GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF CRIMEFRAUD EXCEPTION

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ANN BIRMINGHAM SCHEELActing United States AttorneyDistrict of Arizona

Monica B. EdelsteinTimothy J. StockwellTrial AttorneysDepartment of Justice, Tax DivisionTwo Renaissance Square40 North Central Ave. Suite 1200Phoenix, AZ [email protected]@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for PlaintiffUnited States of America

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

United States of America

Plaintiff,

v.

1. Stephen M. Kerr;

2. Michael Quiel;

3. Christopher M. Rusch,

Defendants.

11-CR-2385-JAT (DKD)

GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FORDETERMINATION OF CRIME-

FRAUD EXCEPTION

Plaintiff, United States of America, through its undersigned counsel of record,

the United States Attorney for the District of Arizona, and the Tax Division of the

Department of Justice, hereby files its Motion For Determination of the Crime-Fraud

Exception to the attorney-client privilege (“Motion”) and respectfully moves the Court

for a determination that confidential oral communications between Christopher Rusch

and Stephen Kerr and/or Michael Quiel are not protected by the attorney-client privilege

because of the applicability of the crime-fraud exception. The motion is supported by

the below memorandum of points and authorities.

Case 2:11-cr-02385-JAT Document 67 Filed 04/27/12 Page 1 of 15

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

On December 8, 2011, Stephen Kerr (“Kerr”), Michael Quiel (“Quiel”), and

Christopher Rusch (“Rusch”) were indicted for violating 18 U.S.C. §371, conspiracy

to defraud the United States. Additionally, Kerr and Quiel were each charged with two

counts of willful filing of false returns for tax years 2007 and 2008 in violation of 26

U.S.C. §7206(1) and two counts of willful failure to file Reports of Foreign Bank and

Financial Accounts (“FBARs”) in violation of 31 U.S.C. §5314, §5322(a). The

indictment remained under seal until January 30, 2012, when the defendants could be

taken into custody.

The indictment alleges that Phoenix businessmen Kerr and Quiel retained Rusch,

a tax attorney, to assist them in defrauding the IRS through the use of secret offshore

bank accounts held in the names of nominee entities. Specifically, beginning in or

before 2004, and continuing through at least December 2007, Kerr and Quiel obtained

control of shares of stock of publicly traded domestic companies in a way that

concealed their ownership of the stock. Kerr and Quiel then deposited the stock, or

proceeds from the sale of the stock, to multiple undeclared bank accounts set up with

the assistance of Rusch at UBS in Switzerland and at another Swiss bank. According

to the indictment Rusch assisted in setting up these accounts in the names of nominee

entities to further conceal Kerr’s and Quiel’s ownership. Kerr and Quiel also used the

accounts to conceal income earned from the subsequent sale of this stock from the IRS.

Rusch set up the accounts, maintained signature authority over the accounts, and

directed transactions to and from these accounts in a manner that further concealed

Kerr’s and Quiel’s ownership interest.

- 2 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Although an in camera review of evidence is appropriate to determine the

applicability of the crime-fraud exception in some circumstances, the government is1

not seeking in camera review here. The government did previously raise the crime-

fraud exception issue concerning documents produced by Rusch in a Motion for In

Camera Review filed pre-indictment. To the extent that the government will utilize

some of the documents produced by Rusch in support of its position that the crime-

fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege applies to oral communications between

the parties, some background may be helpful.

Following Rusch’s production of documents pursuant to a grand jury subpoena,

counsel for Kerr and Quiel raised the issue of attorney-client privilege. Counsel for

Kerr and Quiel, however, refused to produce a privilege log or identify and return to the

government the non-privileged materials thereby requiring the government to utilize a

taint team to review the documents and narrow down the universe of arguably

privileged materials. The government moved the Court to conduct an in camera

inspection of the allegedly attorney-client privileged materials produced by Rusch to

determine, as a threshold matter, if the materials were protected by the attorney-client

privilege, and if so, to further determine that the crime-fraud exception applied. On or

about August 19, 2011, the Court (J. Martone) ruled that the subpoenas were proper and

that defendants had failed to properly assert the attorney-client privilege in the first

place. The Ninth Circuit declined to review the issue of whether the defendants had

properly asserted the privilege. Consequently, the Court has not addressed the

applicability of the crime-fraud exception to any communications—in document form

or otherwise—between Rusch and Kerr and/or Quiel.

See, e.g., United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 565-70 (1989); In re Grand1

Jury Subpoena 92-1(SJ), 31 F.3d 826, 829-30 (9th Cir. 1994); In re Grand JuryInvestigation, 974 F.2d 1068, 1072-74 (9th Cir. 1992).

- 3 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

For the purpose outlined in Exhibit 1, filed herein under seal and ex parte, the

government now respectfully moves this Court for a determination that confidential oral

communications between Rusch and Kerr and/or Quiel in order to obtain legal advice,

as well as Rusch’s advise to Kerr and Quiel in response to such disclosures, as they

related to the allegations contained in the indictment , are not protected by the attorney-2

client privilege because of applicability of the crime-fraud exception. The government

can meet its burden, based on the evidence gathered in this case, to establish reasonable

cause to believe that Rusch’s services were utilized in furtherance of an ongoing

criminal scheme to defraud the government and evade tax.

ARGUMENT

The attorney-client privilege protects confidential disclosures made by a client

to an attorney in order to obtain legal advice as well as an attorney’s advice to the client

in response to such disclosures. In re Grand Jury Investigation (Corporation), 974 F.2d

1068, 1070 (9th Cir. 1992) (quotations and citations omitted); United States v. Ruehle,

583 F.3d 600, 607 (9th Cir. 2009). Because the attorney-client privilege impedes full

and free discovery of the truth, it is strictly construed. See United States v. Martin, 278

F.3d 988, 999 (2002) (citation omitted). Under the well-recognized crime-fraud

exception to the attorney-client privilege, “all reasons for the privilege are eviscerated

when a client consults an attorney for legal assistance to carry out a contemplated or

ongoing crime.” In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 867 F.2d 539, 541 (9th Cir. 1989).

The government is aware that Rusch was retained by Kerr and Quiel to perform2

other legal services, some of which are completely unrelated to the alleged charges. The government does not request a crime-fraud determination regarding anyconfidential communications of unrelated legal representation, which includes thesetting up of a charitable foundation, a Delaware corporation, and a Cayman Islandsentity. The government also does not request a crime-fraud determination as to Rusch’sbrief legal representation of Kerr and Quiel regarding the instant criminal investigation. Finally, the government is aware that Rusch was retained by Quiel regarding an IRSaudit of an offshore account that preceded the setting up of the secret Swiss accounts. The government does not request a crime-fraud determination regarding thisrepresentation at this time, but may do so in the future.

- 4 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

This exception relates to the client’s misuse of confidentiality, and it applies without

regard to whether the attorney was aware that the client was engaged in criminal

activity. In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 87 F.3d 377, 379 (9th Cir. 1996); see United

States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 562-63 (1989) (well settled that privilege waived when

client uses attorney-client relationship to engage in future wrongdoing, as opposed to

advise about prior wrongdoing).

The government bears the burden of proving the applicability of the crime-fraud

exception. United States v. Laurins, 857 F.2d 529, 540 (9th Cir. 1988). To invoke the

crime-fraud exception, there must be a prima facie showing by the government that: (1)

Kerr and Quiel were engaged in or intending to engage in criminal or fraudulent activity

when they sought the advice of Rusch; and (2) that Rusch’s communications were used

in furtherance of the intended or continuing illegal activity. In re Grand Jury

Proceedings, 87 F.3d at 379 n.4 (citing United States v. Laurins, 857 F.2d 529, 541 (9th

Cir. 1988)); United States v. Chen, 99 F.3d 1495, 1503 (9th Cir. 1996). The standard

of proof is reasonableness. The appropriate test is whether there is reasonable cause to

believe that Rusch’s services were utilized in furtherance of an ongoing or future

criminal scheme. In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 87 F.3d at 381. Proof sufficient to

establish the elements of a crime or fraud beyond a reasonable doubt is not required.

Id. Reasonable cause is more than suspicion but less than a preponderance of the

evidence. Chen, 99 F.3d at 1499. Upon the appropriate showing by the government,

the Court can order that the attorney provide testimony and documentation that would

otherwise be privileged except for the application of the crime-fraud exception. See

e.g., In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 87 F.3d at 380; In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 867

F.2d at 540.

The evidence outlined below establishes, at a minimum, a prima facie case that

Kerr and Quiel used Rusch’s legal services in furtherance of the conspiracy to defraud

the government, conceal the receipt of taxable income, and to avoid the FBAR reporting

- 5 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

requirements. The evidence establishes an agreement to defraud between Kerr and

Quiel, in conjunction and with the assistance of Rusch, based on the elaborate steps

undertaken by the defendants to fraudulently sheltered unreported income that they

controlled in the undeclared nominee accounts, their knowledge of each others’

nominee accounts, and the transfer of funds between nominee accounts for each others’

benefit.

I. Kerr and Quiel sought Rusch’s assistance and advice to conceal their ownership

of foreign accounts and money transacted through these accounts

A. Establishing Entities/Accounts

In or about December 2006 and May 2007, Rusch assisted Kerr and Quiel in

creating several nominee corporations in Switzerland. For Kerr, Rusch assisted in the

incorporation of Red Rock Investment, AG (“Red Rock”) and “Swiss Fidelity

Investment, AG (“Swiss Fidelity”). See Exhibit 2. In October of 2007, Rusch also

created a nominee entity known as Cyril Capital, LLC, organized in St. Kitts & Nevis

on Kerr’s behalf. Id. For Quiel, Rusch assisted in the incorporation of Legacy Asset

Management, AG (“Legacy”) and Swiss International Trust Company, AG (“Swiss

International”). Id. According to documents provided by Rusch, in September 2006,

he was purportedly engaged by Kerr’s company, Corporate Communications Network,

and Quiel’s company, Lynn-Cole, to assist in the establishment of these Swiss

companies, described as “Swiss investment funds.” See Exhibit 3. Other documents3

provided by Rusch indicate his involvement in setting up secret bank accounts on behalf

of these entities. Included in the documents provided by Rusch are emails from Rusch

to Kerr and Quiel dated September 8 and 18, 2006, in which Rusch provides them legal

advice regarding the setting up of their nominee foreign entities. Id. The emails

Although the engagement letter for Lynn-Cole is signed by Quiel’s wife3

Victoria Quiel, it is clear from other documents received during the investigation,including the exhibited email correspondence, that Rusch was working on behalf ofQuiel rather than his wife.

- 6 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

establish that Rusch was retained to set up several “investment funds” or “venture

capital” firms in Switzerland. Id.

In or around January 2007, with the assistance of Rusch, Kerr and Quiel opened

new secret bank accounts at UBS in Switzerland in the names of Red Rock and Legacy,

respectively. In June 2007, Kerr and Quiel, with Rusch’s assistance, opened other

secret UBS bank accounts in the name of Swiss Fidelity and Swiss International. See

Exhibit 2. In or about November 2007, Kerr, with the assistance of Rusch, opened a

third secret UBS bank account in the name of Cyril Capital. Id. An October 24, 2006

email from Rusch indicates he obtained passports from Kerr and Quiel in order to open

the secret accounts. See Exhibit 4.

Included among the documents provided by UBS are substitute forms for IRS

Form W-8BEN for each of the above-referenced entities. The forms falsely state that

these entities, and not Kerr or Quiel, were the beneficial owners of the nominee UBS

accounts. See Exhibit 5. Also included in the documents provided by UBS, however,

were “Form A”, Verification of the Beneficial Owner’s Identity, and other related

documents indicating that Kerr and Quiel are the beneficial owners of the above-

mentioned nominee UBS accounts. See Exhibit 2. A review of account signature cards

for each of the nominee bank accounts demonstrates that Rusch was the authorized

signatory on the account and therefore was able to conduct transactions to and from the

accounts. See Exhibit 6.

Kerr and Quiel were also the beneficial owners of additional nominee Swiss

bank accounts at Pictet & Cie (“Pictet”), held in the name of their respective nominee

entities Red Rock and Legacy. See Exhibit 7. Chris Rusch retained power of attorney

over the account. Quiel’s Pictet records for Legacy reflects a transfer to and various

deposits from Kerr’s Pictet account in the name of Red Rock. The records reflect the

existence of Kerr’s own nominee Pictet account held in the name of Red Rock. Again,

Rusch is power of attorney over this account. Id.

- 7 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

B. Transactions/ Transfers Conducted by Rusch on Behalf of Kerr and Quiel

Information gathered through the UBS records and from domestic sources

indicate that the nominee Swiss accounts were funded with shares of stock and

proceeds from the sale of stock that Kerr and Quiel obtained from companies they

helped take public. The documents establish that Kerr and Quiel engaged Rusch to

conduct transactions related to the foreign accounts to further conceal their ownership

interest. UBS account statements establish that on or about December 17, 2007, Rusch

transferred $2,000,000 from his Wells Fargo Bank client trust account to Kerr’s UBS

Cyril Capital account. See Exhibit 8. The notation on the transfer indicates that the

deposit represents the proceeds from the sale of “INTL” stock—one of the businesses

Kerr and Quiel were involved in taking public. Id. A trace of these proceeds using

Rusch’s client trust account statements demonstrates that the money was first deposited

into Rusch’s account on or about November 30, 2007. See Exhibit 9. The transferor

to Rusch’s client trust account was Pershing LLC on behalf of Vision Opportunity

Master Fund, a private equity hedge fund that invested in Intelligentias stock. Id.

Similarly, it is clear from account statements that on or about February 29, 2008,

Vision Opportunity Master Fund (through another financial firm known as Jeffries &

Company) transferred $872,000 to Rusch’s client trust account, again related to its

purchase of Intelligentias stock. See Exhibit 10. Rusch then transferred a portion of

the proceeds, $670,602, to Kerr’s Cyril Capital UBS account a few weeks later. Id.

Wells Fargo account records show that on or about September 4, 2008, in two separate

transactions, Rusch transferred $1,000,000 to both Kerr’s and Quiel’s respective Pictet

accounts in the names of Red Rock and Legacy. See Exhibit 11.

Rusch’s domestic client trust account at Wells Fargo Bank was also used to

repatriate the money from Kerr’s and Quiel’s Swiss bank accounts back into the U.S.

On December 8, 2008, Rusch received a $399,980 wire transfer deposit to his client

trust account from Quiel’s Pictet account in the name of Legacy. See Exhibit 12. Two

- 8 -


lefranz

Texte surligné

lefranz

Texte surligné

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

days later, Rusch wrote a check drawn on his client trust account in the amount of

$400,000 made payable to Quiel’s investment fund, Legend Asset Opportunity Fund,

LTD. Id. On or about November 6, 2008, Rusch received a $1,000,000 wire transfer4

deposit in his client trust account from Kerr’s Pictet account in the name of Red Rock.

On November 12 and 18, 2008, he also received deposits of $949,963.13 and $3,313.19

from Kerr’s UBS Cyril Capital account. See Exhibit 13.

Rusch assisted Kerr in the purchase of a golf course in Colorado with repatriated

funds from Kerr’s undeclared Swiss bank accounts. According to account statements

from Rusch’s Wells Fargo account, shortly after the transfers to Rusch’s account in the

amounts of $1,000,000, $949,963.13 and $3,313.19 (Exhibit 13) from Kerr’s Pictet and

UBS accounts, on November 14, 2008, Rusch transferred $2,008,887 from his account

to an escrow account at the First Bank of Colorado. See Exhibit 14. Records related

to the purchase and operation of the golf course indicate that these funds represented

Kerr’s contribution toward the purchase of what is now the Colorado National Golf

Club, LLC in Erie, Colorado, for $7,850,000 (the remaining approximately $5,475,000

was financed through Mile High Bank). See Exhibit 15. Escrow records reflect that

the purchaser of the golf course was Colorado National Golf Club, LLC. The members

of the LLC are The Buffs & Bruins Irrevocable Trust (97% interest) and Worldnet

Corporate Services (3% interest). Id. The Buffs & Bruins Irrevocable Trust was

created by Kerr, who asked his daughter, Shannon Kerr, to act as trustee. Kerr acted

as the “manager” of the LLC and the LLC’s address is the same as Kerr’s company

CCN Worldwide. Worldnet is a Panamanian corporation associated with Rusch. Rusch

filed an FBAR in tax year 2009 reflecting his interest in a Panamanian bank account in

the name of Worldnet Corporate Services. Id.

The $20 difference between the two transactions is likely a wire transfer fee4

associated with the deposit from Quiel’s Pictet account.- 9 -


lefranz

Texte surligné

lefranz

Texte surligné

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

C. Failure to Report Income on Tax Returns/Failure to File Appropriate

FBARs

Neither Kerr nor Quiel reported the existence of, or any income earned from

their Swiss bank accounts on their U.S. Individual Income Tax Returns during 2007 and

2008. Neither Kerr nor Quiel disclosed the existence of these accounts, including

accounts at UBS and Pictet, on the required FBAR forms during the corresponding

years.

Kerr signed under penalty of perjury and filed a joint U.S. Individual Income

Tax Return, Form 1040, with his wife for tax year 2007, on or about April 15, 2008.

See Exhibit 16. The return does not report capital gains generated from stock sales in

Kerr’s undeclared UBS accounts and proceeds of Intelligentias stock sales sent to his

undeclared UBS accounts, as is required to be reported on Schedule D. The return also

does not report interest income and dividend income generated by the securities in

Kerr’s undeclared foreign accounts as is required to be reported on Schedule B.

Finally, the return falsely states that Kerr did not maintain an interest in, or signature

or other authority over a financial account in a foreign country, as box 7a of Schedule

B, related to the disclosure of foreign bank accounts, is checked “No.” On or about

April 15, 2009, Kerr signed under penalty of perjury and filed a joint U.S. Individual

Income Tax Return, Form 1040, with his wife for tax year 2008. See Exhibit 17.

Similar to the 2007 return, Kerr’s 2008 return falsely states that Kerr did not maintain

an interest in any foreign bank accounts and does not report capital gains or interest

income related to the stock and proceeds held in the undeclared foreign accounts. Id.

Quiel signed under penalty of perjury and filed a joint U.S. Individual Income

Tax Return, Form 1040, with his wife for tax year 2007, on or about April 15, 2008.

See Exhibit 18. The return failed to report capital gains generated from stock sales in

Quiel’s undeclared UBS accounts, and proceeds of Intelligentias stock sales sent to his

undeclared UBS accounts, as is required to be reported on Schedule D. The return also

- 10 -


lefranz

Texte surligné

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

failed to report interest income as is required to be reported on Schedule B. Finally, the

return falsely states that Quiel did not maintain an interest in, or authority over a

financial account in Switzerland. Box 7a of Schedule B is checked “Yes” on this

return, however, the only foreign bank account that is disclosed is the account Quiel

maintained in Belize. On or about April 9, 2009, Quiel signed under penalty of perjury

and filed a joint U.S. Individual Income Tax Return, Form 1040, with his wife for tax

year 2008. See Exhibit 19. Similar to the 2007 return, Quiel’s 2008 return failed to

disclose Quiel’s interest in Swiss foreign bank accounts and fails to report capital gains

generated from stock sales. Id.

Kerr also never filed an FBAR for 2007 or 2008 as required by law given his

interest in foreign bank accounts with an aggregate value of more than $10,000.

Although Quiel did file an FBAR in 2007 and 2008, that report only disclosed his

interest in a Belize account reflected on his filed tax returns. See Exhibit 20. Quiel

began filing FBARs disclosing the Belize account after an IRS audit regarding his

foreign bank accounts in 2006. Quiel failed to disclose his interest in the Swiss

accounts on the FBARs he did file.

II. Communications between Rusch and Kerr and/or Quiel were used in

furtherance of conspiracy to defraud the IRS

The defendants are charged in the indictment with conspiracy to defraud, among

other charges. In order to convict an individual of conspiring to defraud the United5

Kerr and Quiel were also charged with filing false returns in violation of5

§7206(1) of Title 26 and failing to file FBARs in violation of §5314, §5322(a) of Title31. The evidence outlined in this memorandum—including evidence with respect toestablishing the nominee accounts, transferring money to and from the accounts, andconcealing their ownership interests therein—further demonstrates a reasonableprobability that Kerr and Quiel utilized Rusch’s services to engage in these chargedcrimes. To the extent that the government does not have to show that Kerr and Quielutilized Rusch’s services to engage in the specific crimes outlined in the indictment tomeet its burden with respect to establishing the applicability of the crime-fraudexception, (see In re Grand Jury Proceedings, 87 F.3d at 381), the government has notincluded a specific analysis of these charges within this memorandum. The governmenthas instead focused its analysis to demonstrate a reasonable probability that Kerr and

- 11 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

States in violation of 18 U.S.C. §371, the government must prove beyond a reasonable

doubt that the defendants: (1) entered into an agreement; (2) to obstruct a lawful

function of the government; (3) by deceitful or dishonest means; and (4) committed at

least one overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. United States v. Caldwell, 989 F.2d

1056, 1059 (9th Cir. 1993). Of course, the government need not prove the conspiracy

charge beyond a reasonable doubt here to allow the Court to make the crime-fraud

determination it now seeks. Instead, the government can demonstrate that there is a

reasonable basis to believe that Rusch’s communications were used in furtherance of

Kerr’s and Quiel’s attempt to conspire to defraud the government.

There is substantial evidence based on the documents cited above, including for

example the email correspondence included in Exhibit 3, to establish an agreement

between Kerr and Quiel, in conjunction and with the assistance of Rusch, to engage in

a scheme to defraud the government. Additionally, the fact finder can draw the

inference that there were confidential oral communications between the parties in

furtherance of the scheme based on the evidence of the elaborate steps undertaken by

the defendants, including the establishment of the accounts, the inter-account transfers,

and repatriation of funds though Rusch’s client trust account. See United States v.

Hernandez, 876 F.2d 774, 778 (9th Cir. 1989) (noting that coordination between

defendants is strong circumstantial evidence that parties have entered into an

agreement).

Kerr and Quiel conspired to conceal unreported income and fraudulently

sheltered income in undeclared nominee Swiss bank accounts. UBS and Pictet records

establish Kerr and Quiel’s ownership and control over these accounts, their knowledge

of each others’ nominee accounts, and the transfer of funds between nominee accounts

for each others’ benefit. Rusch aided Kerr and Quiel in establishing the nominee

Quiel utilized Rusch’s services in furtherance of the conspiracy to defraud thegovernment.

- 12 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

entities that were deliberately incorporated in countries other than the U.S. in order to

create the fiction that the Swiss “account-holders” were non-U.S. taxpayers and

therefore triggered no reporting requirement by the bank. See e.g. Exhibit 5. The

scheme was an elaborate subterfuge set up with Rusch’s legal assistance and advice to

create separation between Kerr and Quiel and their lucrative offshore holdings. It is

irrelevant for crime-fraud evaluation purposes whether Rusch was aware that Kerr and

Quiel failed to report their offshore interests on their return as the case law makes plain

that the inquiry is not dependant on proof that Rusch was aware of his clients’ failure

to file accurate tax returns or the necessary FBAR forms. See In re Grand Jury

Proceedings, 87 F.3d at 379.

The Rusch documents and other evidence establish, at a minimum, that

confidential communications were exchanged between Rusch and Kerr and Quiel

regarding the setting up of the nominee entities and bank accounts. Any confidential

communications regarding the other allegations in the indictment, including the use and

maintenance of the entities and accounts, the transfer of assets to and from the various

accounts, and the subsequent purchase of assets with money from the accounts, would

also be subject to the crime-fraud exception. The government has met its burden of

establishing reasonable cause to believe that Kerr and Quiel utilized Rusch’s services

in furtherance of a scheme or fraud, thereby rendering confidential communications

between the parties regarding the allegations in the indictment exempt from a valid

claim of privilege.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the government respectfully requests that the Court

make a determination that any oral communications between Rusch and Kerr and Quiel

in furtherance of the conspiracy to defraud and other charged crimes are exempt from

the protection afforded by the attorney-client privilege. The government further

requests that the Court order that Rusch may discuss any and all matters regarding

- 13 -


lefranz

Texte surligné

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Rusch’s representation of Kerr and Quiel related to the allegations in the indictment,

including oral communications, because the crime-fraud exception overcomes any valid

claim of attorney-client privilege in this case.

DATED this 27 day of April, 2012th

Respectfully submitted,ANN BIRMINGHAM SCHEELActing United States Attorney

____/s/______________________MONICA B. EDELSTEINTIMOTHY J. STOCKWELLTrial AttorneysUnited States Department of JusticeTax Division

- 14 -


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I certify that on this date, April 27 , I electronically transmitted the attached documentth

to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF and caused a copy to be electronicallytransmitted to all CM/ECF registrants under this cause number.

______/s/_______________

Monica B. Edelstein

Trial Attorney

Department of Justice Tax Division

- 15 -


Date post:	10-Oct-2014
Category:	Documents
Upload:	francois-pilet
View:	546 times
Download:	0 times

GOVERNMENT’S MOTION FOR DETERMINATION OF CRIMEFRAUD EXCEPTION

Documents