United States v. Stadtmauer
620 F.3d 238 (2010)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
In a criminal tax prosecution, a willful blindness jury instruction is permissible to establish the defendant's knowledge of a legal duty. A defendant's deliberate avoidance of knowledge, when aware of a high probability of illegality, can satisfy the 'knowledge' component of the 'willfulness' element.
Facts:
- Richard Stadtmauer was an executive vice president at Kushner Companies (KC), a collection of real estate limited partnerships controlled by his brother-in-law, Charles Kushner.
- For years, KC partnerships improperly deducted four categories of expenditures as fully deductible business expenses: charitable contributions, 'non-property' expenses (one partnership paying another's bills), capital expenditures, and gift and entertainment expenses.
- The improper deductions resulted from a system where expenditures were first logged in the partnerships' general ledgers, then automatically grouped as 'expenses' on internal financial statements, which an outside accounting firm (SSMB) then used to prepare the partnerships' tax returns.
- Stadtmauer conducted detailed, line-by-line reviews of partnership expenses at weekly 'Thursday Meetings' and directed subordinates to omit descriptions from check requests to avoid leaving a 'trail' for inter-partnership payments.
- Stadtmauer directed the creation of special financial statements for banks, known as 'Richard Specials,' from which improperly expensed items were removed to make the partnerships appear more profitable.
- On other occasions, such as a major acquisition that would be scrutinized by banks, Stadtmauer ensured that capital expenditures were properly recorded, but the company reverted to expensing them once the scrutiny passed.
- Stadtmauer came up with the idea to pay for an employee's children's private school tuition directly from a partnership, telling the employee it would allow him to avoid income taxes on that amount.
- Each year, Stadtmauer reviewed and signed as many as 800 partnership tax returns in a single day, spending only 30 seconds to a minute on each one, attesting under penalty of perjury that they were 'true, correct, and complete.'
Procedural Posture:
- The U.S. Government indicted Richard Stadtmauer in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey on charges of conspiracy and aiding the filing of false tax returns.
- Following a two-month trial, a jury convicted Stadtmauer on one count of conspiracy and nine counts of aiding the filing of false tax returns.
- The District Court denied Stadtmauer’s post-verdict motions for a judgment of acquittal and to dismiss the indictment.
- The District Court sentenced Stadtmauer to 38 months' imprisonment.
- Stadtmauer (appellant) timely appealed his conviction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, with the United States as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a willful blindness jury instruction, which permits an inference of knowledge from a defendant's deliberate avoidance of the truth, impermissibly dilute the 'willfulness' element of a criminal tax offense, which requires proof of a voluntary and intentional violation of a known legal duty under Cheek v. United States?
Opinions:
Majority - Ambro, J.
No. A willful blindness instruction does not impermissibly dilute the 'willfulness' element in a criminal tax case. The Supreme Court's decision in Cheek v. United States, which protects a defendant's good-faith misunderstanding of the law, does not create a safe harbor for a defendant who deliberately avoids learning of his legal duties. The court joins its sister circuits in holding that deliberate ignorance and positive knowledge are equally culpable. A person who intentionally avoids learning of their tax obligations is not an innocent taxpayer making a mistake but rather someone with a subjectively culpable state of mind. The instruction given by the District Court was proper because it required the jury to find that Stadtmauer was subjectively aware of a high probability that the returns were fraudulent and consciously and deliberately tried to avoid learning this fact. This correctly distinguishes willful blindness from mere negligence, which is insufficient to prove willfulness.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the use of the willful blindness doctrine within the Third Circuit for criminal tax cases, aligning its jurisprudence with that of other federal circuits. It clarifies that the high bar for willfulness established in Cheek—requiring a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty—does not protect defendants who contrive their own ignorance. The ruling reinforces that willful blindness is a subjective state of mind, akin to actual knowledge, thereby preventing sophisticated defendants from using complex corporate structures and reliance on professionals as a shield while being aware of a high probability of wrongdoing. This precedent makes it more difficult for executives to feign ignorance of illegal tax schemes they oversee, holding them accountable for deliberately ignoring red flags.
