26 U.S.C. § 7201 defines what is tax evasion.  It states in relevant part that any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $100,000 ($500,000 in the case of a corporation), or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.

Federal prosecutors might also add additional charges beyond tax evasion. Those charges could include conspiracy charges, under 18 U.S.C. § 371, or tax fraud under 26 U.S.C. § 7206.  The United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) recently released its Tax Fraud Report for fiscal year 2023. It states that off the 64,124 cases reported to the Commission in fiscal year 2023, 363 involved tax fraud (down 27% since FY 2019).  It is unclear if this downward trend will continue.

Recently, a man in New Jersey plead guilty to tax evasion. According to the Department of Justice, “for tax years 2015 and 2016, Matthew Tucci, of West Long Branch, NJ, filed tax returns that stated he owed more than $2 million in taxes for both years. Despite admitting that he owed those taxes, Tucci did not fully pay them when they were due. Instead, Tucci purchased real estate and engaged in a series of transactions designed to conceal his interest in those properties.

In 2017, the IRS sent notices to Tucci that he owed taxes, interest, and penalties for 2015 and 2016. After receiving these notices, Tucci transferred multiple properties to an entity owned by another individual, but he continued to exert control over at least two of them. Of the two properties Tucci continued to control, he sold one and refinanced the other. Tucci used the proceeds from these transactions to pay his personal expenses rather than his tax debts. In 2019, Tucci submitted documents to the IRS that falsely claimed that he had no connection to the entity that owned the 12 properties.

He faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison as well as a period of supervised release, restitution, and monetary penalties. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.”

In another case, a Florida businessman was sentenced to prison for tax evasion.  According to the  Department of Justice, “David Albert Fletcher, of Deltona, Florida owned and operated furniture liquidations businesses, including Century Liquidators. For tax years 2004 through 2013, Fletcher did not timely file his federal income tax returns or pay the taxes he owed. After an audit, the IRS assessed a total of $1.7 million in taxes, interest, and penalties against him.

To evade collection of these taxes, Fletcher concealed his income and assets from the IRS. For example, Fletcher used nominees to hide his purchases of luxury vehicles, including Rolls Royces. Fletcher also filed false income tax returns that understated his income by several million dollars, and when an IRS special agent interviewed him, Fletcher falsely represented the amount of income he earned.

In addition to his prison sentence, U.S. District Judge Wendy Berger for the Middle District of Florida ordered Fletcher to serve three years of supervised release and to pay approximately $7,112,689 in restitution to the United States.”

Recently, Meg Strickler was able to ensure that no tax evasion charges were filed against her client.  Contact us if you think you might be facing tax evasion or tax fraud charges.  We are here to help.

The indictment also charges Ranjit Gupta and Rupesh Agarwal, former executives of a renewable-energy company with securities that had traded on the New York Stock Exchange, and Cyril Cabanes, Saurabh Agarwal and Deepak Malhotra, former employees of a Canadian institutional investor, with conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in connection with a bribery scheme also perpetrated by Gautam S. Adani, Sagar R. Adani and Vneet S. Jaain, involving one of the world’s largest solar energy projects.

The indictment alleges that more than $250 Million in bribes were promised to secure solar enery contracts worth 2 billion dollars over two decades.

The SEC also unveiled a complaint charging Gautam Adani and Sagar Adani, executives of Adani Green Energy Ltd., and Cyril Cabanes, an executive of Azure Power Global Ltd., for conduct arising out of the same massive bribery scheme discussed in the EDNY. complaint. The SEC also alleges that the bribery scheme was orchestrated to enable the two renewable energy companies to capitalize on a multi-billion-dollar solar energy project that the companies had been awarded by the Indian government. During the alleged scheme, Adani Green raised more than $175 million from U.S. investors and Azure Power’s stock was traded on the New York Stock Exchange.

The indictment alleges, among other things:

1. There was a FBI raid in March 2023.   Gautam Adani failed to inform SEBI and the Indian stock exchange of this FBI raid and the DOJ investigation, which he was required to do. But he also thereafter lied when he denied that either had happened.
2. False statements in the annual reports. Guatam Adani emailed himself photographs of the search warrant of his nephew in March 2023.  He will be unable to say he was not aware of being investigation at that time.
3. False statements to US investors
4. When the search was executed on the nephew, Sagar Adani, electronic devices were seized.  This will be a treasure trove of data for the government to use in their prosecution.  The government cites “bribe notes” that Sagar kept on his phone to track specific details of bribes offered and promised to government officials.  It may very well be possible as this case proceeds that a superceding indictment is forthcoming and both Gautam and Sagar Adani will be charged with FCPA violations as well.
5. Co-Conspirator #1 and #2 may have cooperated with the government, and thus they may help corroborate what “numero uno” and other code names meant when texting amongst themselves about the conspiracy.

The defendants do not live in the United States, and it appears only one has dual citizenship in the US.  So, should any of these defendants enter US soil, they will be immediately detained and transferred to the EDNY for processing. Both Gautam and Sagar Adani have not been arrested yet and US prosecutors would need to ask the Indian government to extradite them under the terms of the countries’ extradition treaty.  India would need to consider whether the crime he was charged with in the US is also a crime in India, whether the charges are politically motivated or whether he could face inhumane treatment in the US.  As Meg Strickler stated in The Quint, there probably will be a superceding indictment that will include more charges.

Conaway & Strickler, PC handles many bribery cases.  Contact us if you need more information or are facing such charges.

One way in which acceptance of responsibility is often demonstrated is through the defendant’s guilty plea. When a defendant pleads guilty, they are admitting to the charges against them and accept the consequences that come with those charges. This can be seen as a sign of acceptance of responsibility, as the defendant is acknowledging that they committed the crime and is willing to accept the punishment for it. Aside from pleading guilty early in the legal process, acceptance of responsibility is often demonstrated through actions such as cooperating with law enforcement or prosecutors, showing remorse for one’s actions, or taking steps towards rehabilitation and/or restitution.

During federal sentencing, a defendant who has exhibited remorse can be awarded either a two- or three-level decrease in their calculated guideline range based on USSG § 3E1.1 Acceptance of Responsibility. A majority of federal criminal defendants who plead guilty receive this sentencing decrease; but, whether it applies to a case is ultimately within the court’s discretion. Section 3E1.1 is relevant only in the federal system; however, on the state level, the general concept of accepting responsibility is still applicable at sentencing.

Any conduct or statements by the defendant that are viewed as inconsistent with genuine remorse and acceptance of responsibility can and will result in the Court ruling that the two- or three-level decrease does not apply at sentencing. Recently, “Rust” armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed was sentenced to the maximum penalty of 18 months in prison after prosecutors argued that she showed no remorse for her conduct.

In a filing to the Court, the prosecutors highlighted several jail calls where Gutierrez-Reed demonstrated her “complete and total failure to accept responsibility for her actions.” The filing states she complained about how the shooting had negatively affected her life and modeling career while never expressing genuine remorse at any time. In those recorded jail calls, the defendant made several crude comments, including calling the jurors “idiots” and “retards.”

The full filing submitted to the Court highlighting the jail calls is available here. Ultimately, after seeing the defendant’s conversations in jail, the judge agreed that Gutierrez-Reed had not accepted responsibility or exhibited genuine remorse for her conduct. Accordingly, she was sentenced to the maximum punishment per the recommendation of the prosecutors.

In deciding whether to terminate probation early, the Court will consider the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. 3553(a). The 3553(a) factors include: the nature and circumstances of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant, the need for the sentence imposed to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense, the need for the sentence imposed to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, the need for the sentence imposed to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant, the need for the sentence imposed to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment, and the need for the sentence imposed to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct.

After a defendant files a petition to have their sentence modified or terminated, it is the Judge’s decision whether probation should be terminated early. This judge will often be the same judge that imposed the original sentence. In most cases, judges deny requests; however, certain factors can strengthen a defendant’s request for early termination of probation. Overall, to successfully terminate a term of probation, the defendant must show that they have earned it through good conduct, and it would be in the interests of justice.

Judges may consider the following factors in their determination of a request to terminate or modify the term of probation:

• Whether your probation officer and the Prosecutor support your request;
• The nature and seriousness of the crime you were convicted of;
• Your criminal history and/or mental illness history;
• Whether the judge believes you are a threat to the public;
• Whether the judge believes you have been sufficiently punished;
• Whether you have completed any substance abuse treatment or rehabilitation programs;
• How your sentence compares to the federal sentencing guidelines recommended sentence;
• U. S. Sentencing Commission policy statements;
• Whether you’ve paid restitution to the victims.

Your probation officer will also ask you about how you’ve accepted responsibility for breaking the law. It is important to be aware that, in the federal system, defendants who do not clearly accept responsibility for their actions can receive harsher sentences than those who admit they broke the law, follow the rules of the Court, and continue to follow the law.

Your probation officer will also ask you about the assets you and your spouse own, any cash you have, and any debts you owe. This is because in some cases the Court is required to determine if you have the ability to pay a fine or, in some cases, restitution to victims. Restitution can be mandatory, and the financial information you provide will be used to determine monthly payments. Because of this, and because your officer will investigate and confirm the information you provide, it is very important you give truthful information about your financial situation. You may also be asked to provide documents such as, but not limited to, statements, deeds, and titles, which support the information you provide verbally, and on a variety of financial forms. Finally, you will be asked to sign a variety of release forms that will allow your officer to access government records, as well as educational, medical, psychiatric, and employment information about you.

After the PSR interview, Probation will conduct their independent investigation by reviewing all relevant records and reports from investigating agencies and conducting further interviews. All of this information, along with any corrections or objections, will be compiled in the final PSR.

After a defendant pleads guilty (or is found guilty by a jury or judge), the judge will order the probation officer to create the PSR. The assigned probation officer will conduct a PSR interview with the defendant as well as an independent investigation into the offense to gather information.

Once the initial PSR is complete, the report is sent to your attorney, the Government’s attorney, and the Court. Once disclosed, your attorney is required to review the report with you. If you see any information that is incorrect, or if you disagree with how the guidelines are computed, your attorney can file objections to the PSR. The final PSR will make any corrections and note any objections in the PSR Addendum. If there are still any unresolved objections by the day you are sentenced, the Judge will resolve any disagreements before pronouncing your final sentence.

A PSR has six major parts:

• Part A shows everything that has happened in your case so far, from your arrest to when you are scheduled to be sentenced; discusses what happened during the offense(s) of conviction; the impact of the offense on the victim(s); your acceptance of responsibility for the offense; and how the Federal Sentencing Guidelines apply to the facts of your case.
• Part B lists and describes any arrests and convictions you have had before now, and scores them to obtain your Criminal History score.
• Part C is all about you. This section discusses your personal background and family information, your financial status, and any information you or your family, friends, or employers want the judge to know about you.
• Part D lays out the guideline range computed by the probation officer and the minimum and maximum punishments required by the law. It is important to remember the probation officer does not decide your sentence. Only the judge can decide your sentence and resolve any disagreements about your case.
• Parts E and F discuss identified offense or personal history factors the judge may use to give you a lower or higher sentence than the guideline range stated in Part D of the PSR.