United States v. Klein

Decision Date03 September 1957
Docket NumberDocket 23905.,No. 374,374
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Hyman Harvey KLEIN, Maurice Haas, and Morris O. Alprin, Defendants-Appellants.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Theodore Kiendl, of Davis, Polk, Wardwell, Sunderland & Kiendl, New York City (William R. Meagher, John A. Reed, and Philip C. Potter, Jr., of Davis, Polk, Wardwell, Sunderland & Kiendl, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellant Hyman Harvey Klein.

Louis Bender, New York City, for defendant-appellant Maurice Haas.

F. Joseph Donohue and Abraham S. Goldstein, Washington, D. C. (Michael Kaminsky, New York City, and Harold Ungar, Washington, D. C., on the brief), for defendant-appellant Morris O. Alprin.

Maurice N. Nessen and Joseph DeFranco, Asst. U. S. Attys., S. D. N. Y., New York City (Paul W. Williams, U. S. Atty., New York City, on the brief), for appellee.

Before CLARK, Chief Judge, and SWAN and POPE, Circuit Judges.

CLARK, Chief Judge.

This appeal presents issues of income tax evasion arising out of extensive and involved transactions disclosed to a jury in a trial of almost five months' duration. The prosecution was difficult because the case arose out of concealed business affairs of both great magnitude and unusual complexity. This is indicated by the fact that defendants had organized no less than seventeen foreign corporations to carry on their business operations and, according to the Government's claim, to hide income and evade taxes. Representing the defendants were able and resourceful counsel who succeeded in procuring directed judgments of acquittal on the charges of specific tax evasions; and the trial had to proceed in somewhat dismembered form until a verdict was reached on a single separate count charging conspiracy to obstruct the Treasury Department in its collection of the revenue. Defendants have continuously attacked this count for a variety of reasons, generally centering on the point that it is too vague and general to afford a proper basis for a felony trial and conviction. The emphasis on this point is so strong that, as will appear, this appeal largely turns upon issues of federal criminal pleading.

The count upon which conviction was had is often termed "Fifth," since it appeared as such, though in slightly different form, in the original indictment. Of the other four original counts, three charged substantive evasions of Klein's income taxes, while the fourth charged conspiracy to evade the taxes of Klein and associates. On these counts acquittal was directed by the trial court, as stated in United States v. Klein, D.C.S. D.N.Y., 139 F.Supp. 135. Earlier there had been pretrial attacks on the indictment and particularly on the Fifth Count. Though these were unsuccessful, United States v. Klein, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 124 F. Supp. 476, the Government was moved to procure a superseding indictment on September 17, 1954, of which the Second Count took the place of the original Fifth Count. Originally indicted were nine persons, including the three present appellants, three Canadian residents who were never apprehended, a seventh defendant who died before trial, and two remaining defendants named only in the first four counts and freed when these counts ended in the acquittal judgments. After those judgments were entered on June 28, 1955, the trial, which had started on April 4, 1955, proceeded on the Fifth Count (in its superseded form) until the three appellants were convicted by the jury on August 22, 1955. The judgments entered on this verdict provided for substantial penalties of imprisonment and fine, the heaviest being assessed against Klein, the principal defendant.

We shall proceed to a statement of the facts as the jury could find them in deciding for conviction.

1. The Persons Involved. The crucial Fifth Count named seven defendants and two coconspirators. H. H. Klein was the principal defendant, a United States citizen, whose alleged evasion of immense amounts of income tax due in 1944, 1945, and 1946 was the crux of the first four counts in the indictment. He made tremendous amounts of money during the period when OPA was in effect in this country by manufacturing and selling "Harwood's," a brand of whiskey manufactured in Canada by himself and the three nonappearing Canadian residents — Isidor J. Klein, Albert McLennan, and George Norgan. Three lesser defendants were Morris O. Alprin, Maurice Haas, and Ellis Rosenberg, attorneys who served H. H. Klein in distributing Harwood's in this country. Rosenberg, Klein's most intimate lawyer, died before trial. Alprin, a personal friend of Klein's, gave legal advice and performed various odd chores. Haas, who is primarily an accountant, gave legal advice and did some accounting. Irving A. Koerner, named as a coconspirator, but not a defendant, in the Fifth Count, was the manager of the New York City wholesale division of R. C. Williams & Co., which imported Harwood's into the United States. Albert Roer, not named as either a coconspirator or defendant in the Fifth Count, was very active in selling Harwood's in this country and was in the same firm as Koerner at one time. William Rokoff, a coconspirator, was H. H. Klein's personal secretary and ran Klein's office in Baltimore. Harry Silver, the remaining coconspirator, played no significant part in the case. Thus the present appellants are H. H. Klein, one of the four owners of the enterprise; Maurice Haas, his accountant; and Morris O. Alprin, his attorney.

2. The Background Events. Prior to the start of the conspiracy H. H. Klein and the three Canadians employed the other named persons to assist them in running an immense whiskey selling business in a fashion calculated to minimize the amount of United States income tax they would have to pay. The whiskey was manufactured in Canada by a Canadian corporation and was billed f.o.b. Canada, so that title did not pass in the United States. The Canadian manufacturing corporation did not bill the whiskey direct to R. C. Williams & Co. in this country; Agencias, a Cuban corporation controlled by Klein and the three Canadians, was inserted in the chain of title, though the whiskey itself was sent directly from Canada to the customers in the United States designated by Williams.

During the very profitable years, 1944-1946, the intercorporate manipulation and complexity were carried to a great length to obtain tax advantages. The basic theory of the prosecution's first four counts was that these corporations were sham and that Klein and his three associates were actually doing business as joint venturers. While the judge below eventually held that the corporations were bona fide, there was considerable doubt in the minds of Klein and his friends at the time they were selling Harwood's that the corporate entities would be respected by the United States Treasury and several legal opinions were solicited. Having thus learned that the Treasury would be more inclined to ignore the Cuban corporation device if it discovered that the corporate officers were directing operations from the United States, Klein and his associates took steps to hide such facts. There was a second secret contract between Agencias and R. C. Williams & Co., the importer; and this gave Klein considerable control over the details of merchandising in this country. Alprin, Haas, Rosenberg, and Roer all performed services for the Harwood's syndicate in the United States; and Rokoff conducted much of the bookkeeping and billing of Agencias from Baltimore, while making it appear that the corporation operated out of Cuba. Contemplating an impending end to price controls, which were a large factor in the success of the enterprise, Klein and his companions introduced several new nonoperating foreign corporations into the intercorporate structure, arranging the bookkeeping so as to draw off the enterprise's profits into them. Among them was Tivoli Trading Co., S. A.

3. The Conspiracy before September 18, 1951. Since the indictment upon which the appellants were prosecuted was filed September 17, 1954, the three-year statute of limitations here applicable, 18 U.S.C. § 3282, requires proof of a conspiracy continuing after September 17, 1951. The indictment charged that the conspiracy began in June 1946, and we turn now to the events between June 1946 and September 1951. Klein, Alprin, Roer, Koerner, and Rosenberg decided to form a new batch of Cuban corporations which could be used as personal pocketbooks by key Harwood's employees who were to receive large sums upon the imminent breakup of the syndicate. The corporations were eventually formed, Rosenberg receiving one, and Koerner, Roer, and Alprin four apiece. Later Roer transferred one of his — LaRibera — to Haas.

On February 24, 1947, Klein, who then controlled Tivoli Trading Co., caused Tivoli to pay $35,000 to Haas' LaRibera corporation by check. On March 27, 1947, Klein caused Tivoli to purchase three Canadian bank drafts in large amounts. Two were identical: made out in favor of one of Alprin's Cuban corporations in the amount of $264,162.70 apiece. A third was in favor of one of Roer's corporations in the sum of $272,423.62. Klein instructed Haas to deposit his $35,000 check in a Canadian bank, and not to use it until instructed. He delivered Roer's draft to him with similar instructions about nonuse. Klein gave Alprin the two identical drafts, explaining that one was for him and one for Koerner and that Alprin should deposit his own in a Canadian bank and hold onto Koerner's.

The recipients of the drafts had many reasons for accepting payment in that fashion, but one of them was a desire which they shared with H. H. Klein to keep from the United States Treasury information which might lead it to conclude that he and the three Canadians had erroneously reported their income for the years 1944-1947. Their fear was this: If...

To continue reading

Request your trial
148 cases
  • U.S. v. Kassouf
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • 21 May 1998
    ...and collection of income." See, e.g., United States v. Sturman, 951 F.2d 1466, 1472 (6th Cir.1991); see also United States v. Klein, 247 F.2d 908, 915 (2d Cir.1957). The government further argues that such prosecutions often involve efforts to prevent the IRS from discovering income and tax......
  • United States v. Standard Drywall Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • 28 August 1985
    ...income would not be sufficient to show the crime charged of defrauding the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371," United States v. Klein, 247 F.2d 908, 916 (2d Cir.1957), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 924, 78 S.Ct. 365, 2 L.Ed.2d 354 (1958), and conclude that count 1 is legally insufficient. Cf. Un......
  • US v. Alexander
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota
    • 24 January 1990
    ...control, management and operation of, and sources of funds used to acquire and expand Alexander's businesses. The charge is a so-called Klein conspiracy, in which the alleged objective is to defraud the United States by obstructing the IRS in its duties of identifying and collecting taxable......
  • State v. Roller
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)
    • 9 March 1959
    ...and oppression incident to multiple prosecutions or furnish any just basis for the plea of double jeopardy. See United States v. Klein, 247 F.2d 908 (2 Cir.1957); United States v. Nickerson, 211 F.2d 909 (7 Cir.1954); Barsock v. United States, 177 F.2d 141 (9 Cir.1949); People v. Dreyer, 71......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
13 books & journal articles
  • Tax violations.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 45 No. 2, March 2008
    • 22 March 2008
    ...30 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182, 188 (1923)). (287.) See United States v. Klein, 247 F.2d 908, 919-21 (2d Cir. 1957) (upholding conviction of conspiracy to defraud United States based on obstruction of collection of income taxes). In ......
  • Tax violations.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 42 No. 2, March 2005
    • 22 March 2005
    ...For a more detailed discussion of [section] 371, see the FED. CRIM. CONSPIRACY article in this issue. (273.) See United States v. Klein, 247 F.2d 908, 919-921 (2d Cir. 1957) (upholding conviction of conspiracy to defraud United States based on obstruction of collection of income taxes). In ......
  • Tax violations.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 43 No. 2, March 2006
    • 22 March 2006
    ...30 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182, 188 (1923)). (275.) See United States v. Klein, 247 F.2d 908, 919-21 (2d Cir. 1957) (upholding conviction of conspiracy to defraud United States based on obstruction of collection of income taxes). In ......
  • Tax violations.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 44 No. 2, March 2007
    • 22 March 2007
    ...30 F.3d 1127, 1131 (9th Cir. 1994) (quoting Hammerschmidt v. United States, 265 U.S. 182, 188 (1923)). (280.) See United States v. Klein, 247 F.2d 908, 919-21 (2d Cir. 1957) (upholding conviction of conspiracy to defraud United States based on obstruction of collection of income taxes). In ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT