Common use of Factual Basis Clause in Contracts

Factual Basis. The Defendant states as the following factual basis for the plea: The defendant is a Certified Public Accountant. From July 2004 through September 2008, the defendant was employed by XXXXXXX GROUP WORLDWIDE LLC (“PGW”), a company owned by XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX. From July 2004 through September 2007, defendant’s title was Executive Vice President - Tax at PGW. After September 2007, defendant’s title was changed to Executive Vice President - Finance, Tax and Treasury. As part of his duties with PGW, defendant oversaw the tax department for PGW and prepared tax filings for PGW and other business entities owned by XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX, including PETTERS COMPANY, INC. (“PCI”). Defendant also prepared XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX’x personal tax filings. Defendant was also responsible for the accounting of, and IRS filings relating to, payments made by PGW and its affiliates to third parties. While working for PGW, the defendant participated in a conspiracy to impede and impair the assessment and collection of taxes due and owing to the United States Department of the Treasury, involving XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX, business entities owned by XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX, and employees of businesses owned by XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX. Defendant also aided and assisted in tax fraud in connection with XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX’x personal income tax return. The tax loss attributable his criminal conduct is approximately $20 million. While working for PGW, the defendant conspired with XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX and other employees of businesses owned by XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX to under-report their income. In order to effect the objects of the conspiracy and in furtherance of the conspiracy, defendant and other members of the conspiracy committed and caused to be committed the following overt acts in the District of Minnesota and elsewhere: (1) falsely characterizing approximately $60 million in payments made to or on behalf of XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX as “loans” when the payments should have been reported to the Internal Revenue Service as income and for which there were federal and state taxes due and owing; (2) falsely characterizing millions of dollars in payments made to employees of business entities owned by XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX as “gifts” when the payments should have been reported to the Internal Revenue Service as income and for which there were federal and state taxes due and owing; (3) failing to report to the Internal Revenue Service millions of dollars of payments made to employees of business entities owned by XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX which had been falsely characterized as “gifts;” (4) preparing tax returns for employees of business entities owned by XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX knowing that the returns falsely under reported the employees’ income; and (5) filing defendant’s own personal income tax returns in which he failed to report or pay taxes on one million of dollars in income which was falsely characterized as a “gift.” On or about October 16, 2006, the defendant prepared an individual income tax return for XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX for the tax year 2005, which the defendant knew falsely under reported XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX’x income and which the defendant knew was filed with the Internal Revenue Service. In particular, the defendant knew that XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX obtained millions of dollars from one of his companies, PCI, which were falsely characterized on the books of PCI as “loans” to XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX. Defendant knew that the payments from PCI were not loans and in fact were income to XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX. No loan documents were ever prepared, interest was not accrued on the books of PCI, and no repayments were made from 2004 to present. Defendant knew that the purpose of characterizing the payments from PCI as loans was to evade the payment of taxes on that income. Moreover, defendant prepared XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX’x 2005 individual income tax return and knowingly failed to report any income from PCI. That false individual income tax return was filed with the Internal Revenue Service. Defendant also knew that XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX failed to report income from PCI earned during tax years 2006 and 2007 and defendant knew that XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX failed to file an individual income tax return for tax years 2006 and 2007. The defendant also prepared documentation, including financial statements, knowing that it was false. Some of that documentation was provided to third-parties to induce them to make loans to XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX and business entities owned by XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX. Defendant contends that he was not told by XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX or others involved in the scheme to defraud third-party lenders that those individuals were engaged in such a scheme. In particular, defendant contends that he was unaware: (1) that PCI was not engaged in the business of purchasing and reselling merchandise, as XXXXXX XXXXXXX and other members of the fraud scheme falsely represented to the third-party lenders; and (2) that XXXXXX XXXXXXX and other members of the fraud scheme provided false invoices and purchases orders to third-party lenders to create the appearance that PCI was engaged in the business of purchasing and reselling merchandise. For his efforts, the defendant received millions of dollars from XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX and business entities owned by XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX that he now understands were proceeds of fraud.

Factual Basis. The 6. Defendant states as will plead guilty because he is in fact guilty of the charge contained in Count One of the indictment. In pleading guilty, defendant admits the following factual basis for the pleafacts and that those facts establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt: The defendant is a Certified Public Accountant. From July 2004 in or about June 2007 through September in or about January 2008, at Chicago, in the defendant was employed by XXXXXXX GROUP WORLDWIDE LLC (“PGW”)Northern District of Illinois, a company owned by XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX. From July 2004 through September 2007Eastern Division, defendant’s title was Executive Vice President - Tax at PGW. After September 2007, defendant’s title was changed to Executive Vice President - Finance, Tax and Treasury. As part of his duties with PGWelsewhere, defendant oversaw XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX conspired and agreed with his co-defendants and with others known and unknown that he would accept money and property from co-defendants Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx and Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx and others, said money and property being given and accepted with the tax department for PGW intent to influence and prepared tax filings for PGW and other business entities owned by XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX, including PETTERS COMPANY, INC. (“PCI”). Defendant also prepared XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX’x personal tax filings. Defendant was also responsible for the accounting of, and IRS filings relating to, payments made by PGW and its affiliates to third parties. While working for PGW, the reward co- defendant participated in a conspiracy to impede and impair the assessment and collection of taxes due and owing to the United States Department of the Treasury, involving XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX, business entities owned by XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX, and employees of businesses owned by XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX. Defendant also aided and assisted in tax fraud XXXXXXXXXX in connection with XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX’x personal income tax return. The tax loss attributable his criminal conduct is approximately any business, transaction, and series of transactions of the City of Chicago involving things of value of $20 million. While working for PGW5,000 or more, that is, conducting a favorable zoning inspection on a piece of real property located at 0000-00 Xxxx Xxxxxxxxx, Xxxxxxx, Xxxxxxxx (“the Granville property”) and related City approvals, the defendant conspired City of Chicago being a local government that received in excess of $10,000 in federal funding in the twelve-month period from June 1, 2007, through May 31, 2008, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 666(a), all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371 and 2. Specifically, XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX was a zoning investigator for the Department of Zoning. XXXXXXXXXX had been employed with XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX the City of Chicago since June 16, 1994. Zoning investigators performed on-site investigation of projects to ensure compliance with the Zoning Ordinance and Certificate of Occupancy (“COO”) reviews. Individual A was an expediter who assisted homeowners and other employees property developers in applying for and receiving City approval for construction projects. Unbeknownst to XXXXXXXXXX, as of businesses owned by XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX May 21, 2007, Individual A was cooperating with the government. On August 27, 2007, Individual A contacted XXXXXXXXXX regarding a zoning inspection that XXXXXXXXXX was scheduled to underperform at 0000-report their income00 Xxxx Xxxxxxxxx, x 00-unit building. In order Co-defendants Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx and Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, the Granville property owners, wished to effect develop two additional illegal basement units in the objects building for a total of 15 units. Individual A indicated to XXXXXXXXXX that the owners of the conspiracy Granville property, who XXXXXXXXXX subsequently learned were Xxxxxxx and Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, were willing to pay a bribe in furtherance exchange for a zoning inspection report indicating that there were 15 pre-existing units in the building. XXXXXXXXXX said that he would go to the property in the next day or two. On August 29, 2007, XXXXXXXXXX met with the owner of the conspiracyGranville property, defendant who XXXXXXXXXX subsequently learned was Xxxxxxx Xxxxxxx, at the Granville property to perform the zoning inspection and other members take photographs of the conspiracy committed property. XXXXXXXXXX observed the basement and caused the rest of the building. On August 30, 2007, Individual A called XXXXXXXXXX. XXXXXXXXXX informed Individual A about the results of the inspection and discussed the bribe payment. Specifically, XXXXXXXXXX told Individual A, “we’re adding two. I mean, it’s a bare basement. He’s only got one down there, I mean, so I’m giving him two extra ones that he’s going to build. He has nothing. I mean, I’m completely fabricating two other ones ... But we’ll be committed able to do that. It’ll work out fine.” XXXXXXXXXX told Individual A that he was “was very creative on the following overt acts in photography and the District of Minnesota and elsewhere: (1) falsely characterizing approximately $60 million in payments made to or on behalf of XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX way it works out.” Individual A said, “And as far as the price goes I know these are, you know, really ...” XXXXXXXXXX replied, “loans” when the payments should have been reported to the Internal Revenue Service as income and for which there were federal and state taxes due and owing; (2) falsely characterizing millions of dollars in payments made to employees of business entities owned by XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX as “gifts” when the payments should have been reported to the Internal Revenue Service as income and for which there were federal and state taxes due and owing; (3) failing to report to the Internal Revenue Service millions of dollars of payments made to employees of business entities owned by XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX which had been falsely characterized as “gifts;” (4) preparing tax returns for employees of business entities owned by XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX knowing that the returns falsely under reported the employees’ income; and (5) filing defendant’s own personal income tax returns in which he failed to report or pay taxes on one million of dollars in income which was falsely characterized as a “giftI always don’t worry about you. Whatever you give is fine, I’ll take from you.” On or about October 16August 30, 20062007, XXXXXXXXXX wrote a favorable zoning inspection report indicating that the defendant prepared an individual income tax return for XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX basement units were preexisting. Specifically, XXXXXXXXXX falsely stated in the report that “Building has 15 pre-1957 apartments with three of them being garden–#1 apt in garden is being demo’d but obvious evidence of unit exist–#2 and #3 have full apts just need updated [sic].” XXXXXXXXXX attached to his report misleading photographs of the Granville property that concealed the absence of units in the basement. The photographs were taken by XXXXXXXXXX when he performed the inspection on August 29, 2007. On August 31, 2007, Individual A arranged to meet with XXXXXXXXXX at a gas station on the corner of Touhy and Xxxxxx to make the bribe payment for the tax year 2005favorable Granville property inspection performed by XXXXXXXXXX. XXXXXXXXXX approached Individual A’s car and spoke with Individual A. Individual A said, which the defendant knew falsely under reported XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX’x income “He gave me, he gave me four on each for you,” and which the defendant knew was filed with the Internal Revenue Service. In particularXXXXXXXXXX replied, the defendant knew “Oh, I appreciate that XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX obtained millions of dollars very much.” XXXXXXXXXX then took an envelope containing $8,000 cash from one of his companies, PCI, which were falsely characterized on the books of PCI as “loans” to XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX. Defendant knew that the payments from PCI were not loans and in fact were income to XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX. No loan documents were ever prepared, interest was not accrued on the books of PCI, and no repayments were made from 2004 to present. Defendant knew that the purpose of characterizing the payments from PCI as loans was to evade the payment of taxes on that income. Moreover, defendant prepared XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX’x 2005 individual income tax return and knowingly failed to report any income from PCI. That false individual income tax return was filed with the Internal Revenue Service. Defendant also knew that XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX failed to report income from PCI earned during tax years 2006 and 2007 and defendant knew that XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX failed to file an individual income tax return for tax years 2006 and 2007. The defendant also prepared documentation, including financial statements, knowing that it was false. Some of that documentation was provided to third-parties to induce them to make loans to XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX and business entities owned by XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX. Defendant contends that he was not told by XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX or others involved in the scheme to defraud third-party lenders that those individuals were engaged in such a scheme. In particular, defendant contends that he was unaware: (1) that PCI was not engaged in the business of purchasing and reselling merchandise, as XXXXXX XXXXXXX and other members of the fraud scheme falsely represented to the third-party lenders; and (2) that XXXXXX XXXXXXX and other members of the fraud scheme provided false invoices and purchases orders to third-party lenders to create the appearance that PCI was engaged in the business of purchasing and reselling merchandise. For his efforts, the defendant received millions of dollars from XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX and business entities owned by XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX that he now understands were proceeds of fraud.Individual A.

Factual Basis. The 6. Defendant states as will plead guilty because she is in fact guilty of the charge contained in Count One of the indictment. In pleading guilty, defendant admits the following factual facts and that those facts establish her guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and establish a basis for forfeiture of the pleaproperty described elsewhere in this Plea Agreement: The defendant is a Certified Public Accountant. From July 2004 through September Beginning no later than in or about December 2008, and continuing until at least on or about March 11, 2020, at Chicago, in the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere, defendant XXXXXXX XXXXXX did conspire with Xxxxxxxx Xxxxx, Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx, and others, to commit an offense in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1956 and 1957, that is, (1) to knowingly conduct and attempt to conduct a financial transaction affecting interstate commerce, which involved the proceeds of a specified unlawful activity, that is the felonious buying and selling and otherwise dealing in a controlled substance, knowing that the transaction was employed by XXXXXXX GROUP WORLDWIDE LLC designed in whole and in part to conceal and disguise the nature, location, source, ownership, and control of the proceeds of said specified unlawful activity and that while conducting and attempting to conduct such financial transaction knew that the property involved in the financial transaction represented the proceeds of some form of unlawful activity, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(a)(1)(B)(i), and (2) to knowingly engage in a monetary transaction in and affecting interstate commerce in criminally derived property of a value greater than $10,000, such property having been derived from a specified unlawful activity, namely, the felonious buying and selling and otherwise dealing in a controlled substance, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1957, all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(h). More specifically, in or about 2008, XXXXXX was living in Mexico with other family members, including her husband (Xxxxxxxxx Xxxxxx, or “PGWXxxxxxxxx”), a company owned by XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX. From July 2004 through September 2007her brother-in-law (Xxxxx Xxxxxx, defendantor “Xxxxx”), Xxxxx’s title was Executive Vice President - Tax at PGW. After September 2007wife (Xxxxxxxx Xxxxx, defendant’s title was changed to Executive Vice President - Financeor “Xxxxxxxx”), Tax and Treasury. As part of his duties with PGWher other brother-in-law (Xxxxxxx Xxxxxx, defendant oversaw the tax department for PGW and prepared tax filings for PGW and other business entities owned by XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX, including PETTERS COMPANY, INC. (or “PCIXxxxxxx”). Defendant also prepared XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX’x personal tax filings. Defendant was also responsible Between at least May 2005 and December 2008, Xxxxxxxxx and Xxxxx operated a Chicago- based distribution cell for the accounting ofSinaloa Cartel and the Xxxxxxx Xxxxx Organization, which involved the transportation and distribution of hundreds of kilograms of cocaine and kilogram quantities of heroin per month to customers in Chicago, Columbus, Cincinnati, Philadelphia, New York, Washington, D.C., Detroit, Los Angeles, and IRS filings relating toVancouver. This drug trafficking activity generated hundreds of millions of dollars of proceeds from the sale of narcotics. In or about November 2008, payments made by PGW Xxxxxxxxx, Xxxxx, and its affiliates Xxxxxxx began cooperating with the United States government, which ultimately caused them and their families to third parties. While working for PGW, the defendant participated in a conspiracy to impede leave Mexico and impair the assessment and collection of taxes due and owing return to the United States Department of the Treasuryin or about December 2008. In or about August 2010, involving XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX, business entities owned by XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX, and employees of businesses owned by XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX. Defendant also aided and assisted Xxxxxxxx turned in tax fraud in connection with XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX’x personal income tax return. The tax loss attributable his criminal conduct is approximately $20 million. While working for PGW, the defendant conspired with XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX and other employees of businesses owned by XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX to under-report their income. In order to effect the objects of the conspiracy and in furtherance of the conspiracy, defendant and other members of the conspiracy committed and caused to be committed the following overt acts in the District of Minnesota and elsewhere: (1) falsely characterizing approximately $60 4.2 million in payments made cash drug proceeds to or on behalf of XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX as “loans” when the payments should have been reported to the Internal Revenue Service as income and counsel for which there were federal and state taxes due and owing; (2) falsely characterizing millions of dollars in payments made to employees of business entities owned by XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX as “gifts” when the payments should have been reported to the Internal Revenue Service as income and Xxxxxxxxx, for which there were federal and state taxes due and owing; (3) failing to report to the Internal Revenue Service millions of dollars of payments made to employees of business entities owned by XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX which had been falsely characterized as “gifts;” (4) preparing tax returns for employees of business entities owned by XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX knowing that the returns falsely under reported the employees’ income; and (5) filing defendant’s own personal income tax returns in which he failed to report or pay taxes on one million of dollars in income which was falsely characterized as a “gift.” On or about October 16, 2006, the defendant prepared an individual income tax return for XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX for the tax year 2005, which the defendant knew falsely under reported XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX’x income and which the defendant knew was filed with the Internal Revenue Service. In particular, the defendant knew that XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX obtained millions of dollars from one of his companies, PCI, which were falsely characterized on the books of PCI as “loans” to XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX. Defendant knew that the payments from PCI were not loans and in fact were income to XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX. No loan documents were ever prepared, interest was not accrued on the books of PCI, and no repayments were made from 2004 to present. Defendant knew that the purpose of characterizing forfeiting the payments proceeds to the government. At the time XXXXXX and others turned in these funds, XXXXXX and others represented that the $4.2 million to constitute all of the available drug proceeds remaining from PCI the drug operations of Xxxxxxxxx and Xxxxx. However, in reality, additional drug proceeds remained available to XXXXXX. In or about 2010 or 2011, XXXXXX arrived at Xxxxxxx’s home in the Austin, Texas, area around the same time that a U-Haul truck filled with secondhand furniture arrived. XXXXXX was aware that the truck contained bulk cash, which XXXXXX understood to be drug proceeds, hidden inside the furniture. XXXXXX asked Xxxxxxx if he could store the cash for her. Xxxxxxx agreed and proceeded to bury the money underneath his back porch. XXXXXX acknowledges that the cash drug proceeds totaled at least approximately $2.3 million. Xxxxxxx stored the cash drug proceeds for XXXXXX for a number of years without accessing it. Beginning in or about 2015, Xxxxxxx agreed to start disbursing the cash as loans directed by XXXXXX in exchange for a fee. At XXXXXX’x request, Xxxxxxx disbursed the money in different ways, all of which XXXXXX knew were designed to conceal the illegal nature and source of the money. For example, between approximately one and four times per month (from approximately 2015 to 2020), Xxxxxxx sent quantities of the cash drug proceeds via U.S. Mail Priority Express to XXXXXX at her home or at a UPS store mailbox held under the name of XXXXXX’x family member. The amount of drug proceeds Xxxxxxx sent in these parcels varied, but on average the parcels contained at least $9,000 per mailing. XXXXXX acknowledges that in approximately 2016 or 2017, Xxxxxxx started to sometimes exchange older, dirty currency that was often in small denominations, for newer $100 dollar bills at a nearby gas station/currency exchange where Xxxxxxx knew an employee, before then sending the money to evade XXXXXX by mail. Xxxxxxx also distributed the payment cash drug proceeds for XXXXXX by delivering the proceeds to a travel agency near Xxxxxxx’s home in order to pay for travel that XXXXXX booked for herself and others. XXXXXX told Xxxxxxx the approximate amount of taxes on that income. Moreovercash to bring to the travel agency and then, defendant prepared when Xxxxxxx was inside the agency, he we would call XXXXXX via a prepaid cell phone, which Xxxxxxx used to communicate with XXXXXX XXXXXXX’x 2005 individual income tax return regarding the drug proceeds, and knowingly failed to report any income from PCI. That false individual income tax return was filed let GAYTAN speak with the Internal Revenue Servicetravel agency employee for purposes of booking the travel and also determining the final amount of money that was due. Defendant also knew XXXXXX would then have Xxxxxxx pay the employee that XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX failed to report income from PCI earned during tax years 2006 and 2007 and defendant knew that XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX failed to file an individual income tax return for tax years 2006 and 2007. The defendant also prepared documentation, including financial statements, knowing that it was false. Some of that documentation was provided to third-parties to induce them to make loans to XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX and business entities owned by XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX. Defendant contends that he was not told by XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX or others involved in final amount using the scheme to defraud third-party lenders that those individuals were engaged in such a schemecash drug proceeds. In particularaddition, defendant contends Xxxxxxx used the cash drug proceeds to buy and mail out money orders and gift cards at XXXXXX’x direction. Xxxxxxx at times also used his own credit or debit cards to pay for XXXXXX’x expenses and then reimbursed himself, plus a fee, with the cash drug proceeds he stored for XXXXXX. This arrangement between Xxxxxxx and XXXXXX continued until on or about March 9, 2020. Finally, XXXXXX acknowledges that he was unaware: (1) that PCI was not engaged on or about June 11, 2019, XXXXXX and Xxxxxxxx knowingly caused approximately $10,307.43 in the business of purchasing drug proceeds possessed by Xxxxxxxx to be used to purchase airfare for XXXXXX, Xxxxxxxx, and reselling merchandisetheir relatives, as XXXXXX XXXXXXX and other members of the fraud scheme falsely represented to the third-party lenders; and (2) that XXXXXX XXXXXXX and other members of the fraud scheme provided false invoices and purchases orders to third-party lenders to create the appearance that PCI was engaged at a travel agency in the business of purchasing and reselling merchandiseChicago. For his efforts, the defendant received millions of dollars from XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX and business entities owned by XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX that he now understands were proceeds of fraud.Maximum Statutory Penalties

Factual Basis. The 6. Defendant states as will plead guilty because he is in fact guilty of the charge contained in the indictment. In pleading guilty, defendant admits the following factual basis for facts and that those facts establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and constitute relevant conduct pursuant to Guideline § 1B1.3: From on or about November 6, 2015, and continuing until on or about November 12, 2015, at Chicago, in the plea: The defendant is a Certified Public AccountantNorthern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, and elsewhere, XXXXXXX XXXXX attempted to obstruct, delay, and affect commerce, by extortion, in that he obtained United States currency from another person, with that person's consent induced under color of official right, and by the wrongful use of fear of economic harm, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1951. From July 2004 through September 2008More specifically, the defendant XXXXX was employed by XXXXXXX GROUP WORLDWIDE LLC (“PGW”), a company owned by XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX. From July 2004 through September 2007, defendant’s title was Executive Vice President - Tax at PGW. After September 2007, defendant’s title was changed to Executive Vice President - Finance, Tax and Treasury. As part the City of his duties with PGW, defendant oversaw the tax department for PGW and prepared tax filings for PGW and other business entities owned by XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX, including PETTERS COMPANY, INC. (“PCI”). Defendant also prepared XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX’x personal tax filings. Defendant was also responsible for the accounting of, and IRS filings relating to, payments made by PGW and its affiliates to third parties. While working for PGW, the defendant participated in a conspiracy to impede and impair the assessment and collection of taxes due and owing to the United States Chicago Department of the Treasury, involving XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX, business entities owned by XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX, and employees of businesses owned by XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX. Defendant also aided and assisted in tax fraud in connection with XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX’x personal income tax return. The tax loss attributable his criminal conduct is approximately $20 million. While working for PGW, the defendant conspired with XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX and other employees of businesses owned by XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX to under-report their income. In order to effect the objects of the conspiracy and in furtherance of the conspiracy, defendant and other members of the conspiracy committed and caused to be committed the following overt acts in the District of Minnesota and elsewhere: (1) falsely characterizing approximately $60 million in payments made to or on behalf of XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX as “loans” when the payments should have been reported to the Internal Revenue Service as income and for which there were federal and state taxes due and owing; (2) falsely characterizing millions of dollars in payments made to employees of business entities owned by XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX as “gifts” when the payments should have been reported to the Internal Revenue Service as income and for which there were federal and state taxes due and owing; (3) failing to report to the Internal Revenue Service millions of dollars of payments made to employees of business entities owned by XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX which had been falsely characterized as “gifts;” (4) preparing tax returns for employees of business entities owned by XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX knowing that the returns falsely under reported the employees’ income; and (5) filing defendant’s own personal income tax returns in which he failed to report or pay taxes on one million of dollars in income which was falsely characterized Buildings as a “gift.” building inspector. On or about October 16November 6, 20062015, XXXXX, in his capacity as a building inspector, approached a two-story building in Chicago (“the building”) that was undergoing renovations, including the replacement of front façade the windows. XXXXX asked the workers at the building if they had a permit for the renovations. In response, one of the workers called Individual A, the defendant prepared an individual income tax return part- owner of the company that owned the building, and handed the phone to XXXXX so that he could speak directly to Individual A, who informed XXXXX that they did not have a permit. In response, XXXXX stated that he could put a stop to the renovation work and that XXXXX and Individual A needed to talk. XXXXX and Individual A agreed to meet at the building the following Monday (November 9, 2015) and XXXXX told Individual A that, in the meantime, the renovation work on the building could continue. On or about the morning of November 9, 2015, XXXXX and Individual A spoke over the phone to confirm their plan to meet later that same day at the building to discuss the permit matter. During this conversation, XXXXX stated words to the effect of, “This being the City of Chicago, this can be worked out,” by which XXXXX meant to imply that he would be willing to overlook the lack of permit and allow the renovation to continue in exchange for XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX for a cash payment from Individual A. On or about the tax year 2005afternoon of November 9, 2015, XXXXX met with Individual A at the building in Chicago. Unbeknownst to XXXXX, Individual A had reported their prior communications to the FBI and was equipped with a recording device that recorded the meeting. During the meeting, XXXXX threatened to shut down Individual A’s renovation due to the lack of permit, which XXXXX stated would cost Individual A at least $3,500 and delay the defendant knew falsely under reported XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX’x income renovation for at least six months. XXXXX solicited $300 from Individual A in exchange for XXXXX not reporting the matter to the Department of Buildings and which allowing the defendant knew was filed with renovation work to continue without a permit. Specifically, XXXXX explained that he had directed Individual A’s workers to finish the Internal Revenue Service. In particularrenovation and then stated, the defendant knew that XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX obtained millions of dollars from one of his companies“So now, PCI, which were falsely characterized on the books of PCI as “loans” to XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX. Defendant knew that the payments from PCI were not loans and in fact were income to XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX. No loan documents were ever prepared, interest was not accrued on the books of PCIwhat’s happening now is you’re gonna give me some appreciation, and no repayments were made from 2004 you’re gonna hurry up and get this done. And that appreciation is gonna be $300. Now how quickly can you get me my money to presentkeep my mouth shut?” Individual A responded that he/she could get XXXXX the money the next day, and XXXXX replied, “Now, I’m doing you a favor You know that. Defendant knew that I’m looking out for you; we’re looking out for each other.” Following the November 9, 2015 meeting, XXXXX and Individual A engaged in several phone communications during which they agreed to meet at the building on Thursday, November 12, 2015, for the purpose of characterizing Individual A paying XXXXX the payments agreed upon $300. On or about the afternoon of November 12, 2015, XXXXX and Individual A met at the building for approximately five minutes. Unbeknownst to XXXXX, Individual A was working at the direction of law enforcement and was equipped with a recording device that recorded this meeting. During the meeting, XXXXX asked Individual A to go somewhere private in the building. XXXXX then solicited and accepted $300 from PCI as loans was Individual A in exchange for XXXXX allowing the renovation work on the building to evade continue without a permit. XXXXX instructed Individual A, if ever questioned about the payment of taxes on $300, to falsely claim that incomeIndividual A purchased a table saw from XXXXX. MoreoverFollowing XXXXX and Individual A’s meeting, defendant prepared XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX’x 2005 individual income tax return and knowingly failed to report any income from PCI. That false individual income tax return was filed XXXXX left the building with the Internal Revenue Service. Defendant also knew $300 cash given to him by Individual X. XXXXX acknowledges that XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX failed his conduct had the potential to report income affect interstate commerce in that the renovation companies owned by Individual A routinely purchased goods from PCI earned during tax years 2006 and 2007 and defendant knew that XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX failed to file an individual income tax return for tax years 2006 and 2007. The defendant also prepared documentationoutside of Illinois, including financial statements, knowing that it was false. Some of that documentation was provided to third-parties to induce them to make loans to XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX supplies for the renovation project on the building and business entities owned by XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX. Defendant contends that he was not told by XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX or others involved other properties in the scheme to defraud third-party lenders that those individuals were engaged in such a scheme. In particular, defendant contends that he was unaware: (1) that PCI was not engaged in the business of purchasing and reselling merchandise, as XXXXXX XXXXXXX and other members of the fraud scheme falsely represented to the third-party lenders; and (2) that XXXXXX XXXXXXX and other members of the fraud scheme provided false invoices and purchases orders to third-party lenders to create the appearance that PCI was engaged in the business of purchasing and reselling merchandise. For his efforts, the defendant received millions of dollars from XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX and business entities owned by XXXXXX XXXXXX XXXXXXX that he now understands were proceeds of fraudChicago area.