3 HInts About Asset Searches

A divorcing spouse; judgment creditor; bankruptcy creditor; or a beneficiary under a trust or will; may face an adversary hiding assets through nominees (i.e. intermediaries). See cf., Fourth Inv. LP v. United States, 720 F.3d 1058, 1070 (9th Cir. 2013) (six-part test for nominee ownership applied to tax lien case). An adversary can hide real estate, automobiles, jewelry; and offshore bank accounts by titling them in the names of nominees. Nominees are easily accessed through nominee incorporation services like the one at the “Anonymous Panama Corporation” webpage.

The “Anonymous Panama Corporation” webpage can be used to form a Panamanian shell company with “nominee directors.” The initial fee for this service is $1200. The webpage suggests that one can “save taxes or protect…assets” by forming a Panamanian shell company:

[Y]our personal information will not be available in any government records, but [sic] still maintain complete control over your corporation. The Nominee Directors will not have control over your corporation and can be replaced at any time.

This type of corporation is a good choice if your objective is to save taxes or protect your assets. The actual owner of this corporation is not registered in public records.

Shell companies are not the only things that can be utilized as nominees. Lawyers; accountants; bankers; financial advisors; paramours; family members and trusts can be nominees. In the criminal prosecution called USA v. James S. Faller II, Case #: 13−cr−00029, the Court discussed how a nominee trust could be part of a scheme to hide assets from the IRS. Pages 13-14 of the Court’s 4/30/15 Memorandum Opinion and Order highlighted Mr. Faller’s alleged misuse of nominees.

Mr. Faller from Russell Springs, Kentucky, relied on “nominee names” to evade taxes, an IRS Special Agent’s affidavit claimed at ¶68. Prosecutors argued Mr. Faller evaded taxes by titling his home and bank account in the name of a trust believed to be Mr. Faller’s nominee. Mr. Faller was convicted of tax fraud and on 1/29/16 Mr. Faller was sentenced to 36 months’ imprisonment. Although Mr. Faller appealed his conviction, the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld the conviction at a 1/10/17 Opinion.

Image: Robert Kneschke/Shutterstock.com

Copyright 2017 Fred L. Abrams

12 8 16 Post
This 34th post in the “Divorce & Hidden Money” series highlights ways assets may be hidden in a money laundering circuit.

The November 30th New York Times Magazine article “How To Hide $400 Million” described the divorce between Sarah Pursglove & Finnish internet tycoon Robert Oesterlund. A document from Mr. Oesterlund’s lender allegedly indicated Mr. Oesterlund’s net worth was $400 million, “How To Hide $400 Million” said. This article also said Mr. Oesterlund claimed during the divorce that the ‘net family property’ was only worth a few million dollars.

Ms. Pursglove however, did not believe this and tried to search for assets reportedly hidden by Mr. Oesterlund. Based on “How To Hide $400 Million,” Mr. Oesterlund was an ultra-high-net-worth spouse who allegedly hid assets through:

  1. gatekeepers (such as lawyers & bankers);
  2. multiple jurisdictions;
  3. offshore bank accounts;
  4. shell companies;
  5. & trusts.

These can all be used as laundering links which wash assets in a money laundering circuit. A money laundering circuit is shown at a chart on a webpage from FINTRAC, a Canadian financial intelligence unit. An ultra-high-net-worth spouse may place assets into a laundering circuit through: structuring bank deposits; money mules/bulk-cash smuggling; diamonds or other portable valuable commodities; false invoicing schemes (i.e. trade-based laundering); wire transfers; etc. How do you perform an asset search when these methods are used to hide assets? Click here for seven tips.

Image: red mango/Shutterstock.com

Copyright 2016 Fred L. Abrams

10 26 16 Post

If you are litigating against an adversary who is hiding assets from you, subpoenaing your adversary’s credit card statements might help you track the hidden assets. As my post “Secreting Assets Without A Border Trace” suggests, expenses listed at a credit card statement may lead you to your adversary’s assets. “Secreting Assets Without A Border Trace” is about tracking a Ponzi schemer’s illicit assets. The Ponzi schemer in that post could have: converted cash into diamonds; parked the diamonds in a Swiss security box (i.e. safe deposit box); and opened a secret bank account in Luxembourg.

The subpoena available below has language you can include at a subpoena for credit card records. The subpoena was issued to American Express by the Chapter 7 trustee in Michael Mastro’s bankruptcy case.  Along with credit card statements, the subpoena requested “[c]opies of all checks, money orders, electronic transfer records, and other documents showing the source and manner of each [credit card] payment…” Some of my other posts discussing subpoenas are “An Asset Search of A Lawyer Employed To Conceal Cash” & “Eliciting Evidence From Foreign Bank Witnesses.

American Express Subpoena

Image of torn paper & word subpoena: arfa adam/Shutterstock.com

Copyright 2016 Fred L. Abrams

The instant post mentions hiding assets through: a lawyer; offshore bank accounts; etc. It is the 34th post at the "Divorce & Hidden Money" series.
The instant post mentions hiding assets through a lawyer; offshore bank accounts; etc. It is the 33rd post at the “Divorce & Hidden Money” series.

Ohio lawyer David Keith Roland was recently disbarred for using a Swiss bank account in a scheme to help a divorcing wife hide marital assets from her divorcing husband. The divorcing wife in this alleged scheme was chiropractor Denise M. Carradine of Boardman, Ohio. Mr. Roland had represented Ms. Carradine in a divorce action commenced by Ms. Carradine’s then husband, Eric Martin.

As part of the alleged scheme to hide marital assets from Mr. Martin, Ms. Carradine reportedly supplied Mr. Roland with $854,261.10. The Ohio Supreme Court Decision disbarring Mr. Roland said Ms. Carradine had “structured” payments of this money to Mr. Roland “to avoid detection under banking laws.” Mr. Roland deposited the $854,261.10 into two client trust accounts. Mr. Roland then wire transferred $814,105.96 of the $854,261.10, into a bank account at Maerki Baumann & Co. in Zürich, Switzerland.

This Swiss bank account may have been a nominee bank account, (i.e. an account titled in the name of an intermediary), beneficially owned by Ms. Carradine. Some of the money from the Swiss bank account was also transferred into a bank account located in the Turks & Caicos Islands. Based upon the foregoing, Mr. Roland’s & Ms. Carradine’s alleged scheme to conceal marital assets might have involved: structuring; a gatekeeper/lawyer; nominee bank accounts; multiple jurisdictions; & offshore banks.

Illustration: ollo/Shutterstock.com

Copyright 2016 Fred L. Abrams

Zinnel Post
This 32nd Asset Search Blog post in my “Divorce & Hidden Money” series, explains how Steven Zinnel is thought to have hidden assets during his divorce & personal bankruptcy.

Plastic surgeon Michael D. Brandner & business owner Goderick Augustus Benjamin were accused of committing federal crimes & hiding assets from their wives. Like Dr. Brandner & Mr. Benjamin, Steven Zinnel was a divorcing husband suspected of concealing assets from his wife. According to prosecutors in USA v. Zinnel, Steven Zinnel had hidden assets from his wife Michelle Zinnel; & Steven Zinnel had fraudulently concealed assets during his personal bankruptcy.

Mr. Zinnel reportedly filed his personal bankruptcy to hamper the Family Court’s distribution of property to Michelle Zinnel, during the couple’s divorce. Mr. Zinnel’s e-mail to Michelle Zinnel dated July 15, 2001, seemed to give a glimpse into Mr. Zinnel’s bankruptcy scheme. The e-mail said that as a consequence of Mr. Zinnel’s bankruptcy, Mr. Zinnel expected “all the money to be gone in less than two months” & that “[t]he property settlement will then be very easy.

During his personal bankruptcy, Mr. Zinnel however, failed to disclose valuable assets which were apparently hidden from Michelle Zinnel & others. Prosecutors ultimately charged Mr. Zinnel with money laundering & bankruptcy fraud. At Mr. Zinnel’s superseding indictment &/or other court filings, prosecutors essentially claimed that Mr. Zinnel concealed assets four ways, through:

  1. lawyers;
  2. shell companies;
  3. a business associate who Mr. Zinnel employed as his nominee/intermediary;
  4. nominee bank account[s] (i.e. accounts maintained in the name of others).

On March 4, 2014 Mr. Zinnel was sentenced to 17 years & 8 months of prison for bankruptcy fraud & money laundering. This case is perhaps best summarized by these two sentences prosecutors wrote at a June 14, 2013 court filing:

The Government’s theory of this case is that Defendant Zinnel wanted to commit bankruptcy fraud and money laundering for reasons of greed and spite. Zinnel loved money and hated his ex-wife [Michelle Zinnel]. USA v. Zinnel, Gov’t Opposition Paper filed 6/14/13, Docket No. 179, at p. 1.

Image:  Nikolai Moiseenko/Shutterstock.com

Copyright 2016 Fred L. Abrams

Trade-Based Laundering Photo

If your adversary is using a business entity to conceal assets from you, one thing to look for is trade-based money laundering. A June 2006 report by the Financial Action Task Force explains that trade-based laundering schemes can include: the over or under-invoicing of goods or services; the over or under-shipping of goods; falsely describing goods or services; or multiple invoicing.¹ You can search for assets hidden via trade-based laundering by spotting the red flags. Page 24 of the June 2006 report describes the red flags and some of them are:

  • 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).

Pages 9-20 of the June 2006 report also provide 12 case studies showing how trade-based money laundering can be used to conceal one’s assets. The August 24, 2007 plea agreement of Gene Haas might describe another case of trade-based money laundering. Mr. Haas entered this plea agreement after his arrest on June 19, 2006 for suspected tax fraud. Attachment A at the plea agreement says the Enmark Aerospace and Supermill companies had provided Mr. Haas with invoices for fictitious purchases.

According to Attachment A, Mr. Haas paid Enmark & Supermill millions of dollars pursuant to these invoices; and Mr. Haas then took business deductions for “cost of goods sold.” Attachment A also indicates that Enmark and Supermill eventually returned the millions, (less a 2% kick back fee), to Mr. Haas through Mr. Haas’ intermediary, CNC Associates, Inc. Stated differently, it seems that Enmark, Supermill and CNC Associates could have been employed as laundering links in a money laundering circuit. After Mr. Haas’ plea agreement, Mr. Haas was sentenced on November 5, 2007 to two years in prison for violating 18 U.S.C § 371. Mr. Haas additionally paid a $5 million dollar fine and over $70 million dollars in back taxes owed for 2000 and 2001.

¹ See p.4 at “Trade-Based Money Laundering,” Copyright © FATF/OECD. All rights reserved.

Image: Nomad_Soul/Shutterstock.com

Copyright 2007-2016 Fred L. Abrams

Your Search For Assets Hidden Offshore

When naming offshore havens for opening secret bank accounts, people usually mention Switzerland, the Cayman Islands, Liechtenstein, etc.  Meanwhile, bank accounts in almost any country can be put to work to hide & place assets out of reach. “Using Multiple Jurisdictions To Launder Money” discussed a suspected scheme to bribe judges in Italy.  According to prosecutors, illicit proceeds from this offshore scheme were hidden in bank accounts located in the U.S. & elsewhere. “Money Laundering, Marital Assets & Divorce” outlines another scheme which relied on cross-border elements to conceal assets. The scheme involved a divorcing spouse in the U.S. who hid undeclared revenue in a Swiss bank & then “washed” it through a bank in Germany.¹

As the above essentially suggests, tracking assets offshore can become a critically important part of your asset search. How do you search for assets hidden offshore? One way is by employing legal tools. The following article discusses the tools federal prosecutors may use to collect evidence from witnesses residing offshore.² Two of the tools the article mentions are compelled consent forms & letters rogatory.  These two tools are not just for use by prosecutors. They are sometimes used by divorcing spouses, judgment creditors & others searching for offshore bank accounts/assets hidden offshore:

Click On The Image To Read The Entire Article

¹The fact pattern supplied at “Money Laundering, Marital Assets & Divorce,” has been changed & sanitized for privacy reasons.

²“Obtaining Foreign Evidence Outside of The Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty Process,” U.S. Attorneys’ Bulletin March 2007, is supplied courtesy of the Executive Office for United States Attorneys.

Image of offshore banking & tax haven concept: ChameleonsEye/Shutterstock.com

Copyright 2016 Fred L. Abrams

Offshore Image 5:30:16
As this 31st post in the “Divorce & Hidden Money” series reveals, you may be able to employ letters rogatory to detect assets hidden offshore.

A letter rogatory is an application to a foreign tribunal. It seeks permission to serve process on or gather evidence from a foreign witness. If you are in a divorce in the United States, letters rogatory can usually help you collect evidence of offshore assets your spouse hid from you. You might use letters rogatory to search for assets which can include: bank accounts; real estate; valuable art; business entities; etc. My February 25, 2015 post mentioned the use of letters rogatory in relation to divorce/child support cases in New York.

The February 25, 2015 post discussed one ex-husband who for 30 years failed to pay spousal maintenance &/or child support to his ex-wife in New York. Since the ex-husband lived in places like Mexico, the Dominican Republic & Barbados, legal proceedings in New York did not get the ex-husband to pay his ex-wife. Had the ex-wife been able to afford it, she might have hired lawyers to seek the issuance of letters rogatory to search for the ex-husband’s offshore assets. You may similarly employ letters rogatory if you are in a divorce outside of the United States & your divorcing spouse hid assets from you in the United States.

These kinds of cases are highlighted at Part 1 & Part 2 of “Asset Searches In The U.S. For Divorces Brought Outside The U.S.”  Below is a translated copy of a letter rogatory arising out of a divorce in the Republic of Colombia at The 8th Family Court, in Barranquilla.¹ In connection with The Family Court’s distribution of community property from a marriage, the letter rogatory requests bank account/bank customer information at Bank of America in the United States.

Letter Rogatory Colomibia

¹The letter rogatory has been partly sanitized for privacy reasons.

Offshore Image With Cash: esfera/Shutterstock.com

Copyright 2016 Fred L. Abrams

Bank Deposit Image

In some situations, the transfer of large sums of cash is a red flag that assets have been hidden by money laundering. Government authorities therefore require banks to report their customers who transfer or exchange large sums of cash. For example, banks in the United States are required to report bank customers who deposit or withdraw more than $10,000 in cash. The banks fulfill this requirement by electronically filing a Currency Transaction Report.

A bank customer trying to evade the filing of a Currency Transaction Report can be prosecuted for structuring, (a.k.a “smurfing”), in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5324. Opinion blogger Radley Balko talks about some of these prosecutions at “The federal ‘structuring’ laws are smurfin’ ridiculous.” As discussed by “An Asset Search Over Corruption Proceeds,” prosecutors accused former Russian diplomat Vladimir Kuznetsov of violating structuring law(s).

At Count Two pp. 6-9 of Mr. Kuznetsov’s superseding indictment, prosecutors alleged Mr. Kuznetsov had structured deposits he made in New York City at Chase Manhattan Bank & the United Nations Federal Credit Union. The following case study also discusses structuring.¹  It analyzes how a group of criminals hid illicit drug proceeds by structuring deposits, smuggling cash & going offshore:

Image Egmont Case 06082

Image of hand with money: Africa Studio/Shutterstock.com

¹Case Study/Case Ref: 06082 Courtesy Of The Egmont Group of Financial Intelligence Units

Copyright 2016 Fred L. Abrams

This 30th post in the “Divorce & Hidden Money” series highlights a RICO lawsuit Helga Glock commenced in 2014. The lawsuit alleges Glock pistol inventor Gaston Glock initially hid assets via shell companies supplied by Charles Ewert—a resident of Luxembourg known as Panama Charly.

Moneylaundering.com’s Editor-in-Chief Kieran Beer says at his April 11th article, that the Panama Papers represent “an unparalleled look at the…abuse of shell companies, in this case those created by Panama-based law firm Mossack Fonseca.” ¹ Like Mossack Fonseca, Charles Ewert was in the business of forming shell companies. Although based in Luxembourg, Charles Ewert was reportedly called Panama Charly because of the large number of shell companies he had formed in Panama. Charles Ewert is also one of the defendants at Helga Glock’s RICO lawsuit against her ex-husband gunmaker Gaston Glock.

The Court’s docket report shows that last month Helga Glock filed her proposed Second Amended Complaint, (“the Proposed Complaint”), in the RICO lawsuit. The Proposed Complaint asserts that Charles Ewert had supplied Gaston Glock with Panamanian shell company Reofin International S.A. The Proposed Complaint seems to basically allege that Reofin & other shell companies were used as laundering links to conceal assets in a money laundering circuit. It also seems to basically claim that assets belonging to Helga Glock were supposedly hidden from her through: lawyers; sham loans; trade-based money laundering via false invoices &/or leases.

According to allegations at the Proposed Complaint, Charles Ewert, Glock, Inc. & others were members of an alleged RICO enterprise led by Gaston Glock. The Proposed Complaint says that one goal of the alleged RICO enterprise was to deprive Helga Glock of her assets. It claims that Helga Glock detected this alleged scheme in 2011, because of her divorce from Gaston Glock & her ouster from one of Gaston Glock’s companies. Helga Glock apparently filed the Proposed Complaint to search for & recover assets Gaston Glock supposedly hid during the couple’s marriage. Earlier Asset Search Blog posts discussing Helga & Gaston Glock are “Helga Glock’s Search For Gaston Glock’s Assets” & “Helga Glock Claims Gaston Glock Started Concealing His Assets.”

¹Moneylaundring.com’s Webpage, “From The Editor: Will Panama Papers Give Governments New Backbone for Transparency?” Web. Last Viewed May 4, 2016.

Photo: NSC Photography/Shutterstock.com

Copyright 2016 Fred L. Abrams