Former Hialeah Mayor Julio Robaina and his wife were acquitted Tuesday of all charges following a federal trial on accusations they filed false tax returns and lied to federal agents.
Jurors reached the not guilty verdicts for Julio and Raiza Robaina after about six hours of deliberations.Prosecutors claimed the couple failed to report about $2 million in income between 2005 and 2010. Some of it was cash payments on high-interest personal loans they made to friends and associates, including a convicted Ponzi schemer.Testifying for the couple, Raiza Robaina blamed many of the problems on mistakes by the couple's accountant. She insisted they did not submit false tax returns or lie to investigators, and their lawyer said the federal case rested heavily on testimony of the jewelry investment Ponzi scheme operator, Luis Felipe Perez.It should have been handled through an Internal Revenue Service audit rather than a criminal indictment, defense attorney David Garvin said in closing arguments."Each and every one of these issues should have been in the civil audit that never occurred," he said.
The SDFLA Blog is dedicated to providing news and notes regarding federal practice in the Southern District of Florida. The New Times calls the blog "the definitive source on South Florida's federal court system." All tips on court happenings are welcome and will remain anonymous. Please email David Markus at dmarkus@markuslaw.com
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
Not Guilty across the board for former Hialeah Mayor Julio Robaina and wife on tax charges
Wow, a big not guilty today before Judge Ungaro on a lengthy tax trial. From the AP:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Jay Weaver is the Karl Rove of local reporters - his "reporting " is on the wrong side of every issue .
Of the 1.1 million robaina mysteriously received and failed to disclose, the federal govt should borrow $14.99 at 36% yearly interest, payable in cash and checks, and the feds should invest the money into buying the lied to federal agent an audio recorder for the next time a ballsy defendant wishes to challenge their version of the facts.
Huge win - I admit I thought there was no way it was being pulled off. Huge slap in face to agents and AUSAs who do not record interviews. Love that a jury finds that a defense lawyer is more believable than government hacks.
A small word of advice from a local garbageman to AUSA Attorney Wifredo Ferrer- As a district policy you should implement that no agent will be allowed to conduct unrecorded interviews- the risks are too high. As it now stands, you have two former defendants being found NG not because they were innocent but because your office couldn't prove the case, you also have a sitting mayor having fessed up to crimes and seemingly getting away with it, and you must now have your office not object to the reduction of time to a convicted hustler. We the people deserve better than this. In this age of technology, your office, your agents, your investigation cannot pretend to conduct its work without audio/video recordings. It is just not credible to a jury any longer. Everything is now recorded in some way. You cannot put the people, the defendants, the jury, the judicial system, our tax dollars, into trials without the proper evidence in place. We deserve better than this!
Garbageman:
Under our criminal justice system, if the government seeks to deprive an individual of his liberty of life, the government must prove the individual guilty beyond and to the exclusion of all reasonable doubt. Nobody has to prove his innocenc.
garbageman stumbles on something. the age of trusting government agents is OVER. if agents want to rely on confessions or interviews, if they are not taped, don't bother. either get with the times or prosecute red light runners. embarassing day for the US attys office and for law enforcement.
The government knows better. They get more convictions by NOT recording the encounter. That way, the agents can lie or spin the facts to suit their needs. It just didn't work in this case, but it does work in majority of cases.
But if FBI agents were forced to record defendants' statements, then they would have to conform their 302s with what the defendant actually said. Think how many convictions they would lose then!
Its called working the odds. If less than 10% of all investigations end up in a trial and maybe 1% of those cases result in an acquittal because of a faiure to record interrogations what is the incentive to do it. The ones that I have seen are usually pretty embarassing to the cops even if they are not doing anything coercive.
I am still looking for the US Attorney's Office Press Release on the acquittal? I just can't find it anywhere? Can anyone help?
Post a Comment