Pasquantino v. United States

Last updated

Pasquantino v. United States, 544 U.S. 349 (2005), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a plot to defraud a foreign government of tax revenue violates the federal wire fraud statute.

Contents

Pasquantino v. United States
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued November 9, 2004
Decided April 26, 2005
Full case nameDavid B. Pasquantino, Carl J. Pasquantino, and Arthur Hilts, Petitioners v. United States
Docket no. 03-725
Citations544 U.S. 349 ( more )
Argument Oral argument
Case history
Prior
  • Convictions affirmed, 336 F.3d 321 (4th Cir. 2003)
  • Convictions reversed, 305 F.3d 291 (4th Cir. 2002)
Holding
A plot to defraud a foreign government of tax revenue violates the federal wire fraud statute.
Court membership
Chief Justice
William Rehnquist
Associate Justices
John P. Stevens  · Sandra Day O'Connor
Antonin Scalia  · Anthony Kennedy
David Souter  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Case opinions
MajorityThomas, joined by Rehnquist, Stevens, O’Connor, Kennedy
DissentGinsburg, joined by Breyer, Scalia (parts II-III), Souter (parts II-III)
Laws applied
18 U.S. Code § 1343. Fraud by wire, radio, or television

Background

Prior to 1996, Canada raised the excise tax on liquors such that Canadian excise taxes greatly exceeded comparable United States taxes. [1] [2] From 1996-2000, [3] Carl and David Pasquantino purchased large amounts of liquor over the phone from discount stores in Maryland. [1] In order to avoid paying Canadian excise tax on imported alcohol, they hired individuals to smuggle the liquor over the border by automobile. [1] [4] The Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives learned about the smuggling operation and investigated, [5] leading to the arrest of the Pasquantinos and their associates. [6]

Federal district court

The smuggling operation did not violate any federal alcohol statute or any applicable anti-smuggling statute, [5] so the Pasquantinos and one of their conspirators, Arthur Hilts, were indicted under the federal wire fraud statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1343. [1] [3] The statute prohibits using wires, radio, or television to conduct "any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises." [6] [7] The statute was implicated when the Pasquantinos ordered alcohol over the phone. [5]

Before trial, the Pasquantinos and Hilts asked the court for a dismissal, claiming that the government did not have a sufficient interest in enforcing Canadian revenue laws [8] and that the Canadian tax revenue did not constitute property under the wire fraud statute; the court denied the motion and the case went to trial. [6] The Pasquantinos were convicted by a jury and sentenced to 57 months in prison for each of six counts, to be served concurrently, and Hilts to 21 months in prison. [8]

Canada also indicted the men for tax fraud, but had not adjudicated the claim before the U.S. criminal court made its determination. [9]

Federal appeals court

The Pasquantinos and Hilts appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. [8] The Fourth Circuit initially vacated the convictions [8] in a 2-1 panel decision, deciding that the prosecutions violated the common law revenue rule. [10] According to the Restatement (Third) of Foreign Relations Law of the United States, the "revenue rule" means that “[c]ourts in the United States are not required to recognize or to enforce judgments for the collection of taxes, fines, or penalties rendered by the courts of other states.” [11] The panel reasoned that the prosecutions violated the rule because they required U.S. courts to interpret and enforce foreign revenue law. [10]

The Fourth Circuit granted a rehearing en banc, vacating the earlier ruling and reinstating the convictions [8] by a 9-2 vote. [12] According to the en banc court, the revenue rule was inapplicable to the prosecutions because the rule was intended only to bar enforcement of a foreign judgment in U.S. courts. [12]

The Fourth Circuit decision deepened a circuit split. [13] The Second Circuit had held the revenue rule inapplicable, and that prosecutions for operations to defraud foreign government are not barred by the federal wire fraud statute; the First Circuit had vacated such convictions, reasoning that the convictions were penal enforcement of foreign laws and ran afoul of underlying purposes of the common law revenue rule. [13]

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court granted a writ of certiorari, noting the split among circuit courts on the applicability of the federal wire fraud statute in cases where a scheme to defraud involves foreign tax revenue. [14] [15] [16]

Majority opinion

In a 5–4 decision, Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the court, joined by Justices Rehnquist, Stevens, O'Connor, and Kennedy. [17] The court held that prosecution for international tax fraud was possible in U.S. court under the federal wire fraud statute. [17] The majority concluded first, that the petitioner's acts fell within the literal terms of the wire fraud statute; second, that the prosecutions did not violate the common law revenue rule; and third, that no underlying purpose of the rule suggested it should apply to the prosecutions. [18]

The court applied the modern definition of the common law revenue rule, [19] which prevents "courts of one sovereign [from] enforc[ing] final tax judgments or unadjudicated tax claims of other sovereigns." [20] The court found the revenue rule to be inapplicable because U.S. officials brought the prosecution, rather than Canadian officials. [21] The court also reasoned that the revenue rule is inapplicable because Canadian tax laws were "incidental" to the enforcement of the wire fraud statute. [22]

Dissents

Justice Ginsburg wrote the dissent, [23] joined by Justice Breyer and in part by Justices Scalia and Souter. The dissent argued that the revenue rule does not allow for a prosecution that is essentially charging the violation of another country's revenue laws, and that the majority wrongly gives the federal wire fraud statute extraterritorial effect. [24]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">False Claims Act</span> United States federal law

The False Claims Act (FCA) is an American federal law that imposes liability on persons and companies who defraud governmental programs. It is the federal government's primary litigation tool in combating fraud against the government. The law includes a qui tam provision that allows people who are not affiliated with the government, called "relators" under the law, to file actions on behalf of the government. This is informally called "whistleblowing", especially when the relator is employed by the organization accused in the suit. Persons filing actions under the Act stand to receive a portion of any recovered damages.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Computer Fraud and Abuse Act</span> 1986 United States cybersecurity law

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986 (CFAA) is a United States cybersecurity bill that was enacted in 1986 as an amendment to existing computer fraud law, which had been included in the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984. Prior to computer-specific criminal laws, computer crimes were prosecuted as mail and wire fraud, but the applying law was often insufficient.

Tax noncompliance is a range of activities that are unfavorable to a government's tax system. This may include tax avoidance, which is tax reduction by legal means, and tax evasion which is the criminal non-payment of tax liabilities. The use of the term "noncompliance" is used differently by different authors. Its most general use describes non-compliant behaviors with respect to different institutional rules resulting in what Edgar L. Feige calls unobserved economies. Non-compliance with fiscal rules of taxation gives rise to unreported income and a tax gap that Feige estimates to be in the neighborhood of $500 billion annually for the United States.

Mail fraud and wire fraud are terms used in the United States to describe the use of a physical or electronic mail system to defraud another, and are U.S. federal crimes. Jurisdiction is claimed by the federal government if the illegal activity crosses interstate or international borders.

The U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey is the chief federal law enforcement officer in New Jersey. On December 16, 2021, Philip R. Sellinger was sworn in as U.S. Attorney. The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey has jurisdiction over all cases prosecuted by the U.S. attorney.

A tax protester, in the United States, is a person who denies that he or she owes a tax based on the belief that the Constitution of the United States, statutes, or regulations do not empower the government to impose, assess or collect the tax. The tax protester may have no dispute with how the government spends its revenue. This differentiates a tax protester from a tax resister, who seeks to avoid paying a tax because the tax is being used for purposes with which the resister takes issue.

<i>America: Freedom to Fascism</i> 2006 American film

America: Freedom to Fascism is a 2006 American film by filmmaker and activist Aaron Russo, covering a variety of subjects that Russo contends are detrimental to Americans. Topics include the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the income tax, Federal Reserve System, national ID cards, human-implanted RFID tags, Diebold electronic voting machines, globalization, Big Brother, taser weapons abuse, and the use of terrorism by the government as a means to diminish the citizens' rights.

Tax protesters in the United States have advanced a number of arguments asserting that the assessment and collection of the federal income tax violates statutes enacted by the United States Congress and signed into law by the President. Such arguments generally claim that certain statutes fail to create a duty to pay taxes, that such statutes do not impose the income tax on wages or other types of income claimed by the tax protesters, or that provisions within a given statute exempt the tax protesters from a duty to pay.

The Office of the Missouri Attorney General was created in 1806 when Missouri was part of the Louisiana Territory. Missouri's first Constitution in 1820 provided for an appointed attorney general, but since the 1865 Constitution, the Attorney General has been elected. As of January 2023, there have been 44 attorneys general in Missouri.

Tax protesters in the United States advance a number of constitutional arguments asserting that the imposition, assessment and collection of the federal income tax violates the United States Constitution. These kinds of arguments, though related to, are distinguished from statutory and administrative arguments, which presuppose the constitutionality of the income tax, as well as from general conspiracy arguments, which are based upon the proposition that the three branches of the federal government are involved together in a deliberate, on-going campaign of deception for the purpose of defrauding individuals or entities of their wealth or profits. Although constitutional challenges to U.S. tax laws are frequently directed towards the validity and effect of the Sixteenth Amendment, assertions that the income tax violates various other provisions of the Constitution have been made as well.

A tax protester is someone who refuses to pay a tax claiming that the tax laws are unconstitutional or otherwise invalid. Tax protesters are different from tax resisters, who refuse to pay taxes as a protest against a government or its policies, or a moral opposition to taxation in general, not out of a belief that the tax law itself is invalid. The United States has a large and organized culture of people who espouse such theories. Tax protesters also exist in other countries.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Honest services fraud</span> Crime in the United States

Honest services fraud is a crime defined in 18 U.S.C. § 1346, added by the United States Congress in 1988, which states "For the purposes of this chapter, the term scheme or artifice to defraud includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services."

<i>United States v. LaMacchia</i>

United States v. LaMacchia 871 F.Supp. 535 was a case decided by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts which ruled that, under the copyright and cybercrime laws effective at the time, committing copyright infringement for non-commercial motives could not be prosecuted under criminal copyright law.

Several statutes, mostly codified in Title 18 of the United States Code, provide for federal prosecution of public corruption in the United States. Federal prosecutions of public corruption under the Hobbs Act, the mail and wire fraud statutes, including the honest services fraud provision, the Travel Act, and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) began in the 1970s. "Although none of these statutes was enacted in order to prosecute official corruption, each has been interpreted to provide a means to do so." The federal official bribery and gratuity statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) 15 U.S.C. § 78dd, and the federal program bribery statute, 18 U.S.C. § 666 directly address public corruption.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Tax evasion in the United States</span>

Under the federal law of the United States of America, tax evasion or tax fraud, is the purposeful illegal attempt of a taxpayer to evade assessment or payment of a tax imposed by Federal law. Conviction of tax evasion may result in fines and imprisonment. Compared to other countries, Americans are more likely to pay their taxes on time and law-abidingly.

The rule against foreign revenue enforcement, often abbreviated to the revenue rule, is a general legal principle that the courts of one country will not enforce the tax laws of another country. The rule is part of the conflict of laws rules developed at common law, and forms part of the act of state doctrine.

<i>Attorney General v Oldridge</i> Irish Supreme Court case

Attorney General v Oldridge[2000] IESC 29; [2000] 4 IR 593 was an Irish Supreme Court case which examined "whether corresponding offenses to wire fraud existed in Irish law." The court found that although "wire fraud" did not exist in Irish law, the criminal activity was covered by existing fraud laws. The result of this decision was to broaden the use of fraud and specifically to rule that the charge of "conspiracy to defraud" is constitutional.

Kelly v. United States, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case involving the 2013 Fort Lee lane closure scandal, also known as "Bridgegate". The case centered on whether Bridget Anne Kelly, the chief of staff to New Jersey Governor Chris Christie who was running for reelection at the time, and Bill Baroni, the Deputy Executive Director of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, improperly used lane closures on the George Washington Bridge to create traffic jams as a means of retaliation against Mark Sokolich, the mayor of Fort Lee, New Jersey, when he refused to support Christie's reelection campaign. While lower courts had convicted Kelly and Baroni on federal fraud, wire fraud and conspiracy charges, the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the convictions in its May 2020 ruling, stating that such charges could not apply as "the scheme here did not aim to obtain money or property", and remanded their cases back to the lower courts.

United States v. Sineneng-Smith, 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a case of the United States Supreme Court, in which the justices considered the constitutionality of 8 U.S.C. § 1324(a)(1)(A)(iv), a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 that criminalizes encouraging or inducing illegal immigration. The case attracted attention from civil liberties groups and immigration advocates, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the Immigrant Defense Project, and the National Lawyers Guild.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 Friedman 2006, p. 920.
  2. ↑ Guttman 2006, p. 7.
  3. 1 2 Wallach 2006, p. 628.
  4. ↑ "Pasquantino v. United States". Oyez. Retrieved 2020-12-24.
  5. 1 2 3 Lowther 2006, p. 344.
  6. 1 2 3 Guttman 2006, p. 8.
  7. ↑ Lowther 2006, p. 345.
  8. 1 2 3 4 5 Friedman 2006, p. 921.
  9. ↑ Lowther 2006, p. 346.
  10. 1 2 Wallach 2006, p. 629.
  11. ↑ Guttman 2006, p. 5.
  12. 1 2 Wallach 2006, p. 630.
  13. 1 2 Guttman 2006, p. 9.
  14. ↑ Wallach 2006, p. 631.
  15. ↑ Guttman 2006, p. 10.
  16. ↑ Podgor 2005, p. 17.
  17. 1 2 Lowther 2006, p. 333-334.
  18. ↑ Wallach 2006, p. 631-633.
  19. ↑ Lowther 2006, p. 338.
  20. ↑ Lowther 2006, p. 340.
  21. ↑ Lowther 2006, p. 343.
  22. ↑ Guttman 2006, p. 13.
  23. ↑ Wallach 2006, p. 633.
  24. ↑ Guttman 2006, p. 15.

Sources

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.