Cottage Grove accountant charged with tax evasion

A curious news story is coming out of Ramsey County after a Cottage Grove man was recently charged with tax evasion. What makes the story so interesting, however, is that he had previously been charged with embezzlement and the tax evasion charges are stemming from the money that he allegedly took from his former employer, the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis. This case raises some questions about just how appropriate the tax evasion charges are.

Though many people in St. Paul may not think that white-collar crimes are that severe, they can come with long prison sentences, huge fines and destroy reputations in mere moments. To heap a tax evasion charge on top of embezzlement charges means that someone who is accused of stealing money from an employer may spend even more time away from his or her family.

As we covered in an earlier blog post, the former financial director of the Archdiocese of St. Paul and Minneapolis became the target of an internal investigation after he was accused of stealing money from the church group. The initial concern was that the evidence that was uncovered in the internal investigation — evidence that was collected outside of the constitutional protections that limit investigating police officers — was later delivered to police. This means that the police and prosecutors may be relying on evidence that they would otherwise have been unable to obtain because it was originally discovered by members of the archdiocese.

Now, the money that internal investigators said was taken is the subject of a tax evasion case. Since the money was taken and investigators likely assume that the Cottage Grove man took it, they are now saying that he should have reported the money as income on his state taxes. Failing to do so has led to the charges of filing fraudulent tax returns and tax evasion.

Source: Minneapolis-St. Paul Business Journal, “Accountant charged with stealing $670K to pay children’s tuition now charged with tax evasion,” Ed Stych, Dec. 10, 2012

Max Keller has won countless jury trial cases involving misdemeanors and felonies, sex crimes, and DWI’s. He is a member of the Minnesota Society for Criminal Justice, which only allows the top 50 criminal defense attorneys in the state as members. Max is a frequent speaker at CLE’s and is often asked for advice by other defense attorneys across Minnesota.

Years of Experience: Approx. 20 years
Minnesota Registration Status: Active
Bar & Court Admissions: State of Minnesota Minnesota State Court Minnesota Federal Court 8th Circuit Federal Court of Appeals State of Maryland

What to Do If You Have Been Charged with a Criminal Offense

The Surprising Cost of a Guilty Criminal Plea in Minnesota

Defendants in Minnesota may plead guilty or accept deals without understanding the hidden cost of a guilty criminal plea. A guilty criminal plea, regardless of how appealing it appears, can leave you dealing with substantial lifelong consequences. You may skip lengthy trial proceedings and likely get a lenient sentence, but end up with a criminal record. The record can lead to various financial and collateral consequences, including difficulty in securing employment, loss of housing rights, license revocation, and immigration issues.

What You Can Expect at a Pre-Trial Motions Hearing in Minnesota

The pre-trial motions hearing is a court session you attend after your first arraignment. At the hearing, the prosecution and defense appear before a judge to clear several details about the case before trial. These details include pre-trial motions, evidentiary queries, and constitutional matters.

Refusing Arrest vs. Resisting Arrest in Minnesota: What’s the Difference?

Highly publicized incidents of police using excessive force over the past few years have led to people wondering, “What’s the difference between refusing arrest vs. resisting arrest?” Resisting arrest in Minnesota occurs when you use force to prevent a police officer from making a lawful arrest. Refusing an arrest, on the other hand, involves statements or actions that show reluctance to cooperate with an officer’s instructions without using force.