![]() 60(e) expressly abolished audita querela in civil cases, the writ "remains available in limited circumstances with respect to criminal convictions," United States v. 1997), "of a most remedial nature, and invented lest in any case there should be an oppressive defect of justice, where a party who has a good is too late in making it in the ordinary forms of law," Humphreys v. The writ of audita querela is an "ancient" common law writ, Triestman v. 977, at 4 see Petition, at 14.) DISCUSSION Finally - and relatedly - Daugerdas argues that "the charges alleged in the indictment which rise to all of the restitution and virtually all of the forfeiture, were the subject of an acquittal by the jury," and therefore the continued imposition of his forfeiture and restitution obligations violates Nelson v. ![]() Second, Daugerdas contends that the conspiracy and mail fraud offenses cannot serve as predicates for the forfeiture obligation because neither offense was adequately charged or proven by the Government. First, he claims that the Forfeiture Order is unlawful because it imposes joint and several liability in violation of Honeycutt v. 3ĭaugerdas presents three grounds for audita querela relief. This Petition followed, as did a separate habeas proceeding pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 896.) Daugerdas then petitioned the Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was denied on October 2, 2017. The Second Circuit rejected that argument - along with Daugerdas’s remaining arguments - and affirmed his conviction and sentence on September 21, 2016. 841.) With respect to the Forfeiture Order, Daugerdas argued that the Government failed to establish the requisite "nexus" between his criminal conduct and certain property sought within the Order. ![]() ![]() 836.)ĭaugerdas appealed his conviction and sentence, including the Forfeiture Order. Additionally, this Court entered a Preliminary Order of Forfeiture ("Forfeiture Order") against Daugerdas in the amount of $164,737,500. 838 ("Judgment"), at 1-2.) On June 24, 2014, this Court sentenced Daugerdas principally to 180 months of imprisonment and imposed $371,006,397 in restitution. § 7212(a) and one count of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 7201 one count of obstructing the Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"), in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 371 four counts of client tax evasion, in violation of 26 U.S.C. (S6 Indictment ¶¶ 108-108(a).) On October 31, 2013, following an eight-week trial, a jury in this District convicted Daugerdas of seven counts in the S6 Indictment, including: one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C. ![]() § 1982(a)(2)(A), seeking forfeiture of any proceeds obtained from the conspiracy and mail fraud offenses. 644 ("S6 Indictment").) The S6 Indictment contained forfeiture allegations pursuant to 18 U.S.C. On July 1, 2013, the Government filed a sixth Superseding Indictment charging Daugerdas with running a fraudulent tax shelter scheme from approximately 1994 until 2004. 933 ("Petition"), at 1.) For the following reasons, the Petition is denied. Specifically, Daugerdas contends that his forfeiture and restitution obligations are unenforceable in view of recent Supreme Court precedent that applies retroactively to this criminal action. Daugerdas petitions this Court for a writ of audita querela vacating the forfeiture and restitution orders entered following his convictions for conspiracy to defraud the United States and other crimes related to a fraudulent tax shelter scheme. PAULEY III, Senior United States District Judge. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |