United States v. Adams
| Decision Date | 02 September 2014 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:12CR00044 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia |
| Parties | UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. WILLIAM "BILL" F. ADAMS, JR., ET AL., Defendants. |
Randy Ramseyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for United States; Michael J. Del Giudice and Timothy J. LaFon, Ciccarello, Del Giudice & LaFon, Charleston, West Virginia, and Wayne D. Inge, Roanoke, Virginia, for Defendant William "Bill" F. Adams, Jr.; Michael A. Bragg, Abingdon, Virginia, for Defendant John B. Ward.
In this criminal case, I consider and deny post-verdict motions by the defendants.
William "Bill" F. Adams and John B. Ward were convicted by a jury in a joint trial in this court of conspiring to commit tax fraud and illegal structuring of currency transactions. They were also convicted of multiple counts of structuring.
The government contended that these crimes arose out of a so-called "ten-percent check cashing scheme." The scheme, the purpose of which was to avoid payment of taxes, involved coal mining companies and mine supply businesses located in Virginia and West Virginia. Over a period of time, the governmentalleged, crooked mine suppliers provided false invoices to certain mining companies. A mining company involved in the scheme would pay the invoice to the mine supply company by check and in return the supply company would pay ninety percent of the amount of the check in cash to the mining company, keeping ten percent as its fee. The equipment and supplies on the fraudulent invoices sometimes reflected items that the mining company already owned so that the invoices might appear legitimate if audited. The invoices also sometimes reflected a mix of actual equipment and supplies provided as well as purchased cash.
This scheme allowed the mining companies and their owners to avoid payment of income tax on the cash received as well as receive fictitious business tax deductions. In addition, some of the mining companies used the cash to pay employees "off the books," so that the companies did not pay the required employment taxes and the employees in turn escaped reporting of their wages to the IRS.
The government alleged that the chief cash providers in this scheme were J.D. and C.E. McReynolds, the owners of JD&C Mine Supply Inc., E&J Mine Supply Inc., and L&A Trucking, and Kermit Wiley, the owner of United Hydraulics, Inc. The government contended that these individuals structured cash out of financial institutions by making multiple withdrawals of $10,000 or less inorder to obtain sufficient cash to support the scheme while evading the currency transaction reporting requirements.
Numerous individuals were involved in this scheme, and many were charged. Most pleaded guilty and several testified for the government at trial. Four defendants, all coal operators, pleaded not guilty and were tried together. Adams and Ward were convicted, but two codefendants, David Cline and his son Joshua Cline, were acquitted by the jury.
Count One of the Third Superseding Indictment charged the defendants with the following conspiracy:
All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.
(Third Superseding Indictment 1, 7, ECF No. 243.) Additionally, the defendants were charged with numerous counts of structuring. These counts each charged that the defendants "willfully caused and aided, abetted, induced and procured the structuring and attempted structuring of currency transactions with one or moredomestic financial institutions in the Western District of Virginia and elsewhere for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements prescribed by law," in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2 and 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3). (Id. at 8-61.) Each count listed certain dates on which the cash providers withdrew money from financial institutions in such a way as to evade reporting requirements, and the dates on which the defendants wrote checks to the cash providers in amounts that corresponded to the cash withdrawals. These counts also charged that the structuring activity was part of a pattern of illegal activity involving more than $100,000 in a twelve-month period, conduct leading to an enhanced statutory penalty. See 31 U.S.C. § 5324(d)(2).
The trial lasted twelve days, from January 21, 2014, to February 5, 2014. The government called twenty-one witnesses. It presented testimony from bookkeepers, cash providers, and other coal mine operators who testified to the defendants' participation in the conspiracy and the structuring. The government also presented financial records related to the structuring charges that were verified by the records' custodians. Defendants Adams, David Cline, and Joshua Cline also called witnesses in their defense. David Cline was the only defendant who testified.
David Cline and Joshua Cline were acquitted by the jury of all charges against them. The jury found Adams guilty of the conspiracy charged in CountOne, and on thirteen counts of structuring that were part of a pattern of illegal activity involving more than $100,000 in a twelve-month period (Counts Thirty-Two, Thirty-Three, Thirty-Five, Thirty-Six, Forty, Forty-One, Forty-Two, Forty-Three, Forty-Four, Forty-Five, Forty-Six, Forty-Seven, and Forty-Eight). The jury found Adams not guilty of two structuring counts (Counts Thirty-Seven, Thirty-Nine).
The jury found Ward guilty of the conspiracy charged in Count One, on twenty-three counts of structuring that were part of a pattern of illegal activity involving more than $100,000 in a twelve-month period (Counts Six, Eight, Ten, Twelve, Fourteen, Fifteen, Sixteen, Seventeen, Nineteen, Twenty-One, Thirty-Two, Thirty-Three, Thirty-Five, Thirty-Six, Forty, Forty-One, Forty-Two, Forty-Three, Forty-Four, Forty-Five, Forty-Six, Forty-Seven, and Forty-Eight), and on one count of structuring that was not a part of a pattern of illegal activity involving more than $100,000 in a twelve-month period (Count Four). The jury found Ward not guilty of seven structuring counts (Counts Three, Seven, Thirteen, Eighteen, Twenty-Two, Thirty-Seven, and Thirty-Nine).
Adams and Ward have filed timely motions for judgment of acquittal pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29(c), and for new trials pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(a).
In support of his Motion for Acquittal and Motion for a New Trial (ECF Nos. 430 and 431), Adams claims that the government did not prove a single conspiracy, but actually showed three separate conspiracies: (1) a check cashing conspiracy run by J.D. McReynolds, (2) a check cashing conspiracy run by Kermit Wiley, and (3) a conspiracy to pay cash wages. (Mem. Supp. 3, ECF No. 432.) He argues that the government did not prove a connection between J.D. McReynolds and Kermit Wiley. (Id. at 12.) Adams also contends that the government improperly argued that the jury was only required to find either conspiracy to obstruct the IRS or conspiracy to structure currency transactions. He argues that the jury was required to find both. (Id. at 8.) Next, Adams contends that there was insufficient evidence to link him to the conspiracy because J.D. and C.E. McReynolds did not testify that they had done business with him. (Id. at 9-10.) Adams argues that the government presented improper Rule 404(b) evidence of multiple conspiracies in an effort to show his propensity toward the crime. (Id. at 18.)
Adams also contends that the government "did not present any evidence" as to the substantive structuring counts against him. (Id. at 13.) He asserts that there was no evidence that he had authorized the checks listed in the counts against him, in light of the fact that they had been signed by his signature stamp. (Id. at 14.) He contends that the court erred in limiting the testimony of his forensicaccountant, who could have testified that the checks that Adams allegedly had written to the cash providers were less than the total amount of cash that the government alleged he had received. (Id. at 19.) Finally, he argues that the government presented its case through leading questions, which prejudiced him. (Id. at 22.)
John Ward has filed a Motion for Judgment of Acquittal, or, in the Alternative, New Trial. (ECF No. 433.) Ward argues that the government's evidence showed the existence of multiple conspiracies, not a single conspiracy. (Br. Supp. 4, ECF No. 434.) He contends that the government did not prove his participation in the conspiracy because no evidence was presented that his company — Warcreek Mining — had filed erroneous tax returns, or that he had attempted to hide his handwritten markings on the books denoting cash payments to be made to his employees. (Id. at 5.) He also argues that there was no evidence that he had known about false invoices in his company's records, because his bookkeepers acted independently without his input or direction. (Id. at 11.) With regard to his role at W.A. Mining, Adams' company, Ward asserts that the evidence at best showed that he had picked up some of the cash, which he claims did not of itself indicate that he had been aware of the false invoices being supplied to W.A. Mining. (Id. at 5.)
With regard to the structuring counts, Ward argues that the government did not present evidence that he had known that J.D. McReynolds was structuring cash withdrawals, or that he had been...
To continue reading
Request your trial