United States v. Rachmil
| Decision Date | 29 January 1921 |
| Citation | 270 F. 869 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES v. RACHMIL et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Francis G. Caffey, U.S. Atty., of New York City (George A. Connolly Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., of counsel), for the United States.
O'Gorman Battle & Vandiver, of New York City (George Gordon Battle and Isaac H. Levy, both of New York City, of counsel), for defendant Bloom.
The defendant Bloom was heretofore brought to trial, and acquitted, upon an indictment which, in one count thereof charged him and his codefendants, Rachmil, Samuelson, and Rosenblum, with having conspired to defraud the United States; another count of the indictment charged as against the persons named a conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States, to wit, an attempt willfully to defeat and evade the income tax imposed by the Act of February 24, 1919 (40 Stat. 1058). Each count of the indictment alleged certain overt acts to have been performed by one or more of the alleged conspirators.
Having successfully withstood the former prosecution, the defendants Rachmil, Samuelson, and Bloom again find themselves under indictment charged with having knowingly, willfully, and unlawfully attempted to defeat and evade certain provisions of the aforesaid taxing statute. The defendant Bloom pleads in bar, first, that he has already been subjected to a trial of the offense charged in the present indictment; and second, that all the issues of fact that would arise under a plea of not guilty to said indictment were presented upon the trial under the first indictment, and that said issues having been then adjudicated cannot again be the subject of further prosecution. Accompanying the plea in bar is a motion to quash, which, it is said, is addressed to the sense of justice and equity of the court.
The gist of the crime charged in the first indictment was, of course, the alleged conspiracy to commit the substantive offense denounced by the Act of February 24, 1919; in order, however, to make that crime cognizable in this court, an overt act done in pursuance of and to effectuate the object of the conspiracy was required to be alleged and proved. Section 37, U.S. Penal Code (Comp. St. Sec. 10201). It is impossible to tell, upon the general verdict of not guilty rendered by the jury before which Bloom was tried, whether there was a failure of proof as to the existence of the conspiracy, or the commission of the overt acts set up, or both. It is, however, none the less the fact that a conspiracy to commit an offense, and an act done in pursuance and to effectuate the object thereof, may easily, if it does not necessarily, comprehend an attempt to commit the crime as to which the conspiracy relates.
As is well known, the penal law only in rare instances denounces as a crime an attempt to do a forbidden thing; and it has undoubtedly been the practice, where more than one person has been engaged upon an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Harris
...The making of a false affidavit, without presentation thereof, does not constitute an attempt to evade the tax law. See United States v. Rachmil (D.C.) 270 F. 869, 871. The crime of attempting to defeat or evade the Revenue Law may be committed without verification of a false tax return. Em......
-
State v. Dewey
...... See 2 Freeman on Judgments (5th ed.) 1364 § 648; United States v. Oppenheimer, 242 U.S. 85, 37 S.Ct. 68, 61 L.Ed. 161, 3 A.L.R. 516; State v. Erwin, 101 ...Clavin, D.C., 272 F. 985, and United States v. Rachmil, D.C., 270 F. 869, both of which hold that an acquittal upon an indictment for conspiracy is a bar ......
-
United States v. Halbrook, 21593.
...It is interesting to note, also, that the court referred to the two cases relied upon by defendants in the case at bar (United States v. Rachmil et al., D.C., 270 F. 869, and United States v. Clavin, D.C., 272 F. 985) and stated that said cases are out of line with the vast majority of deci......
-
Estate of Stein v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, Docket Nos. 47465
...1) 216 F.2d 693; De Hardit v. United States, (C.A. 4) 224 F.2d 673; John B. Arnold, 14 B.T.A. 954; United States v. Rachmil, (S.D., N.Y.) 270 F. 869. This principle is so obvious in the cited cases that it would serve little purpose to discuss them. [25 T.C. 967] Petitioners, however, conte......