Back to Back Loan Image

Money Laundering, Marital Assets & Divorce was my first Asset Search Blog post highlighting back-to-back loans (i.e. a fully collateralized loan in which the borrower and the lender are one and the same). That post mentioned a divorcing husband who hid millions from his wife and the IRS, by claiming he was indebted because of an arm’s length business loan. The husband’s claim about owing money to an arm’s length lender was false, as the loan was back-to-back. In other words, the husband hid millions by secretly arranging to be both the borrower and lender of the loan; and by pretending to be in debt.

Federal prosecutors similarly discussed back–to-back loans in their tax fraud case against Los Angeles, California businessman Masud Sarshar. According to prosecutors, Mr. Sarshar hid tens of millions of dollars from the IRS by using two back-to-back loans and offshore bank accounts in Israel and Hong Kong. Mr. Sarshar supposedly maintained the offshore bank accounts in the names of intermediaries (i.e. nominees). Prosecutors also said an Israeli banker delivered offshore bank account statements to Mr. Sarshar by smuggling them into the U.S. on a USB drive hidden in a necklace.

To avoid being flagged as an American by the offshore banks, Mr. Sarshar is believed to have used Israeli and Iranian passports to open his offshore accounts. When Mr. Sarshar mentioned his offshore accounts during conversations with his Israeli bankers, Mr. Sarshar also reportedly spoke in code. On 3/13/17 Mr. Sarshar was sentenced to 24 months in prison for conspiring to defraud the U.S. and for seeking to impair/impede administration of internal revenue laws. Mr. Sarshar’s 8/1/16 plea agreement can be read here.

Image: Ionut Catalin Parvu/Shutterstock.com

Copyright 2017 Fred L. Abrams

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

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

Panama Papers 4 18 16 PostLast Wednesday, prosecutors in Panama seized dozens of computer servers belonging to the Panama Papers law firm, Mossack Fonseca. The prosecutors might be investigating whether Mossack Fonseca violated money laundering laws when it supposedly helped clients hide assets offshore. A U.S. State Department report published last month analyzed how money is laundered in Panama. The report said:

Money is laundered via bulk cash and trade by exploiting vulnerabilities at the airport, using commercial cover and free trade zones (FTZs), and exploiting the lack of regulatory monitoring in many sectors of the economy. The protection of client secrecy is often stronger than authorities’ ability to pierce the corporate veil to pursue an investigation. (U.S. Department of State International Narcotics Control Strategy Report for Panama, March 2016)

Money can also be laundered in Panama by putting shell companies to work, the same way shell companies are used to launder money in other parts of the world. Assets may be secretly transferred to a shell company &/or a shell company may be used to open a secret offshore bank account. In these situations, the shell companies may act as laundering links which wash assets in a money laundering circuit.

Mossack Fonseca was apparently in the business of establishing shell companies. Businesses that establish shell companies are usually called “nominee incorporation services,” as mentioned by the November 9, 2006 advisory from U.S. Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. The advisory essentially reveals that shell companies & nominee incorporation services can be a money laundering risk. The webpages of Panama Offshore Worldwide demonstrate the way one nominee incorporation service works.

At “Anonymous Panama Corporation” &/or “Panama Bank Secrecy,” Panama Offshore Worldwide seems to describe how you can open a secret offshore bank account by titling the account in the name of a Panamanian shell company. Panama Offshore Worldwide indicates that if you want additional anonymity, you should staff your Panama corporation with nominee directors (i.e. stand-ins/intermediaries):

We provide nominee directors for the corporation, so your name is not actually registered in the government’s documents and therefore cannot be traced back to you.  The corporation is controlled with shares, which are registered by date at a notary and not accessible online like the directors of a corporation. (Panama Offshore Worldwide’s “Panama Bank Secrecy” Webpage. Web. April 16, 2016.)

Image: leolintang/Shutterstock.com

Copyright Fred L. Abrams 2016

Image For Article About Panama Papers

2008 was the first time I wrote an article mentioning hiding assets via a lawyer in Panama. The article was called “Bearer Shares & An Asset Search.” Although the facts at the article were sanitized & changed for privacy reasons, it described a divorcing husband in the U.S hiding assets from both his wife & the I.R.S. through: a Panamanian lawyer, bearer shares, a shell company & other offshore elements.

Meanwhile, there have been many articles this week discussing the Mossack Fonseca Law Firm headquartered in Panama City, Panama. These articles arise out of the investigation of Mossack Fonseca which is detailed at the “Panama Papers” website published by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. Among other things, the website has a page of graphs, with one graph called “The hunt for bearer shares.” This particular graph seems to suggest that Mossack Fonseca employed bearer shares to help clients hide assets offshore.

At its own website, Mossack Fonseca says they are “Offshore Specialists since 1977.”  In this role, Mossack Fonseca is thought to have helped a large number of law-abiding clients transfer assets offshore for legitimate purposes. Mossack Fonseca could however, have also helped a large number of criminals seeking to conceal illicit assets. These criminals might have been tax cheats hiding undeclared revenue; corrupt government officials; & others seeking to conceal money by laundering it offshore.

Any criminals hiding assets through Mossack Fonseca will soon become known, since over 11 million documents at Mossack Fonseca were apparently hacked & leaked to the press. I suspect the hacked documents will show that assets were hidden offshore through elements commonly used to wash vast sums of money. Some of these elements are listed below & they should always be considered by anyone searching for valuable assets hidden from them.

Panama Papers Image: catwalker/Shutterstock.com

Copyright 2016 Fred L. Abrams

Compartments 1

How do you hamper an asset search while hiding vast sums of money across the globe? You may be able to do this by compartmentalizing your actions. Using compartmentalization to fly under the radar is nothing new. For example, terrorists in Paris compartmentalized what they did before their heinous November 13, 2015 attack. This is discussed by former FBI Special Agent Steve Cocco, at “Paris Attackers Displayed Strict OpSec, Planning and Compartmentalization.”

Ponzi schemers; high net worth divorcing spouses; money launderers; tax fraudsters & others can similarly compartmentalize their actions in schemes for hiding assets. The schemes can be as basic as parking money in a secret offshore bank account & directing the offshore bank to mail monthly bank account statements to an offshore post office box. By keeping the money & its monthly bank account statements offshore, they are compartmentalized & out of the spotlight. This makes it harder for domestic tax authorities; a divorcing spouse; a judgment creditor; & anyone else to detect the hidden money.

At earlier Asset Search Blog posts I wrote about the sham loan depicted by the link chart featured below.¹ I mention the loan again because it shows how strict compartmentalization can be employed to hide assets. As set forth at Money Laundering, Marital Assets & Divorce, the loan was used by a divorcing husband to launder both marital assets and undeclared revenue. Prior to the equitable distribution hearing in his divorce proceeding, the husband alleged he had a liability of $29 million owed to a prime bank in Germany because of an arm’s length business loan.

According to the husband, he was indebted to the German bank & had defaulted/failed to repay the loan. The supposed arm’s length loan was however, back-to-back , (i.e. a fully collateralized loan in which the borrower and the lender are one and the same). As a consequence of strict compartmentalization, the divorcing wife would not ordinarily be able to recognize that the divorcing husband was both the borrower and lender of the loan:

(Click On The Link Chart To Enlarge)

 

¹For privacy reasons, some of the facts at the link chart have been changed from the original legal matter.

Copyright 2007-2016 Fred L. Abrams