphasized that Mr. Weitzman voluntarily reported his fraud to governmental authorities in late March 2009.

     

Copyright 2010 Fred L. Abrams

Concentrating On Assets Concealed By Cross-Border Elements

The IRS is concentrating on tax fraud schemes in which assets are concealed by cross-border elements.  A recent Reuters' article and a Department of Justice press release discussed such tax frauds, which the IRS refers to as abusive offshore tax avoidance schemes.  To try to detect these schemes, the IRS has used methods ranging from an Offshore Voluntary Compliance Initiative to its criminal prosecution of suspected tax cheats.

 

The IRS had also served a "John Doe" summons on UBS AG to uncover bank customers who were U.S. taxpayers with secret foreign financial accounts.  Under the settlement of that particular UBS case, the IRS withdrew its summons and UBS identified U.S. bank customers pursuant to the U.S.-Swiss tax treaties mentioned at my August 23rd "Asset Search News Roundup".  As briefly described at a May 25th "News Roundup", the IRS similarly issued a "John Doe" summons upon First Data Corporation:

 

 

 

(Click On The Above Image To Read The Entire Summons)

 

  Copyright 2010 Fred L. Abrams

Asset Search News Roundup: May 12, 2010

The May 12th "Asset Search News Roundup" talks about both whistleblower awards and hiding assets in informal banking systems:

  1. Ten days ago I had the pleasure of meeting a noted colleague, attorney Jack Blum.  Among Mr. Blum's high-profile clients are whistleblowers Rudolf Elmer and Heinrich Kieber, who are respectively described at "Julius Baer whistleblower cites Swiss tax edge" & "Americans Seeking Reward Money Inform IRS on Others".  Mr. Blum especially emphasized in one of our conversations, that whistleblower awards can be a most effective countermeasure against tax fraud and other financial frauds.
     
  2. Informal banking systems, (a.k.a. alternative remittance systems), may be used by terrorists and anyone else hiding assets.  As shown below by the money laundering typology from the Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units, hawala is one of these informal banking systems.

 

 

Typology / Case# 06060: Courtesy of The Egmont Group

Copyright 2010 Fred L. Abrams

Asset Search News Roundup: April 21, 2010

This "Asset Search News Roundup" concentrates on an alleged $45 million dollar tax fraud and the conviction of Mr. Dennis Hecker's girlfriend, Christi Michele Rowan:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 Copyright 2010 Fred L. Abrams

Interdicting A Ponzi Schemer's Assets

My most recent "Asset Search News Roundup" reported about the April 13, 2010 plea agreement executed by securities fraudster and Ponzi schemer Trevor Cook.  In this plea deal, Mr. Cook pleaded guilty to tax and mail fraud charges, agreed to make restitution and is supposed to fully disclose his assets to prosecutors. 

 

Mr. Cook must also cooperate with Receiver R.J. Zayed, who seeks to recover Receivership assets for the benefit of Mr. Cook's Ponzi scheme victims.  Before the plea agreement happened, the Receiver made his March 29th statement.  It expressed "shared concern & frustration" over the asset recovery effort launched against Mr. Cook.  In this statement, the Receiver acknowledged that his efforts targeting Mr. Cook, have been criticized:

 

 (Click On The Following Image To Read The Complete Statement)

 

 

 

Continue Reading...

Asset Search News Roundup: April 14, 2010

The guilty plea of Minneapolis money manager Trevor Cook and the Court's dismissal of a Wisconsin lawsuit against Associated Bank, are mentioned by today's "Asset Search News Roundup":

 

* At a plea hearing that took 33 minutes yesterday, Trevor Cook pleaded guilty to counts one and two of his of his criminal information.  At that time, Mr. Cook was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. §1341 (mail fraud) and 26 U.S.C. §7201 (tax fraud.).  A press release described Mr. Cook's plea agreement and the securities fraud / Ponzi scheme he had caused.

 

* "Associated Bank Sued For Supposedly Ignoring Red Flags" examined a Wisconsin lawsuit claiming anti-money laundering regulations had been violated.  That same lawsuit was dismissed one week ago, as reported by "Judge dismisses lawsuit against Associated Bank".  My April 10, 2010 post was about a similar lawsuit brought against Wachovia.   

 

 Copyright 2010 Fred L. Abrams

Asset Search News Roundup: April 8, 2010

The April 8th "Asset Search News Roundup" comments on both a revised OECD-Council of Europe tax treaty and a contested provenance case brought to recover an ancient gold tablet:

 

  1. An April 6th press release announced that the OECD and Council of Europe are updating a treaty aimed at helping governments fight cross-border tax evasion.  The press release states: "[t]his will enable developing countries to become parties to the amended convention and benefit from the new, more transparent tax-cooperation environment."

     
  2. Berlin's Vorderasiatisches Museum lost the contested provenance case it brought to recover a small gold tablet which dates to the reign of the Assyrian King Tukulti-Ninurta I.  The ancient tablet had allegedly gone missing from a national Berlin museum at the conclusion of World War II.
     

As more fully set forth in a March 30, 2010 Nassau County N.Y. Surrogate's decision, the Vorderasiatisches Museum could not recover the tablet from the estate of Riven Flamenbaum because of the doctrine of laches.  The late Mr. Flamenbaum had been a holocaust survivor and reportedly maintained the tablet in his Great Neck, New York safety deposit box.

 

Copyright 2010 Fred L. Abrams

An Ex-Watch Manufacturer & His Nominee Bank Accounts

Bank customers sometimes hide their assets offshore in nominee bank accounts located in high-risk geographical locations like Switzerland.  One such bank customer was ex-watch manufacturer Jack Barouh of Golden Beach, Florida.  As a February 4, 2010 press release basically explained, Mr. Barouh was accused of hiding undeclared revenue from the IRS during an abusive offshore tax avoidance scheme at UBS AG and other foreign banks.  

 

Mr. Barouh's scheme could have stared in 1976 when he first transferred skimmed monies from his U.S. watch businesses to foreign accounts at UBS of Switzerland.  He reportedly carried out his scheme with the help of two Swiss money managers and a Swiss attorney.  One of these Swiss money managers had even supposedly misappropriated some of Mr. Barouh's undeclared revenue, although Mr. Barouh may have eventually recovered this revenue via a settlement.

 

The Swiss attorney and money managers are believed to have opened Mr. Barouh's nominee bank accounts and / or had been directors of Mr. Barouh's foreign companies.  These foreign companies were formed in Panama, the British Virgin Islands and Hong Kong and had reportedly been used to open Mr. Barouh's nominee bank accounts in Switzerland or Hong Kong.  Despite all of the foregoing, the IRS was able to detect Mr. Barouh's undeclared revenue in his nominee bank accounts.

 

Continue Reading...

A Doctor, A Lawyer & Bricks Of Cash In Switzerland

"Smuggling Cash Across Iraq's Borders" mentioned Donnie the former DEA agent who had trained Iraqi border personnel to interdict bulk-cash smugglers.  To help detect these smugglers, governmental authorities also use declaration forms to track the cross-border movement of cash and monetary instruments. 

 

As mentioned by my April 13, 2009 "Asset Search News Roundup", one such declaration form is the "FinCen 105".  It generally requires disclosure to the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, when individuals physically transport, mail or ship more than $10,000 in cash or monetary instruments into the U.S.:

 

(To View The Complete Form, Click On The Image)


 

 

To avoid triggering the mandatory filing of a FinCen 105, Virginia medical doctor Andrew Silva had illegally structured cash by smuggling it in packages containing less than $10,000.  During an abusive offshore tax avoidance scheme, Dr. Silva mailed these packages of cash from Switzerland into the U.S., as outlined by his "statement of facts" filed in U.S.A. v. Andrew B. Silva.

 

Continue Reading...

Asset Search News Roundup: February 21, 2010

Today's "Asset Search News Roundup" is about the New York case against the ex-president of Guatemala, Alfonso Portillo and it also mentions the sentencing of New York former top cop Bernard Kerik:

 

  • The one-count indictment unsealed on January 26, 2010 in the case against ex-president Portillo is available here.  Mr. Portillo's indictment alleges that he embezzled monies in a public corruption scheme during his Guatemalan presidency.  According to his indictment, Mr. Portillo supposedly laundered illicit proceeds through multiple jurisdictions including: New York, Miami, Paris, Luxembourg and Switzerland.  He is specifically accused of violating 18 U.S.C. §1956 and the federal government is seeking asset forfeiture pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §982.

     
  • As reported by Bloomberg.com on February 18, 2010, former NYPD Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik was sentenced to four years of prison for tax fraud and some of the other crimes described at "White-Collar Crime & A Former Top Cop".  The letter Mr. Kerik sent to the Court just prior to his sentencing is available here: 

(To Read Mr. Kerik's Letter Click On The Image Below)

 

 

 Copyright 2010 Fred L. Abrams

Customer Identification At UBS AG And Some Other Banks

By using customer identification or "know your customer" rules, banks try to prevent money laundering and other financial frauds.  This use of customer identification rules by banks is contemplated at the Fifth Recommendation of the Financial Action Task Force.  The Fifth Recommendation urges banks to diligently verify a customer's identity and to record the true beneficial ownership of bank accounts.

 

As reported at "Fighting Financial Fraud At UK Banks", the UK changed its banks' "know your customer" rules on December 15, 2007, by codifying them at Money Laundering Regulations 2007*.  U.S. banks too verify customer identities, but do so pursuant to 31 C.F.R Part 103.121.  Lawsuits alleging that two U.S. banks had failed to sufficiently identify their bank customers, are respectively described at: "Associated Bank Sued For Supposedly Ignoring Red Flags" and "Lawsuit Claims Wachovia Bank Facilitated Alleged Ponzi Scheme".

 

UBS AG and other Swiss banks also require customer identification at the time a bank account is opened.  The customers of Swiss banks execute a declaration of beneficial ownership, commonly referred to as a "Form A".  A July 13, 2001 "Form A" was used in the U.S. tax fraud case brought against Florida yacht broker Robert Moran.  According to the Plea Agreement in Mr. Moran's case, the July 13th "Form A" helped demonstrate that Mr. Moran had violated 26 U.S.C. § 7206 (1), (perjury on a return / false statements). 

 

Continue Reading...

Asset Search News Roundup: January 15, 2010

The Association of Certified Anti-Money Laundering Specialists is a private sector anti-money laundering credentialing organization and Colby Adams is a reporter affiliated with it.  Mr. Adams telephoned me this week to discuss my thoughts about abusive offshore tax avoidance schemes and The "John Doe" Summons Case, which was settled with UBS AG.

 

My comments on The "John Doe" Summons Case have just been published by MoneyLaundering.com / ComplianceAdvantage.com, as part of Mr. Adams' article, "Nearly a Year into Bank Secrecy Crack Down, Little Progress Seen": 

 

(Click On The Image Below, To Read Mr. Adams' Article)*

 

 

 

*"Nearly a Year into Bank Secrecy Crack Down, Little Progress Seen", Copyright 2010 Alert Global Media, reprinted with permission.

Following The Money Trail From Poland To Delaware

"Warsaw Prosecutors Eye Possible Money Laundering At 50 Platowcowa Street ", mentioned that a tip letter led prosecutors from Poland to seek a letter rogatory via the U.S. Attorney in Delaware on October 14, 2009.  The Warsaw prosecutors used this particular letter rogatory to try to elicit evidence about Prime Invest L.L.C. in Delaware and the purchase of the former "Evita" mineral water plant in Biskupiec. 

 

These prosecutors were investigating a possible violation of an anti-money laundering law codified at Article 299 of Poland's penal law.  Prosecutors from Koszalin, Poland also recently sought their own letter rogatory through a November 23, 2009 application by the Delaware U.S. Attorney.  Like the prosecutors in Warsaw, they too had presumably followed the money trail to detect assets which might be concealed by money laundering in violation of Article 299. 

 

According to their letter rogatory, the Koszalin prosecutors were apparently investigating Vlad Vladyslav Hubenko for a possible tax fraud and suspected laundering scheme.  Their letter rogatory mentioned a business entity known as "Hunter Universal LLC", which reportedly resides in Delaware:

 

(Click On The Letter Rogatory To Read It)

  

  

Continue Reading...

Asset Search News Roundup: November 22, 2009

This "Asset Search News Roundup" mentions the sentence of a former Louisiana congressman and the 14,700 U.S. taxpayers who sought partial amnesty from the IRS:

 

  • A November 13th FBI press release explained that Former Louisiana Congressman William Jefferson was sentenced to thirteen years in prison for public corruption and other crimes.  As I discussed at the August 11th "Asset Search News Roundup", the former congressman was found guilty of soliciting bribes and then hiding them through money laundering.  He was also convicted of honest services wire fraud, racketeering and conspiracy.

 

  • Ms. Lynnley Browning's article "14,700 Disclosed Offshore Accounts", reported that a number of U.S. taxpayers have voluntarily disclosed their secret foreign bank accounts as part of an IRS partial amnesty program.  As I wrote at "Some Abusive Offshore Tax Avoidance Schemes At UBS", U.S. taxpayers who own a foreign bank account with assets in excess of $10,000 are required to disclose the same at Schedule B, Part III of their U.S. Individual Tax Return Form 1040. They must also separately file a TDF 90-22.1, (a.k.a. a "FBAR" form).

 

"14,700 Disclosed Offshore Accounts" indicated that the disclosing taxpayers will be treated with leniency despite their failure to make the above-mentioned filings.  It also stated that the taxpayers may have been prompted to make their disclosures because of the settlement of U.S.A. v. UBS AG, 1:09-cv-20423.  In that case, the IRS tried to compel UBS to supply foreign bank account information belonging to suspected U.S. tax cheats.  As fully described by "UBS & Its 'John Doe' Summons", the IRS sought this information by serving the John Doe Summons depicted below: 

 

 (Click On Images To Enlarge)

 

Copyright 2009 Fred L. Abrams

Bernard Kerik Is Jailed While His Trial Is Delayed

As I previously mentioned at the December 5, 2008 "Asset Search News Roundup", former NYPD Police Commissioner Bernard Kerik is alleged to have been involved in a public corruption scheme and tax fraud.  Mr. Kerik's superseding indictment in U.S.A. v. Bernard B. Kerik, 07-cr-1027, accuses him of trying to secure city contracts for a New Jersey company which had supposedly paid him illegally through apartment renovations.

 

Mr. Kerik could have accepted some of this alleged illegal payment after being sworn in as New York City's 40th police commissioner.  He is also accused of concealing the same by failing to report it as taxable income and may have taken false deductions in a tax fraud.  Sup. Indict. ¶¶ 20 (c) & 28-31.  

 

Although Mr. Kerik had been freed because of the $500,000 bail package mentioned at "Former NYC police chief Kerik jailed before trial", he was remanded by an October 20, 2009 Order revoking the conditions of his supervised release.  Before issuing this Order, the Court presumably considered the Government's October 14, 2009 letter:

 

(To Read The Above Letter, Click On It)

 

Continue Reading...

Asset Search News Roundup: August 23, 2009

My August 17th "Asset Search News Roundup" referred to the settlement of the case over the "John Doe" summons served on UBS in Miami.  As more fully discussed at "UBS & Its John Doe Summons", the IRS had brought the case to identify U.S. tax cheats who concealed their UBS bank accounts in abusive offshore tax avoidance schemes

 

The agreements settling the case are: the U.S. & Swiss Government Settlement, dated August 19, 2009 and the UBS Settlement With Consent To Public Disclosure.  Pursuant to the settlement, UBS is expected to supply the IRS with bank customer information belonging to about 4,450 suspected U.S. tax cheats.  UBS will also send the 4,450, (all of whom are believed to have secret Swiss bank accounts), this notice:

 

(Click On The  Images Below To Enlarge Them) 

 

 

 

 

 

Furthermore, UBS is producing the customer information only under its tax treaties with the U.S., rather than the "John Doe" summons it was served with in Miami.  The first of these controlling agreements, is the October 2, 1996 "Avoidance of Double Taxation Treaty", described here.  The second is the January 23, 2003 Mutual Agreement, which clarified the earlier October 2, 1996 agreement.  These 1996 and 2003 tax treaties are examples of governmental authorities using formal cross-border cooperation, as described by my article: "Eliciting Evidence From Foreign Bank Witnesses".

 

 (Edited May 15, 2010)

Copyright 2009-2010 Fred L. Abrams

Eliciting Evidence From Foreign Bank Witnesses

Some post-judgment creditors, divorcing spouses and other private litigants use a domestic summons / subpoena to elicit an adversary's bank account information from a foreign bank witness.  Under limited circumstances, these private litigants might serve a domestic summons / subpoena, as set forth by the Court in First American Corp. v. Price Waterhouse, 154 F.3d 16 (2d Cir. 1998). 

 

Assuming that a subpoenaed foreign bank witness refused to comply with a domestic summons / subpoena because of bank secrecy laws, then the issues raised by Old Ladder Litigation Co. LLC. v. Investcorp Bank B.S.C, et. al., No. 08-CV-00876 (S.D.N.Y. May 29, 2008), can be relevant.  U.S. authorities also sometimes elicit bank account information by serving a domestic summons on a foreign bank witness. 

 

The IRS for example, served a domestic summons on UBS AG, headquartered in Zurich, as discussed in "UBS & Its 'John Doe' Summons" & "A Domestic Subpoena / Summons In An Offshore Asset Search".  U.S authorities might also serve a subpoena on a foreign bank witness by relying on In Re Grand Jury Proceedings (Bank of Nova Scotia), 740 F.2d 817 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1106 (1985).   Other methods used to elicit evidence from a foreign bank witness, (besides domestic summonses / subpoenas), often rely on cross-border cooperation. 

 

Formal methods using cross-border cooperation can involve: letters rogatory (a.k.a. legal assistance requests); executive orders; mutual legal assistance or other treaties like tax information exchange agreements.  The formal methods of obtaining evidence from foreign witnesses are generally discussed in Section 274 of the United States Attorneys' Manual.  At 9.7.10.2 (07-28-2003), Obtaining International Cooperation, the IRS Manual additionally mentions some of them, in connection with international asset forfeiture.

 

Copyright 2009 Fred L. Abrams

Asset Search News Roundup: July 30, 2009

In my June 1, 2009 "Asset Search News Roundup" I wrote about how national tax authorities can enter into tax information exchange agreements.  The July 24, 2009 article "Tax Transparency Is Set To Increase", also discusses these agreements, which sometimes uncover offshore assets hidden in a tax fraud.  As "Tax Transparency Is Set To Increase" and the articles below suggest, there could be an emerging trend toward the execution of more tax information exchange agreements:

Copyright 2009 Fred L. Abrams 

Some Abusive Offshore Tax Avoidance Schemes At UBS

U.S. taxpayers who beneficially own a foreign bank account with assets in excess of $10,000, are required to disclose the same at Schedule B, Part III of their U.S. Individual Tax Return Form 1040.  These taxpayers must also separately file a TDF 90-22.1, (a.k.a. a "FBAR" form), the first page of which is shown here:

 

Click On The TDF 90-22.1 To Enlarge It 

 

I previously discussed these reporting requirements at "Beneficial Owners Concealing Their Foreign Bank Accounts".  One Florida resident who failed to follow said requirements as part of his abusive offshore tax avoidance scheme, was Mr. Steven Michael Rubinstein.  Mr. Rubinstein  worked in the yacht industry and recently pleaded guilty to violating 26 U.S.C. § 7206 (1) (perjury on a return / false statements).  According to his Factual Proffer Statement, Mr. Rubinstein had concealed his assets from the IRS by parking them in Switzerland.  He had hidden assets through his nominee British Virgin Island corporation, which secretly held a UBS financial account in Switzerland. 

 

My May 25, 2009 "Asset Search News Roundup" similarly mentioned the abusive offshore tax avoidance scheme facilitated by Florida yacht broker Robert Moran.  Like Mr. Rubinstein, Mr. Moran had hidden assets from the IRS by using a financial account at UBS in Switzerland.  He too pleaded guilty to filing a false tax return in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7206 (1).  Mr. Moran had specifically used a nominee Panamanian corporation to maintain his hidden financial account at UBS Switzerland. 

 

Copyright 2009 Fred L. Abrams 

UBS & Its "John Doe" Summons

"A Domestic Subpoena / Summons In An Offshore Asset Search" describes how the IRS and U.S. Department of Justice were granted court permission to serve a "John Doe" summons on UBS AG.  This summons was supposed to help the IRS identify assets and / or undeclared revenue hidden by any U.S. taxpayers who were maintaining offshore bank accounts at UBS.

 

A July 1, 2008 Order had specifically permitted the IRS to serve UBS with the "John Doe" summons which is reproduced below without its attachments: 

 

 (Click On Images To Enlarge)

 

The IRS has however, argued in U.S.A. v. UBS AG, 1:09-cv-20423, that UBS has not fully complied with the summons.  In UBS AG, the IRS claims that UBS has disclosed under the summons, just 300 bank accounts out of an estimated 52,000 belonging to U.S. taxpayers who could be tax cheats. 

 

As I stated in my February 27, 2009 "Asset Search News Roundup", UBS must consider Swiss bank secrecy laws, (a.k.a. professional secrecy laws), when supplying the IRS with account information pursuant to the summons.  UBS highlighted the very issue of bank secrecy laws just yesterday, when it filed its "Supplemental Declaration of Professor Isabelle Romy On Swiss Law".  It had also earlier raised this issue via the "Declaration of Professor Isabelle Romy On Swiss Law", filed April 30, 2009. 

 

Through these declarations, UBS argued that it would be violating Swiss bank secrecy laws if it fully complied with the summons.  The IRS meanwhile, claimed that UBS should be compelled to fully comply with the summons because UBS allegedly violated its Qualified Intermediary Agreement with the IRS, for the withholding of taxes.  (Declaration of Barry B. Shott, filed February 19, 2009).  U.S.A. v. UBS AG, is next scheduled for hearings on July 13, 2009.

 

Copyright 2009 Fred L. Abrams

Beneficial Owners Concealing Their Foreign Bank Accounts

U.S. persons can be obligated to disclose their beneficial ownership of foreign bank accounts in Schedule B, Part III of their individual tax returns and by filing a Form TDF90-22.1.  Some U.S. persons however, still engage in schemes to conceal their foreign bank accounts, as occurred in the case described by my post "Bearer Shares & An Asset Search". 

 

That particular case involved a divorcing spouse and his business partners who had hidden undeclared revenue by using money laundering along with bearer shares.  As is demonstrated by the following diagram, (which is more fully explained at "Bearer Shares & An Asset Search"), the divorcing spouse had hidden his beneficial ownership of a Cayman Island bank account:  

It is perhaps because these kinds of schemes do actually occur, that the Financial Action Task Force  promulgated Recommendation 5.  Recommendation 5 counsels banks to verify the beneficial ownership of a customer's bank account.  As "Fighting Financial Fraud at UK Banks" indicates, UK banks are required to identify beneficial owners, as mentioned by the Money Laundering Regulations 2007*.  (See also Notice MLR8, Crown Copyright 2008, at page 18 §7.8).  Bankers in Switzerland meanwhile, have their customers execute a declaration of beneficial ownership upon the opening of a bank account.  This declaration is commonly referred to as a "Form A".

 

The tax fraud prosecution of Florida yacht broker Robert Moran mentioned in my May 25, 2009 Asset Search News Roundup, involved such a "Form A".  According to page 2 of the Statement of Facts part of Mr. Moran's plea agreement, prosecutors had acquired Mr. Moran's "Form A".  It apparently revealed that Mr. Moran was the beneficial owner of monies hidden in Swiss bank accounts.  Mr. Moran had maintained his Swiss account in the name of a nominee-- the Panamanian corporation Winter Drive Investments S.A.  

 

 

* The Money Laundering Regulations 2007, is reproduced under the terms of Crown Copyright Policy Guidance issued by HMSO.

Copyright 2009 Fred L. Abrams 

Asset Forfeiture Via Mutual Legal Assistance Treaties

When assets are hidden in a foreign bank account or are otherwise offshore, domestic authorities might be able to seek asset forfeiture, discovery or other relief pursuant to a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty ("MLAT").  Depending on the circumstances, MLAT's can particularly help domestic authorities trying to locate, (and then possibly forfeit), criminal proceeds which have been parked offshore.    

 

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime even offers a "Mutual Legal Assistance Request Writer Tool", which is depicted in the attached chart.  The first page of the U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Centre's publication "Mutual legal assistance treaties and money laundering", also describes the use of MLAT's.  Said publication mentions that MLAT's are important because  "corruption and money laundering cases are often and increasingly transnational".  The Internal Revenue Manual from the I.R.S. similarly discusses MLAT's at 9.7.10.2.1 (05-22-2006) Bilateral Treaties and the I.R.S. clearly relies on MLAT's as part of its fight against tax fraud.

 

Pursuing asset forfeiture, discovery or other relief pursuant to a MLAT can however, be challenging.  To cite just one example, Swiss counsel in Geneva and I just discussed difficulties the Swiss can face when seeking asset forfeiture / MLAT relief through the U.S. Department of Justice.  The problem arises from the fact that Swiss legal standards for showing the origin of criminal funds in an asset forfeiture case are less stringent, compared to those in the U.S. 

 

Some Swiss MLAT requests in asset forfeiture cases have in fact, been denied by the U.S. Department of Justice because these requests failed to sufficiently demonstrate under U.S. law, that the funds to be forfeited had criminal origins.  From a Swiss perspective meanwhile, those same asset forfeiture / MLAT requests were legally sufficient and entirely necessary under Swiss law.

 

(Edited July 10, 2010)

Copyright 2009-2010 Fred L. Abrams

Hiding Assets Through Portable Valuable Commodities

The Asia / Pacific Group on Money Laundering explains on its typologies webpage, that one way to hide assets is by purchasing portable valuable commodities like diamonds.  The typologies webpage further gives the example of a beneficial owner concealing assets by transferring diamonds to another jurisdiction.  One man who may have tried this kind of asset concealment method is Bernard L. Madoff.  As reported in "U.S. Government to New York Judge: Jail Madoff Without Bail", Mr. Madoff is alleged to have dissipated assets by mailing $1million dollars in jewelry to relatives and friends vacationing in Florida.

 

Another man believed to have hidden assets by using portable valuable commodities was recently discovered upon his arrival at N.Y.C's J.F.K. Airport from Tel Aviv.  A press release states that the 54-year-old U.S. resident employed by the jewelry industry, had concealed three diamonds worth more than $1.2 million in his pocket.  U.S. authorities had first found jewelry receipts in the man's baggage, then interviewed him and finally interdicted the concealed diamonds during a pat-down.  These diamonds pictured below, were seized pursuant to 19 U.S.C. §1497, (Penalties for failure to declare) and 19 U.S.C. §1595a (c) (1) (A), (Merchandise introduced contrary to law):

 

                                     

                                 Photo Courtesy of U.S. Customs and Border Protection

 

My October 15, 2008 "Asset Search News Roundup" similarly mentioned that UBS banker Stanley Birkenfeld had hidden diamonds in a tube of toothpaste while an airline passenger at Swiss-U.S. border crossings.  As more fully set forth by "UBS and the Diamond Smuggler", Mr. Birkenfeld had assisted UBS bank customers like billionaire Igor Olenicoff hide assets and / or evade U.S. taxes.  Besides using diamonds, Mr. Birkenfeld hid assets by using phony loans and purchasing artwork with secret Swiss funds. 

 

Copyright 2009 Fred L. Abrams

Recognizing Hidden Assets, The Red Flags

A beneficial owner's transfer of funds through banks in multiple jurisdictions, can be a red flag that assets have been hidden.  Purchasing large amounts of portable valuable commodities, hoarding cash, forming a shell company, etc, can also be red flags as mentioned by "Asset Search Indicia for Divorce, Debt Collection & Bankruptcy".  The weight that should be given to these red flags however, depends on the facts and circumstances in a particular case.

 

It is also true that the ability to recognize red flags can be critical to a post-judgment creditor, divorcing spouse, bankruptcy creditor, or other litigant searching for hidden assets.  Such a litigant could for example, use red flags at a deposition to develop a line of questions about assets, liabilities and net worth.  By recognizing red flags, a litigant might even more efficiently use the computer-based research described at "A Low Cost Asset Search".

 

As the list below also indicates, Financial Intelligence Units, U.S. Trustees, the IRS and U.S. banks, all rely on red flags to help uncover / interdict hidden assets:

1.  Financial Intelligence Units across the globe use red flags to detect assets hidden via money laundering, as more fully set forth by my above-mentioned post "Asset Search Indicia For Divorce, Debt Collection & Bankruptcy ".

 

2.  U.S. Trustees look for red flags to detect a debtor's bankruptcy fraud / the concealment of bankruptcy estate assets.  These specific red flags are described in the U.S. Trustee Manual at 5-10.7.2 Red Flags/Common Characteristics in Cases of Concealment and False Statements.

 

3. The IRS uses red flags to search for undeclared revenue and hidden assets.  The IRS Manual describes the same at 25.1.2.3 (01-01-2003), Indicators of Fraud.

 

4.  U.S. Banks are required to look for red flags as part of their anti-money laundering programs as mentioned by the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council's BSA / AML Examination Manual.

 

Copyright 2008-2010 Fred L. Abrams

A Doctor's Health Insurance Fraud With Tax Evasion

Ndubuisi Joseph Okafor, M.D., had practiced primary care medicine through the Okafor Group in the Washington D.C. metropolitan area.  He was however, sentenced in U.S.A. v. Okafor, to 65 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release for health insurance fraud and tax evasion.  He was also ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $769,192 to tax authorities and $33,060 to Medicare.


As partly described by his July 18, 2008 criminal judgment, Dr. Okafor had entered a plea agreement for violating 18 U.S.C. §1347 (Healthcare Fraud) along with 26 U.S.C. §§7201 (Tax Evasion) & 7206 {2} (False Income Tax Returns).  According to a press release about Dr. Okafor's plea agreement, Dr. Okafor had: submitted phony bills to Medicare and other health care providers; filed false tax returns; and diverted business revenue by using a corporate checking account to pay for personal expenses. 


Based on that same press release, Dr. Okafor had also engaged in an abusive offshore tax avoidance scheme.  This was true because Dr. Okafor had used his two offshore shell companies formed in the Bahamas to transfer undeclared revenue from his Washington D.C. Okafor Group.  As suggested by "Asset Search Indicia For Divorce, Debt Collection & Bankruptcy", the use of shell companies and a high-risk geographical location like the Bahamas, is a red flag that assets may have been hidden.


Copyright 2008 Fred L. Abrams

Offering Offshore Asset Protection To Tax Cheats

At "Asset Search vs. Offshore Asset Protection", I wrote that offshore asset protection services were being used to conceal assets from IRS revenue officers and others.  The Senate's Permanent Subcommittee On Investigations, just issued a 114-page report examining this same issue.  The Report entitled, Tax Haven Banks And U.S. Tax Compliance, explains how U.S. tax cheats hid assets from the IRS by using the asset protection services of Liechtenstein's LGT Group and Switzerland's UBS.


Page 2 of the Report for example, mentioned that the IRS had learned this past February of about 100 suspected tax cheats with offshore accounts at LGT Group.  The 100 were part of a group of 1400 who had allegedly opened offshore accounts at LGT to hide assets from tax authorities around the world.  As more fully described by "Offshore Bank Accounts In Liechtenstein", the suspected tax cheats were discovered because an LGT employee had sold a stolen LGT customer list.  The stolen customer list was eventually disseminated to the IRS and other tax authorities.


The Report also discussed former UBS banker Bradley Birkenfeld, who had cooperated with Senate Subcommittee investigators as mentioned by a July 17, Bloomberg.com article.  Mr. Birkenfeld pleaded guilty last month to helping billionaire California real estate developer Igor Olenicoff evade U.S. taxes.  According to Mr. Birkenfeld's indictment, he had conspired to hide assets from the IRS through: nominees; offshore credit cards; shell companies; bank accounts in high-risk locations / tax havens like Liechtenstein and Switzerland; etc. Among other things, Mr. Birkenfeld also violated various IRS reporting requirements and participated in the filing of false IRS income tax returns.


Finally, in a July 17, 2008 press release about the Report, Ranking Minority Member Norm Coleman (R-Minn), summed up the problem of banks that offered offshore asset protection:

"By exploiting gaping loopholes, these foreign banks are enabling felony tax evasion. Simply put, foreign banks should not be Al Capone safe-houses for evading taxes. Closing these loopholes means we must strengthen reporting requirements, broaden the scope of the audit program, and extend the amount of time the IRS has to investigate cases involving an offshore tax haven."


Copyright 2008 Fred L. Abrams

Puerto Rico's Governor & Public Corruption

Mr. Reinaldo Cestero is a private investigator and a retired Chief Deputy United States Marshal, who works in Puerto Rico.  I asked Mr. Cestero about the superseding indictment filed in U.S.A. v. Acevedo-Vila, et. al., which charged Puerto Rico's Governor Anibal Acevedo Vila, (and /or twelve co-defendants), with: conspiracy; false statements; wire fraud; federal program fraud; and filing false tax returns. 


When I inquired whether there was a prevailing view in San Juan about the Governor's indictment, Mr. Cestero answered: "The trial is supposed to start in February.  The public is split down the middle.  About half think that the Governor has been falsely accused as a result of a conspiracy between the Blue Party [Partido Nuevo Progresista] and the United States.  The other half are disgusted, and  think that the Governor is guilty of public corruption." 


The Governor's above-mentioned indictment arises from allegations that he had several businessman pay off large unreported campaign debt, in violation of 2 U.S.C. §431 et. seq., the Federal Election Campaign Act.  The first count of the superseding indictment specifically charged violations of 18 U.S.C. §371 (conspiracy);  2 U.S.C. §441a et. seq. (limitations on contributions /  expenditures); and 18 U.S.C. §§1001 (a) (1) & (a) (2) (false statements).  According to the first count, about sixteen collaborators had made illegal off-the-book campaign contributions to the Governor's political campaign committee.  The collaborators had allegedly paid false invoices issued by a media / public relations company.  The indictment further alleged that said company ultimately applied the paid invoices as credit against debt owed by the Governor's political campaign committee. 


The first count also essentially alleged that the Governor had used his family, staff and others as nominees or "conduits", to illegally make campaign contributions.  These "conduit contributions" were even sometimes allegedly made with funds from the Governor.  Count one additionally claimed that the Governor, (and/ or one of his associates), had contacted the Office of Management and Budget, the Puerto Rico Housing Department and the Puerto Rico Pension Fund, to promote the business interests of some of the conduit contributors.  Perhaps most interesting however, is that an April 28, 2008 Daily News' article indicates that the Governor is still running for re-election in Puerto Rico's November gubernatorial race-- despite the fact of his indictment.


Copyright 2008 Fred L. Abrams

Hidden Assets In A Wisconsin Divorce

At "An Asset Search, Tax Fraud & Divorce ", I described a conversation I had with Brian-- a former IRS Special Agent who had also once been a high-ranking official at the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.  In that conversation, Brian suggested that a broad range of criminal statutes were sometimes relevant to a tax fraud investigation.


Such was the case in the IRS tax fraud investigation of Wisconsin businessman Ronald Miserendino, which ended in Mr. Miserendino's indictment on a variety of charges in U.S.A. v. Miserendino .  As the superseding indictment returned against him indicated, Mr. Miserendino was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. 1344 (bank fraud); 18 U.S.C. 1341 (mail fraud); 26 U.S.C. 7201 (tax evasion); and 18 U.S.C. 1956 (h) (conspiracy to commit money laundering).


According to his plea agreement, Mr. Miserendino had illegally concealed assets and was guilty of tax evasion and conspiracy to commit money laundering.  Mr. Miserendino had started concealing assets in 2001 because his wife had filed for a Wisconsin divorce and sought the division of their marital property.  He had therefore used safe deposit boxes and nominees to hide and / or launder assets in multiple jurisdictions, like Australia, Oregon and Hawaii.  Mr. Miserendino had also dissipated his ownership of a Wisconsin real estate development and rental company, by transferring 49 percent of its stock to his son from a prior marriage.  As the Court's April 21,2008 sentencing minutes and criminal judgment reflect, Mr. Miserendino finally received a sentence of 48 months in prison.


Copyright 2008 Fred L. Abrams

A Tax Fraud & Identity Theft From Miami

The following occurred over a four month period during 2002, and has been supplied by an investigator I have worked with.  Some of it has been changed / sanitized for privacy reasons: 
 

The Tax Fraud

As part of his tax fraud, Mr. Wallace contacted a Cayman Island bank by mail in order to open a personal account with it.  He mailed account opening documents to it which included a copy of his U.S. passport and also supplied the names of references. According to these documents, Mr. Wallace lived in Miami and was a real estate developer.  Based upon all of the foregoing, the Cayman Island bank opened Mr. Wallace's personal account with a "O" balance.  Just six days later however, bank "X" in Panama wired $6.3 million to Mr. Wallace's Cayman account without any mention of the remitter. 


Mr. Wallace then went on a business trip to Central America for several months; so he rented his Miami home to "Chuck".  Although Mr. Wallace hadn't known at the time, Chuck was a small-time crook.  In fact, soon after Chuck took possession of Mr. Wallace's home, Chuck started stealing Mr. Wallace's mail.  One of the letters Chuck had stolen was written by "Bob", a personal banker from the Cayman Island Bank where Mr. Wallace maintained his account.  Bob had written to Mr. Wallace about a lucrative investment opportunity. 

 

The Identity Theft

Surmising from Bob's letter that Mr. Wallace had a sizable bank account, Chuck wrote to Bob pretending to be Mr. Wallace.  As the sanitized copy of Chuck's First Letter can only partly demonstrate, Chuck had assumed Mr. Wallace's identity in that particular letter by forging Mr. Wallace's signature.  To comfort Bob, Chuck's First Letter had also asked Bob for the minimum balance required to keep Mr. Wallace's account open. Chuck's "softening up" letter further suggested to Bob that Mr. Wallace's funds might soon be needed "at very short notice" for an alleged real estate deal in Mexico.  In the sanitized copy of Chuck's Second Letter, Chuck again pretended to be Mr. Wallace as he wrote to Bob at the Cayman Island Bank.  In his Second Letter, Chuck directed the wire transfer of Mr. Wallace's funds from the Cayman Island Bank to Chuck's own bank account in Mexico.


When Mr. Wallace next unexpectedly arrived at the Cayman Island Bank to make a cash withdrawal, he was shocked to learn that his account had been drained.  The Bank then showed Mr. Wallace "his" letters and explained that it had remitted his funds to Mexico just two days earlier because of "his" instructions.  Concluding that his identity had been taken over by Chuck, Mr. Wallace apologized for his error and immediately booked a flight bound for Miami.  Shortly thereafter, Mr. Wallace was arrested while fleeing from his Miami home after having killed Chuck there. 

  

The Investigation

Investigators from the U.S. next paid a visit to the Cayman Island Bank.  Although they had first thought that Chuck had been the true beneficial owner of the Cayman Island account, they discovered that Mr. Wallace was.  Investigators also learned that Mr. Wallace was not just simply a real estate developer involved in a tax fraud / abusive offshore tax avoidance scheme.  Instead, Mr. Wallace was actually a major illegal narcotics trafficker hiding the proceeds of his drug crimes through money laundering.  Investigators finally concluded that much of the foregoing had happened because the Cayman Island Bank had among many other things:

  

  1. Inadequate customer identification procedures / know your customer rules;
     
  2. Permitted Mr. Wallace's account to be opened by mail & also with a  "0" balance;
     
  3. Neglected to contact a single reference mentioned in Mr. Wallace's account opening documents;
     
  4. Failed to recognize suspicious activities like the wire transfer of the $6.3 million from Panama or Chuck's "softening up" letter.

 

Copyright 2008-2010 Fred  L. Abrams

Bearer Shares & An Asset Search

As the attached sanitized bearer share certificate suggests, bearer shares allow for anonymous share ownership.  A corporation that issues bearer shares has no central registry of their ownership.  The Financial Action Task Force additionally explains, bearer shares are: "negotiable instruments that accord ownership in a corporation to the person who possesses the bearer share certificate".  Via its 33rd Recommendation and Chapter 4, pages 15-16 of its Report on Money Laundering Typologies 2001-2002, the Financial Action Task Force also warns that bearer shares can be used to launder money.

I too have seen how bearer shares had likely been used to launder marital assets and evade U.S. taxes.  In that particular case, (the facts of which have been changed below for privacy reasons), the divorcing husband and his business partners had accumulated $18 Million in undeclared revenue while residing in the U.S.  The husband and his partners then secretly formed a shell corporation in Curacao, the Dutch Antilles, which they jointly owned through bearer shares. 


To prevent the interdiction of their bearer shares by domestic authorities, the husband and his partners retained a Dutch lawyer to hold the bearer shares in a trust.  As their trustee, the Dutch lawyer deposited the bearer shares into a stock custody account at a Rotterdam bank.  As the following diagram demonstrates, the husband and his partners finally deposited their $18 million in undeclared revenue in a Cayman Island bank account in the name of their Curacao shell company:

 

(Click On The Image To Enlarge It)

 


As described above, the husband and his partners hid their $18 million from the United States by using multiple jurisdictions which included Curacao, Rotterdam and the Cayman Islands.  The husband and his partners also concealed their beneficial ownership of the $18 million by using protective layers consisting of: bearer shares; a nominee shell company from Curacao; and an offshore bank account in the Cayman Islands.  Such layering is characteristic of money laundering and sometimes ends in the kind of tax fraud case filed by the U.S. Department of Justice against Mr. Walter Anderson.  As my post  "A $365 Million Dollar Tax Fraud" mentioned, Mr. Anderson used bearer share certificates and shell companies to conceal the undeclared revenue he had parked offshore.

(Edited January 10, 2010)

Copyright 2008-2010 Fred L. Abrams

An Asset Search, Tax Fraud & Divorce

The financial information supplied by foreign private investigators, suggested that the divorcing husband had hidden marital assets offshore.  Other evidence elicited during the divorce, also suggested that the husband might have committed a tax fraud in hiding the marital assets.  


As part of my asset search of the husband, (and to learn even more about this suspected tax fraud), I contacted Brian.  Brian was a former high-ranking official at the Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and had earlier been an IRS Special Agent.  Brian was going to lead our interview of the husband's business associate, who we were about to meet for the very first time.  Right before the interview, Brian identified some of the federal statutes relevant to many tax fraud investigations:
  • 26 U.S.C. § 6050I, large cash reporting requirements for trades & businesses (including attorneys).
  • 26 U.S.C. § 7201, most commonly applied tax evasion statute (however requires proof of a tax liability).
  • 26 U.S.C. § 7203, failure to file a timely tax return.
  • 26 U.S.C. § 7206 (1), perjury on a return / false statements, (unlike 26 U.S.C. § 7201,  proof of a tax liability is unnecessary).
  • 26 U.S.C. § 7206 (2), perjury on a return / false statements, but primarily used against tax return preparers such as accountants and attorneys.
  • 18 U.S.C. § 371, conspiracy to commit offense / defraud the United States.
  • 18 U.S.C. § 1001, false statements made to the federal government (can apply to any material verbal or written statement, even if unsworn).
  • 18 U.S.C. § 1956, money laundering.
  • 18 U.S.C. § 1957, money laundering involving property derived from specified unlawful activity.
  • 18 U.S.C. § 1961, Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organizations ("RICO").
  • 31 U.S.C. § 5311 et. seq., the Bank Secrecy Act.

I hoped that Brian and I would learn what the business associate knew about the divorcing husband's hidden assets / suspected tax fraud.  As Brian started the business associate's interview he warned: "Once a tax fraud investigation starts rolling along, nobody knows where it may end up".


Copyright 2008 Fred L. Abrams

Mr. Benjamin's Divorce & His White-Collar Crimes

As my post  "Divorce, Child Support & Reporting Tax Fraud" mentioned, divorcing spouses sometimes tip the IRS about a suspected tax fraud.  Mrs. Benjamin for example, tipped the IRS because she thought that her divorcing husband had underreported revenue from his commercial maintenance and landscaping business.  She specifically provided the IRS with the business documents Mr. Benjamin had produced during the pre-trial discovery phase of their divorce case.  These documents included payment summary records from Mr. Benjamin's customers like Wal-Mart.  As part of her tip to the IRS, Mrs. Benjamin also turned over joint tax returns which Mr. Benjamin had supposedly filed for the years 1998 and 1999. 


A records check at the IRS however demonstrated that the 1998 and 1999 joint tax returns had never actually been filed by Mr. Benjamin.  The IRS also learned that from 1997 through 2001, Mr. Benjamin had neither paid income tax nor filed state or federal income tax returns.  IRS Special Agents then received false information from Mr. Benjamin when they interviewed him at his home on June 26, 2002.  The IRS also reviewed Mr. Benjamin's bank accounts and conferred with Wal-Mart along with Mr. Benjamin's other customers.  As a consequence of its asset search and tax fraud investigation, the IRS finally determined that Mr. Benjamin's total gross receipts or sales between 1998 and 2001 had actually been about $1,139,470.18; and that Mr. Benjamin had a $129,396.91 tax liability.
 

The IRS further recognized that Mr. Benjamin had hidden assets and income by: pocketing cash payments from customers; paying personal expenses from a business bank account; and cashing customers' checks instead of depositing them into his bank account.  During its investigation, the IRS additionally discovered that Mr. Benjamin had defrauded Wal-Mart through a false invoicing scheme.  By seeking payment for services he had never performed, (and faxing Wal-Mart twenty-two phony invoices between February 2001 and January 2002), Mr. Benjamin had duped Wal-Mart out of $417,583.


The IRS criminal investigation started by Mrs. Benjamin's tax fraud tip eventually led to Mr. Benjamin's fifty eight count indictment on July 27, 2005 in U.S.A. v. Benjamin, Index # 05-Cr-00348, U.S. District Court, District of Colorado.  Pursuant to his January 5, 2006 plea agreement, Mr. Benjamin pleaded guilty to violating 26 U.S.C. § 7201 (tax evasion) and 18 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud).  Because of his white-collar crimes, Mr. Benjamin was sentenced on June 16, 2006 to serve two years in prison followed by three years of supervised release.  As Mr. Benjamin's sentence and criminal judgment both mentioned, he was also directed to pay a $200 special assessment and to start making restitution payments to Wal-Mart after his release from prison.


Copyright 2007 Fred L. Abrams

A $365 Million Dollar Tax Fraud

According to a press release, Mr. Walter Anderson's tax fraud resulted in the "largest personal income tax evasion case brought by the Department of Justice".  Pursuant to his September 8, 2006 plea agreement, telecommunications entrepreneur Walter Anderson pleaded guilty to violating two counts of 26 U.S.C. § 7201 (Attempt to evade or defeat tax), and one count of Title 22 District of Columbia Code § 3221 {a}, (Fraud in the first degree).  The Court sentenced Mr. Anderson on March 27, 2007 to nine years of prison for his failure to report about $365 million in income between 1995 and 1999; and also ordered him to pay the District of Columbia restitution in the amount of $22,809,032.


The superseding indictment filed on September 30, 2005 essentially alleged that Mr. Anderson had hidden his undeclared revenue through offshore shell companies and bearer shares, (i.e. negotiable stocks filled out in the name of the "bearer", for which no register of ownership is kept).  According to the specific allegations in his indictment, Mr. Anderson had hired Arias, Fabrega & Fabrega Trust Co. (BVI) to first secretly incorporate a nominee shell company for him known as Gold & Appel Transfer, S.A.  He then used Gold & Appel in connection with his ownership of other shell companies, as partly demonstrated by the attached stock certificate from Aurora Telecommunications Limited.  For example, by owning the bearer shares of a shell company called Iceberg Transport, S.A., (which in turn owned the stock of Gold & Appel), Mr. Anderson concealed the hundreds of millions he beneficially owned via Gold & Appel.


Given the hundreds of millions hidden by Mr. Anderson, I thought about the tax gap. The tax gap is the difference between the overall amount of tax revenue the Internal Revenue Service receives compared to what it estimates it is actually owed. The latest figures published in "Reducing The Federal Tax Gap" dated August 2, 2007, indicate that the tax gap was estimated to be $345 billion in 2001.  That amount however has since been reduced to $290 billion because of Internal Revenue Service enforcement efforts and its receipt of late payments.  I then wondered how many there were that still remained, who were just like Walter Anderson.


Copyright 2007 Fred L. Abrams
Tags:

White-Collar Crime & A Former Top Cop

With more than 90 national chapters / chapters-in-formation since its founding in 1993, Transparency International is a lead group in the fight against the global white-collar crime of public corruption.  Transparency International publishes an annual "Corruption Perception Index" which ranks countries on a scale of "1" to "10" based on the perceptions of businessman and analysts.   A country ranked as a "10" would be considered to be "highly clean"; while a rank of  "1" would indicate a "highly corrupt" country.   For example, Transparency International's 2007 Corruption Perception Index ranked Myanmar and Somalia at the very bottom of its list with a score of only "1.4".  Denmark, Finland, and New Zealand however had the highest score of "9.4".  Meanwhile, the United States was assigned a score of "7.2".

 
The Transparency International website additionally explains that corruption is "the abuse of entrusted power for private gain. It hurts everyone whose life, livelihood or happiness depends on the integrity of people in a position of authority."  Its website also describes the two distinct kinds of corruption, "according to rule" and "against the rule".   When a bribe is paid for services the bribe recipient is required by law to provide, then "according to rule" corruption has occurred.  "Against the rule" corruption has occurred when a bribe is paid for services the bribe recipient is prohibited from providing.


As has been widely reported, a corruption case was recently brought against Bernard Kerik, who formerly led the largest police department in America as New York City's 40th Police Commissioner.  According to both the U.S. Attorney and Mr. Kerik's sixteen count indictment, Mr. Kerik was the secret beneficiary of $250,000 in apartment renovations paid for by the principals of construction and waste management companies who sought contracts from New York City.  In consideration of said renovation payments, Kerik allegedly lobbied officials to award the sought after contracts.  Some of these payments are claimed to have been made even after Kerik had been sworn in as the Police Commissioner.  According to a government tax fraud chart, the U.S. Attorney has further alleged that Mr. Kerik also committed tax frauds involving at least $667,222.


As a review of Mr. Kerik's indictment reveals, Mr. Kerik is essentially charged with committing the following white-collar crimes:

Copyright 2007 Fred L. Abrams

High-Risk Locations & An Asset Search

An investigation of a high-risk geographical location can sometimes uncover assets which have been hidden through: nominees; shell companies; cash couriers; wire transfers; credit cards; informal banking systems, etc.  For example, one way the IRS focuses on high-risk locations like tax havens, is to compare the banking information it receives from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network with the foreign bank disclosure taxpayers make pursuant to their Form 90-22.1, the Foreign Bank and Financial Account Report.  The IRS also makes U.S. residents with offshore credit / debit cards an audit priority pursuant to its Offshore Credit Card Program.


The State Department is similarly concerned with high-risk offshore locations as demonstrated by part of its 2010 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report, Major Money Laundering Countries.  U.S. banks too make geographic location a risk factor in their anti-money laundering programs.  As explained at page 25 of the Bank Secrecy Act / Anti-Money Laundering Examination Manual: "U.S. banks should understand and evaluate the specific risks associated with doing business in, opening accounts for customers from, or facilitating transactions involving certain geographic locations."


The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network also deems seven U.S. regions to be High Intensity Financial Crimes Areas because of their extraordinary vulnerability to money laundering.  Law enforcement may even commit additional resources to scrutinize financial transactions in such regions or in a High-Intensity Drug Trafficking Area.  As my post "Domestic Shell Companies & An Asset Search" further suggests, jurisdictions like Delaware, Nevada, Wyoming, and Oregon are additionally considered to be high-risk because assets are so easily concealed through shell companies formed there.


The isolated fact that a financial transaction has a nexus to a high-risk location does not however necessarily support the conclusion that assets have been concealed.  A judgment debtor, divorcing spouse, etc. should still be thoroughly investigated to ensure that an offshore or domestic high-risk location has not been used to hide assets.

(Last Edited August 22, 2010)


Copyright 2007-2010 Fred L. Abrams

A Divorce & Trade-Based Tax Fraud / Money Laundering

Although the divorcing husband was wealthy, he offered his wife only a meager settlement. The husband also threatened that he was "judgment proof" and that his wife might collect nothing after the divorce despite their longtime marriage.  The husband however, had ample marital assets and he and several of his business associates had likely hidden them in a trade-based tax fraud / laundering scheme similar to the one Mr. Gene Haas was arrested for on  June 19, 2006


Given his fraudulent tax scheme, Mr. Haas was sentenced on November 5, 2007 to two years in prison for violating 18 U.S.C § 371, as mentioned by his August 24, 2007 plea agreement.  He also ended up paying a $5 million dollar fine and over $70 million dollars in back taxes owed for 2000 and 2001.  According to "Attachment A" of Mr. Haas' plea agreement, the Enmark Aerospace and Supermill companies had provided Mr. Haas with invoices for fictitious purchases.  Pursuant to these phony invoices, Mr. Haas paid Enmark  & Supermill about $35 million and then took business deductions for "cost of goods sold".  Enmark and Supermill next returned the $35 million (less a 2% kick back fee) to Mr. Haas through his nominee, CNC Associates, Inc. 


As demonstrated by the twelve case studies found at pp. 9-20 of the Financial Action Task Force's June 23, 2006 report "Trade-Based Money Laundering, Copyright © FATF/OECD. All rights reserved.", there are a wide variety of ways to conceal assets in a trade-based fraud.  According to p. 4 of "Trade-Based Money Laundering", such schemes may involve: the over or under-invoicing of goods or services; the over or under-shipping of goods; falsely describing goods or services; or multiple invoicing.  There are however several indicia which can sometimes help one recognize that assets have been concealed in a trade-based tax fraud or laundering scheme.  As more fully set forth at page 24 of "Trade-Based Money Laundering", these asset search indicia may include:

  • a disparity between a shipped commodity's bill of lading and its invoice.
  • a disparity between a commodity's value as recorded on its invoice and fair market value.
  • the shipping of goods although there is no profit / economic benefit.
  • a shipment with a nexus to shell companies.
  • letters of credit related to a shipment that have been amended or extended repeatedly.
  • the type of shipped commodity is inconsistent with the importer's / exporter's ordinary business activities.
  • shipping to or from a high-risk geographical location (i.e. a jurisdiction especially vulnerable to money laundering).

Copyright 2007-2008 Fred L. Abrams

Nominees & Hidden Assets

A beneficial owner can try to use a nominee (i.e. representative) to hide money with complete anonymity in a bank account.  As the website of www.offshoresimple.com essentially explains, a beneficial owner may hire a nominee incorporation service to supply a bank signatory for a nominee bank account.  This suggests that a beneficial owner may use a nominee to circumvent the know your customer / customer identification procedures at a bank.  For example, through the bank signatory service offered by www.offshoresimple.com, a beneficial owner might use a nominee to:      

  • Open / manage an offshore bank account.
  • Act as an account's bank signatory.
  • Supply a bank with the necessary customer identification documents.
  • Execute the incorporation documents needed to form an offshore corporation.

The above-described use of nominee incorporation services is widespread.  As page 64 of the 2007 National Money Laundering Strategy mentions, nominee incorporation services that arrange U.S. bank accounts and shell companies are believed to annually launder as much as $36 billion just from the former Soviet Union.

Instead of retaining a nominee incorporation service, some beneficial owners hide assets by using friends or relatives as nominees.  According to his twenty-one count forty-four page July 26, 2005 indictment, Mr. Edwards for example, had stolen insurance premiums and then concealed them in nominee financial accounts in the names of his wife and two shell companies.  Mr. Edwards had also used his wife as the nominee purchaser of his mountain chalet and a  "palatial" home-- both of which were bought with stolen insurance premiums.


All of the foregoing had been part of Mr. Edward's insurance and tax fraud scheme which lasted from about January, 1999 through April 30, 2001.  Via his indictment, Mr. Edwards was charged with: mail fraud (18 U.S.C. § 1341 & 18 U.S.C. § 1342); wire fraud ( 18 U.S.C. § 1343); making false statements to a  financial institution (18 U.S.C. § 1014);  theft from a health care benefit program (18 U.S.C. § 669); money laundering (18 U.S.C.§ 1957 [a] & [b]); and tax evasion (26 U.S.C. § 7201)

 
Mr. Edwards was specifically accused of collecting insurance premiums from various employers while unlicensed to do so.  Instead of providing thousands of employees with workers' compensation insurance, he converted their insurance premiums for his own use.  Between January 1, 2000 and April 30, 2001 Mr. Edwards also allegedly stole $2.5 million from his company Fidelity Group, Inc., which was a health care benefit group as mentioned by 18 U.S.C. § 24 (b).  Furthermore, when Mr. Edwards actually did apply for some workers' compensation insurance coverage, he allegedly understated payroll and the type / number of employees to fraudulently secure lower insurance premiums.


When Mr. Edwards administered an employer's self-insured health insurance plan, he also allegedly delayed or wrongfully denied medical benefits the employees were entitled to.  Mr. Edwards indictment additionally alleged that he had filed a false joint Income tax return for 1999, by underreporting taxable income.  In 2000, Mr. Edwards had supposedly underreported income in a false joint tax return and paid just $724 in taxes.  He was similarly accused of failing to file any tax return for the year 2001. 


As the Court's June 26, 2006 Judgment demonstrates, Mr. Edwards ultimately pleaded guilty to four of the twenty-one counts mentioned by his indictment: two counts of mail fraud; one count of theft from a health care benefit program; and one count of tax fraud.  Pursuant  to his plea agreement, Mr. Edwards was sentenced to serve 150 months in prison and ordered to pay fines, make restitution, etc.  As Mr. Edwards' motion executed on August 13, 2007 however indicates, he seeks to vacate his guilty plea / sentence pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 by alleging ineffective assistance of counsel among other things.

(Edited March 28, 2010)
Copyright 2007-2010 Fred L. Abrams

Divorce, Child Support & Reporting Tax Fraud

When the divorcing husband admitted in his affidavit that he had not paid taxes, the judge in Hashimoto v. De La Rosa, 2004 slip op. 51081(Sup. Ct. N.Y. County, June 23, 2004) reported him to the I.R.S.  In Beth M. v. Joseph M., 2006 slip op. 51490 (Sup. Ct. Nassau County, July 25, 2006), the judge similarly reported a husband who testified during divorce / child support proceedings that he had not filed tax returns for the years 1997 through 2001 and other times.  The admissions made by these two divorcing spouses could possibly have led to tax fraud charges pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7201.


Like the presiding judges in Beth M. and Hashimoto, parties to divorce or child support cases sometimes report tax fraud to the I.R.S.  Some tip the I.R.S. by sending an Information Referral (Form 3949-A) or letter as mentioned by "How Do You Report Suspected Tax Fraud Activity?".  No matter how one ultimately communicates with the I.R.S., it is important to first consider eligibility for the Whistleblower or other reward programs described in my separate post, "Assets From Tax Fraud".  As "Reporting Tax Fraud" further explains, the kinds of activities typically reported to the IRS include: hiding or transferring assets or income;  keeping multiple sets of books; claiming personal expenses as business ones; etc. 


In some cases where there has been a tax fraud and spouses have filed joint tax returns, it may also be advisable to seek innocent spouse tax relief  as more fully described by I.R.S. Publication 971.  To examine this very issue, (and to ensure that providing a particular tip to the IRS is appropriate), a party to a divorce or child support case should always seek the advise of a knowledgeable attorney.


Copyright 2007 Fred L. Abrams

Trusts, Tax Fraud & Hidden Assets

In its "Abusive Trust Tax Evasion Schemes - Facts", the Internal Revenue Service estimates that trusts will account for much of the $4.8 trillion to be inherited or transferred between the generations by 2015.  According to that same publication's Talking Points, trusts are now sometimes fraudulently used: 

  • To depreciate personal assets (such as a home);
  • To deduct personal expenses;
  • To split income over multiple entities, often filed in multiple locations;
  • To underreport income;
  • To avoid filing returns;
  • To wire income overseas and fail to report it; and
  • To attempt to protect transactions through bank secrecy laws in tax haven countries.


Insurance salesman Denny Patridge's June 30, 2005 conviction for tax evasion, wire fraud, and money laundering, is one example of how trusts can be used to hide assets and commit tax fraud.  At page four of its Enforcement Results, the Department of Justice's Tax Division mentions that Patridge was fined $100,000 and sentenced to sixty months because he had used: a trust to conceal assets; a false lien on his home; nominee bank accounts; and offshore accounts in Belize and Antigua.


Unlike Mr. Patridge's scheme, some abusive trusts are entirely based on domestic financial transactions.  Such was the case of Marvin Swanson, sued in February 2004, by  the U.S. Justice Department for offering asset protection/tax evasion services.  According to the November 15, 2006 permanent injunction issued pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 7402 against him, Mr. Swanson had sold phony trusts called "unincorporated business trust organizations" through his manual and website.  As the November 15, 2006 injunction explains, Mr. Swanson had established corporations in Nevada in order to provide his clients with anonymity and hide their assets from the Internal Revenue Service.
  

The January 11, 2007, Complaint for an injunction against Victor Carlysle Sullivan alleges that Mr. Sullivan as a CPA had an asset protection service that hid monies first through a domestic trust known as the Tuxedo Trust and then in two offshore trusts called Blackshear and Bulldog.  Also according to the Complaint, Mr. Sullivan had cost the U.S. Government an estimated $5 - $10 million by underreporting the taxes of at least 53 of his clients in his sham-trust scheme started in 1998.  On March 22, 2007, Mr. Sullivan did however agree to his Stipulated Permanent Injunction, which bars further illegal conduct and essentially obligated him to provide the Government with his client list for the past ten years.   


Given all of the above, the Internal Revenue Service has ranked trust misuse as eighth in its 2007 Top Dirty Dozen Tax Scams.  To educate the public about abusive trusts, It also published "Should Your Financial Portfolio Include Too Good To Be True Trusts?".  Furthermore, when the medical community was  targeted by asset protection service providers, the Internal Revenue Service published a February 2002 bulletin to especially address the issue.  Fraudulent trusts however, are not just limited to tax evasion as they can also play a role in schemes to hide assets during a divorce, bankruptcy, debt collection proceeding, etc.


Copyright 2007 Fred L. Abrams

Asset Search vs. Offshore Asset Protection

A divorcing spouse seeking hidden marital assets; a creditor pursuing the payment of a debt; or an IRS revenue officer collecting a delinquent tax; may sometimes be looking for assets hidden by those offering offshore asset protection services.


According to Equity Development Group's "Why Go Offshore" link-page, placing bank accounts offshore protects them from "predatory attorneys", ex-spouses, disgruntled employees, etc.  Another asset protection service, (Offshore Services Inc. of Belize), alleges that “A Belize Offshore Trust” offers tax reduction, protection from lawsuits and other benefits.  The website of Dominion Investments (Nassau) Ltd. similarly offered "international tax planning, asset protection, and other wealth preservation techniques" until the January 20, 2006 arrest of its proprietor during a federal undercover sting operation for money laundering.


As the Internal Revenue Service's Offshore Credit Card Program recognizes, an asset protection scheme can be as basic as first parking monies in an offshore bank account and then using a credit or debit card drawn on that same account in order to make domestic purchases.  Offshore asset protection schemes involving tax evasion are referred to as Abusive Offshore Tax Avoidance Schemes by the Internal Revenue Service.  According to the Internal Revenue Service, such schemes typically involve:
1. Foreign trusts
2. Foreign corporations
3. Foreign (offshore) partnerships, LLCs and LLPs
4. International Business Companies (IBCs)
5. Offshore private annuities
6. Private banking (U.S. and offshore)
7. Personal investment companies
8. Captive insurance companies
9. Offshore bank accounts and credit cards
10. Related-party loans

Perhaps the most important thing to remember is that a good legal strategy can be an effective countermeasure to all of the foregoing; and many times lead to the recovery of assets hidden offshore.        


Copyright 2007 Fred L. Abrams