February 13, 2024 • 39 mins
Prepare for another riveting episode of Tax Crime Junkies as we venture into the controversial world of the famed Chrisley family. Unravel their tumultuous journey from celebrity status to courtrooms through our meticulously constructed narrative. Explore the depth of their legal battles, the shocking accusations of embezzlement, fraud, and money laundering, and their surprising resilience amidst hardships.
Join hosts Dom and Tom on a deep dive into the intricate network of the Chrisleys' controversies that reveal the importance of tax compliance and the potentially disastrous repercussions of its neglect. Experience the roller-coaster story of this notorious family that continues to claim the media's spotlight.
Our episode pulls back the veil on the high-profile case of Todd and Julie Chrisley. As reality TV stars turned prison inmates due to tax evasion, the Chrisleys challenge the legitimacy of the government's case against them, raising serious questions about governmental misconduct and the violation of their Fourth Amendment rights.
We take you down the twisting paths of their ongoing legal struggle, shining a light on multiple allegations of false claims made by an IRS officer, improper testimonies, and illegal search warrants. Plus, unravel the role of their CPA, Peter Tarantino, who faced his own separate brush with tax-related convictions.
As the Chrisleys continue their relentless pursuit to clear their names and win freedom, this episode will intrigue you with its insightful coverage and question whether these constitutional allegations will alter the final verdict. Tune into this revealing account on the saga of the Chrisleys!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Next time on Tax Crime Junkies, we dive back into the high-stakes world of the
Chrisleys with some jaw-dropping updates.
Chrisley knows best? More like Chrisley knows courtrooms.
We're unpacking the latest legal drama of this once-TV glamorous family.
They've been behind bars, but that has not stopped Todd and Julie Chrisley from flipping the script.
(00:25):
Get ready for a million-dollar twist in their ongoing saga.
From family feuds to questionable government actions, the plot thickens,
and we're dissecting every angle of their contentious legal battle and surprising lawsuit victories.
And with prison life taking its toll, we'll also talk about how the Krizzlies
(00:47):
are fighting now for more than just their freedom.
It's a roller coaster of revelations, and we're here to break it all down.
This episode is packed with unexpected turns and explosive accusations.
So tune in for an episode that is as intriguing as it is unbelievable.
(01:08):
You won't want to miss this deep dive into the Chris Lee case update.
Welcome to Tax Crime Junkies, the one-of-a-kind true crime podcast where the
fascination with taxes meets the world of crime.
Expert duo dom and tom combine their
extensive tax knowledge with their love for unraveling crime
(01:29):
stories we'll explore shocking cases of
embezzlement fraud money laundering and more we'll speak to experts lawyers
and yes even to the criminals themselves but it's not just about the thrill
of the crime they're here to educate you on the importance of tax compliance
helping you steer clear of the IRS's watchful eye.
(01:51):
Thanks for joining us on Tax Credit.
Music.
Your go-to podcast for the most riveting financial scandals, white-collar crimes.
I'm your host, Dominique. I'm a CPA, certified tax strategist,
leader of the American Institute of Certified Tax Planners with a degree in law.
(02:16):
And with me, as always, is my oh-so-lovable co-host, Tom Gorzinski.
Hey, everybody. I'm Tom Gorzinski. I'm an enrolled agent.
I'm admitted to practice us before the U.S. tax court as a non-attorney. I'm a tax planner.
And like you, I love true crime. I love tax.
And Dominique and I have this great podcast called The Tax Crime Junkies.
(02:40):
And today, who would have thought we'd already be revisiting one of our first
cases we covered on this show way back from episode two?
We're unraveling the complex saga of Todd and Julie Julie Chrisley,
the reality TV stars from Chrisley Knows Best.
(03:00):
Ah, yes, Tom. Episode two, back when we were wee babies.
Hey, you may have noticed a new introduction to the show as well.
Thank you to our new show editor, Ed Bishop.
The Chrisleys first dazzled America in 2014.
Their show on the USA Network portrayed them as the epitome of Southern luxury.
(03:22):
But their path to fame was far from straightforward.
Before their TV debut, Todd was dreaming big, wasn't he, Tom? Oh, absolutely.
He had his sights set on a fashion-centric department store,
branching out from his real estate ventures.
Yet this dream never materialized.
Despite the setback, the show pivoted to focus on their lavish lifestyle and
(03:47):
dynamic family life. They certainly didn't hold back, showcasing their extravagant
spending, but I guess that's what TV's all about, right?
It did get interesting, though. Just two years prior to the show,
Todd was deep in financial turmoil.
That's right. He filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, declaring debts of nearly $50
(04:08):
million against assets of just over $4 million.
And that's where the trouble began.
Oh, yeah, those loans, remember? The contrast is stark.
On TV, we saw a life of opulence, but in reality, Todd was grappling with these
significant financial challenges.
The couple had a business partner, and they all conspired to take loans illegally
(04:33):
from banks. So that's what started it.
They created these fake documents, they claimed to have money in other banks,
and they used these community banks to approve their loans.
That's right. They used this money to sponsor their lifestyle,
which amounted to about $36 million.
They spent most of it on trips, hotels, luxury wear, and apartments.
(04:59):
Then whenever a loan was due, the trio would defraud another bank and use the
loan to pay back the previous one.
But look, that can only go so far. When they couldn't keep up,
Todd filed for bankruptcy and attempted to walk away from all those loans.
They kind of just wanted a do-over because they wanted to wipe the slate clean
(05:22):
of their debts and start letting the new money from their TV contract roll in.
I remember that was to get ready for the show that they were going to film.
And after their TV show became successful
back in 2014, the Crisley couple failed to pay the tax they owed.
(05:43):
They ensured that their company, Seven Seas Productions, would be difficult
to tax by registering it as the wife's company.
Then they created false documents and later recorded the company as Todd's mom's company.
They and their new accountant kept this on to evade 2009 taxes and other taxes in 2013 through 2016.
(06:08):
And then the cookie began to crumble. So the plot continued to thicken in regard to their taxes.
From 2013 to 2016, despite the show's enormous success, they didn't file tax
returns or pay their taxes, and their legal woes continued.
(06:29):
In 2019, the Chrisleys found themselves facing serious charges,
conspiracy, bank fraud, wire fraud, tax evasion.
Their defense strategy hinged on shifting blame to Mark Braddock,
a former business associate.
(06:49):
Braddock, however, had his own revelations in court. He sure did.
Braddock claimed to have committed fraud for the Grizzlies, but he was granted
immunity in exchange for his testimony.
In the end, the jury deliberated for less than three days before reaching a verdict.
And guess what? It wasn't good news for the Chrisleys.
(07:11):
No, it wasn't. Both Todd and Julie were convicted on all counts.
And the verdict was really a turning point for them because now they're going
to start this new chapter in their lives.
And it was dramatically different. They were placed under house arrest until sentencing.
And this period was marked by a notable shift in their public presence,
(07:36):
of course, because they weren't available and they couldn't do all their shenanigans flying cross country.
But they were able to maintain a connection with their audience by candidly
discussing their situation.
They formed a podcast and they call it Grizzly Confessions.
That's right around when we got involved, Dom.
(07:58):
November 2022 brought their sentencing where Todd received 12 years,
Julie received seven years, and their accountant, Tarantino, got three years.
And despite those harsh sentences, they were actually below the federal guidelines.
They could have gotten worse.
And factors like age, health, that all played a role, family responsibilities.
(08:23):
Possibilities Todd's emotional plea for Julie
during sentencing was particularly moving he
highlighted her crucial role as a caregiver but
the court wasn't moved by Julie's request for home confinement and they both
began their prison sentences in January of 2023 Todd was sent to the federal
(08:45):
prison camp in Pensacola Florida while Julie was sent to Marietta Florida about
two and a a half hours from Todd.
But as we know, in the world of white collar crime, the story doesn't end there.
And the Grizzlies have continued to fight their convictions.
And in an unexpected term, they actually won a million dollar lawsuit that they
(09:08):
filed against a Georgia tax official.
They filed the suit for alleged misconduct in their investigation.
So they're using this legal victory as a rare glimmer of hope for Chrisley fans
while they're undergoing their appeals process.
Their attorney came out right away. He cited this as proof that the couple had
(09:34):
committed no crimes and they had been railroaded.
And because tax law is so complicated, it might have fooled some audience members to believe that.
Despite their legal battles and imprisonment, their show aired its final episodes,
filmed before the trial, in early 2023.
(09:55):
That's what's so crazy about TV, Dominique.
There can be a timing delay between filming and when a show airs.
It's a stark contrast, isn't it?
On screen, they're enjoying a ski trip in Lake Tahoe.
Off screen, they're in club Fed in federal prison.
(10:16):
Todd's prison conditions, as he described them, were far from the luxury he
once knew and the luxury that he showed on TV.
Reports of poor food and attempts at extortion have emerged.
Here he is discussing prison life with Chris Cuomo on NewsNation.
(10:46):
Year. It's a year past that today. And they are literally starving these men to death here.
These men are getting, I don't know that they're getting a thousand dollars.
You've got rats, you've got squirrels in the storage facility where the food is.
They just covered it up with plastic and tore the ceiling out because of all
(11:06):
the black mold and found a dead cat in the ceiling that dropped down on the top of the thing.
This whole story is a cautionary tale of how quickly Exactly.
Fortunes can change, especially when legality is in question.
And it's also one of the first cases we covered, Tom, where we started to see
patterns in the habits of convicted tax evaders.
(11:28):
Oh, you mean where there's all this extravagant spending and living way beyond
someone's actual means?
Yes, that is the pattern I was thinking of.
Not everything is as it seems. And so we find ourselves back today to provide
an update where I'll continue this idea of not everything as it seems, Tom.
(11:52):
Good, because I definitely wanted to delve deeper into the life of the Chrisleys
and see what they've been up to lately.
You know, it's already a whirlwind of drama and legal battles.
What's a few more astonishing turns to keep us tuning in?
It's almost like a Hollywood production, wouldn't you say? day.
Yeah, it kind of does. In fact, it sounds like a Hollywood production that you and I might create.
(12:18):
What what would it be called? Would it be called Empire of Illusions?
Nah, I like Southern Secrets, The Fall of Chrisley.
Ooh, watch out, world. Tom, I think you may have found your second career path.
Well, let's start with the bombshell news. Despite being behind bars,
(12:39):
Todd and Julie Chrisley secured a huge legal victory when they were awarded
a staggering $1 million in a lawsuit.
That's right. They sued Joshua Waits, the former director of special investigations
at the George Department of Revenue. The Chrisleys claimed Waits made bogus
(13:00):
claims about them, essentially abusing his power.
Apparently, Waits specifically targeted the Chrisleys, including providing compromising
text messages he had allegedly sent to Todd's estranged daughter,
Lindsay, about Todd and Julie.
I heard that he was trying to get her to be like an informant or a witness,
(13:23):
like give up the dirt on them.
And then at one point, she was actually thinking that maybe that's something she would do.
But then I think she changed her mind and she decided against doing that.
And that's why Lindsay and Savannah have no relationship at this point. They just don't talk.
They've been very vocal about why they aren't talking. And Lindsey's also said
(13:47):
Savannah's out here acting like she's grieving her parents.
I'm grieving my parents, too. It's not just her, but Savannah's not out here grieving her parents.
She's also now raising younger siblings.
She's advocating for prison reform and also for her parents to have the appeal
that they feel they deserve.
(14:08):
They actually began this battle with Georgia Department of Revenue before their
federal trial, and Georgia dropped the charges.
And I think also the state awarded other money to them, didn't they?
Yes, it looks like the couple was granted $2 million compensation in a state
(14:28):
tax evasion case in Georgia in 2019, subsequently filing a lawsuit against Mr.
Waits, alleging that he had specifically targeted their family in an act of apparent retaliation.
The lawsuit included compromising text messages that Waits had allegedly sent
Lindsay about Todd and Julie and a rep for the Georgia Department of Revenue.
(14:53):
Insisted its investigators are fair and impartial, but acknowledged that Chrisley's
revelations were very disappointing.
They owed quite a bit of restitution, I recall, and they also,
of course, owe attorneys fees. So if, in fact...
This means that they've been awarded now a total of $3 million.
That's probably where it all went. Right. Directly to the government and attorneys.
(15:18):
And this is where their attorney irritated you, Dom, because he made public
statements about the meaning of this award.
Little has been said publicly.
It's nearly unprecedented for one arm of the government to pay money to defendants
when another arm is fighting to keep them in jail.
(15:38):
Here he is on News Nation. Yeah, so the lawsuit was against the state of Georgia,
which was the first arm that started this investigation against Todd and Julie.
The arm that prosecuted them was the federal government, which secured convictions,
which we are challenging.
So specifically, the tax evasion charges on a number of grounds.
One of the things that the district courts found in that federal case is that
(16:00):
Georgia had violated the Fourth Amendment. amendment.
And so the federal court, when we do the appeals, already starting with the
presumption that Georgia has violated the Fourth Amendment.
And so, you know, that's a key part of our appeal in the federal criminal case.
But it's absolutely unprecedented.
I've never seen a case like this where, you know, somebody is in jail,
they're fighting to get out.
And over the same events, another part of the government saying,
(16:21):
actually, here's a million dollars.
Yeah, I don't think I see it the same way, Tom. That's why you're irritated
about it. Well, it's misleading.
Georgia was attempting to get evidence by enticing an estranged daughter to
turn state's evidence, and she didn't.
Their attorney, Alex Little, called the settlement an encouraging sign amidst their ongoing appeal.
(16:43):
It's two different issues, right? And two different agencies. emergencies
he pointed out how unusual it is
for the government to compensate individuals it's simultaneously
trying to keep locked up but first
of all like i said it's two separate branches of government with different criminal
charges this is hardly two different people from the same office down the hall
(17:06):
trying to use the same stuff this lawsuit uncovered a labyrinth of alleged misconduct
and personal vendettas.
It claimed that Waits targeted Lindsay, using her to gather compromising information
about the family, but she didn't participate.
Now we'll get to the Fourth Amendment violations brought up in the appeal.
(17:28):
But I do agree with you. It paints a picture to the public that the Chrisleys did nothing wrong here.
Being innocent and having your conviction overturned by a constitutional rights
violation are two completely different things.
So I absolutely see your point.
Exactly. Exactly. And that's why we do this show, Tom, so we can break down
(17:52):
these complicated tax and fraud cases, better understand the evidence,
the verdicts, and know what took place.
There is outside fallout, and I think the Georgia case just shows how egregious
the state's actions were.
I'm not saying they're right, but that's how our system works.
(18:13):
We have checks and balances. It was one person, but they're a representative
of the state, albeit with short man syndrome.
Hey, wait a minute. Wait a minute. What?
You're not short, Tom. It's OK. It's just a figure of speech.
Sometimes people get power crazy.
And, you know, with that, they're doing things outside of the law because they're
(18:35):
convinced they are doing the right thing to, quote, get the bad guys convicted. evicted.
And the fallout of that not only damages the standard of law,
meaning if they get away with it, and some do, but it also damages people.
In this case, the family dynamics have taken a hit too. These are human beings.
(18:57):
The tension between Lindsay and her sister Savannah has been palpable largely
due to these legal entanglements and family secrets.
Now, speaking of Savannah, Her role has evolved significantly.
She's not just grieving her parents' imprisonment. She's now a caregiver to
her younger siblings and an advocate for prison reform in her parents' legal battle.
(19:21):
On the legal front, the Chrisleys are fervently pushing for their release from prison.
They argue they should be serving their sentences under house arrest.
Maintaining their innocence and a right to a fair appeal.
Now, apparently they've got it about as good as it can get. They traded their
luxurious lifestyle for prison time in January of 23.
(19:42):
According to a story in the Pensacola News Journal, the Pensacola prison in
which Todd Chrisley is serving time was actually noted by Forbes.
I didn't know Forbes tracked this as the second cushiest prison in the United States.
And Julie there, of course, they're not in the same facility.
She asked to serve her sentence at the Florida Correctional Institute, Tallahassee.
(20:08):
That's about 500 miles away from Nashville, where the family's base is.
But she actually got assigned to Mariana, Florida. And then that changed to neither prison.
And she's, in fact, serving her sentence at a federal medical center in Lexington, Kentucky.
(20:28):
Now, an online prison rating system listed things like the staff is really respectful.
There's no politics. There's great medical and good food. It was very laid back
here as if it were a camp and virtually has no violence.
Those were some of the perks that were listed online.
(20:48):
So wait a minute. There's an online prison rating system like a hotel?
Oh, yeah. In this review culture, school teachers are ranked,
restaurants, shopping products, everything's ranked and so are the prisons.
So I guess that's so if you have to go, you can try to get a good one. Aye, aye, aye.
(21:08):
But of course, even with a so-called cushy prison, the Chrisleys don't describe
it that way, as you could probably expect.
Here's Todd talking about our News Nation with Chris Cuomo.
(21:35):
Well,
it is prison. I'm not sure I expected any better.
But if that's considered cushy, what are the other ones like?
I know. That sounds absolutely disgusting.
So let's get into the appeal. I want to break this down a bit because the appeal
(21:56):
centers around alleged government misconduct.
And this includes claims of an illegal search warrant and improper testimony
by IRS Revenue Officer Betty Carter. So we'll focus on Betty Carter to begin with.
And what she testified to is that the Chrisleys owed back taxes for several years.
(22:20):
But here's the thing. Later revelations indicated that these claims were false,
raising serious questions about the integrity of the evidence presented at their trial.
You know, prosecutors cannot knowingly present and fail to correct any false
testimony from IRS revenue officers.
(22:44):
That's right. And there are procedures for correcting evidence so they later
become aware of an error.
And it can result in a new trial if, when this happens, it is considered to
have an impact on the jury's verdict.
In this case, Revenue Officer Carter prepared for her testimony by examining
the relevant tax payment records in the IRS's internal systems.
(23:08):
Specifically, she said that she had reviewed the IRS's integrated data system,
which, quote, shows returns that are filed, taxes that are due,
payments that are made, basically the activity on the money side of the account.
The appeal goes on to say, purportedly based on her review of these records,
(23:30):
a revenue officer, Carter, testified that the Chrisleys failed to pay taxes
for various years and still owed the IRS money for these years.
For example, she said that based on her review of the records,
which she claimed she completed the morning before her testimony,
that Chrisleys still owed taxes for 2010 and 2014. Okay.
(23:52):
Revenue Officer Carter also testified on cross-examination that the Chrisleys
owed money for 2015 and 2016.
While she could not recall the exact amount, she told defense counsel she would
let them know what it was, and that didn't happen. No.
And this is where all the problems begin, because not only did Revenue Officer
(24:15):
Carter not contact defense counsel with those alleged balances during the trial.
Instead, after the government had obtained its convictions, she reached out,
contacted the Chrisley's accountants and admitted that the couple did not owe the IRS the money.
(24:36):
Now, keep in mind, that's all part of restitution, right?
And they were convicted of tax evasion.
She claimed at trial that they did owe the money.
So it's a really big problem, not only for the government in its case,
but it's a problem for our justice system and specifically the tax court system.
(25:00):
I mean, we have to know that the government is telling the truth.
She told the accountant after the trial that the Chrisleys were current on their
taxes for 2014, 15 and 16, but that the IRS had failed to apply the payments to their account.
(25:20):
In later emails with the accountant, Revenue Officer Carter confirmed that the
IRS's system showed that the Chrisleys had made payments for 2014 to 2016,
and those payments actually exceeded the amounts owed for these years.
Yet her testimony left the misimpression impression that the Chrisleys still
(25:44):
owed substantial sums to the IRS, when in fact, the IRS had been failing to
apply payments that the Chrisleys previously made.
Now, this, of course, is a major problem for the government's case because they're
being tried for tax evasion.
They're being tried because they didn't pay their taxes.
(26:07):
So the jury hears something like this, believes these people are skipping out
on their taxes, and it's a jury of their peers.
I know as a taxpayer, I'd be pretty prejudiced to hear the defendant isn't paying
and for that long. I don't think you can say it did not have an effect on the jury.
(26:29):
So this is why you say, Tom, it's a Giglio claim.
The Chrisleys allege that the prosecution knowingly presented and failed to
correct false testimony.
And that's a serious violation of legal standards.
You're right. Now, it does appear that perhaps they made the payments before
(26:49):
the trial, but way later than when they were due.
So, in fact, the attorney general could have argued that he just came in to
look better and pay it right before court.
But in this case, they didn't do that. And they didn't have to do that because
the IRS made it seem like the taxes were still outstanding.
This is why we often say the IRS is not always right.
(27:13):
You may think they're right, but as you and I both know, Dominique,
their systems are antiquated, although getting better in recent years.
And in this case, that ancient computer showed the wrong balance due.
This is why everyone needs to keep diligent records and stay on top of their
(27:36):
IRS matters and hire real professionals who can testify at trial that they already
paid it and now owe no money simply because the IRS hasn't updated their accounts.
I agree. I'm kind of surprised that their accountant didn't testify to that
in the original trial to contradict what the IRS was saying.
(27:59):
So to remedy this, this is what's happening now in the appeal,
defense raised a Giglio claim in their motion for a new trial and they requested
an evidentiary hearing.
The government's response admitted, now it was in a footnote,
but they admitted that the prosecution team knew during the trial that Revenue
(28:22):
Officer Carter's testimony was false and that they did nothing to correct it.
And even in the face of these admissions, the district court declined to hold a hearing on this topic.
It summarily denied the new trial motion without stating any reasons.
Three days after the court ruled, the Chrisleys received documents in response
(28:47):
to a records request from from the IRS that they had made many months prior.
And these records had internal IRS audit trails and it substantiated the Chrisley's
Giglio claims and refuted the government's assertion that revenue officer Carter's false testimony.
(29:09):
Unintentional, and that the prosecutors were unaware of the payments.
So it's based in part on this evidence that the Chrisleys filed a motion for
reconsideration. They should have gotten that evidentiary hearing to sort out that matter.
So it actually was going down in real time during the trial.
(29:30):
It's just that the district court declined.
The renewed motion alleged, alleged, among other things, that the prosecutors
and Officer Carter had planned to mislead the jury and the court by basing Revenue
Officer Carter's testimony about the tax payments on an IRS database that they knew to be incorrect.
(29:52):
Big allegation. It's huge. And if that was done, it is a bigger problem of overreaching
and even illegal behavior by the government.
The Chrisley's motion provided factual support through affidavits,
and it's largely corroborated by the government's own words,
(30:12):
their explicit and implicit admissions in its response to the new trial request.
So the appeal claims that Revenue Officer Carter lied, but it really looks to
me like the backwoods computer system spit out the wrong info,
which to your point, Tom, you and I see all the time as practitioners.
(30:33):
Yeah, don't remind me. Right.
Identifying there's a problem is the easiest part. Getting them to fix it,
that is a whole nother ball of wax. Oh, I know.
Weren't you telling me now that you've had a telephone rep from the practitioner
hotline instruct you to file amended returns to correct problems?
(30:53):
IRS's own error? Yes. And how do I do that?
How am I going to do that? Show an amended return with no changes?
I'll put a sticky note on it that says, check your system. You entered it incorrectly.
It's maddening. That's why when you get a good phone person,
I just wish we could get their direct phone number.
(31:16):
And that's why you will never have a direct phone extension for most post-IRS employees.
Now, there's also other claims in the appeal. Let's talk about the Fourth Amendment claim.
The Chrisleys argue that the district court admitted evidence obtained through
an alleged unlawful search, a significant breach of their rights.
(31:38):
Todd Chrisley's other argument with regard to the search warrant is that the
court erred when it admitted evidence in violation of their Fourth Amendment rights.
The Giglio violation is not the only error that requires a new trial.
At the government's insistence, the district court admitted substantial volumes
of evidence of trial that were obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment,
(32:02):
even though the evidence had been suppressed by a prior ruling that the government did not appeal.
Specifically, the court admitted copies of documents illegally seized from the
Chrisley's warehouse, and other evidence derived from the unlawful warehouse search.
When it did so, the court did not require the government to make any showing
(32:25):
that this evidence qualified for an exception to the exclusionary rule that
would permit its admission.
This is another bad thing for the prosecution in this case. It's a flat-out error.
The facts already in the record establish that nearly all the investigative
steps that federal agents took
(32:45):
after March 2017 were prompted by what they found in that illegal search.
And as a result, much of the evidence the government collected should have been inadmissible at trial.
But prosecutors sought to admit some of it anyway.
And when the Chrisleys raised the issue, the district court declined to decide
(33:08):
the question on its merits.
Exactly. This is the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.
The effect of the court's procedural ruling was to permit the government to
introduce fruits of the illegal warehouse search, fruits of the poisonous tree.
They get this stuff in without showing they met an exception to the exclusionary rule.
(33:29):
So under this doctrine, any evidence later found in a subsequent search should
be suppressed. rest if the search warrant was prompted by what investigators
found in the prior unconstitutional search.
So here we have a criminal trial.
Two alleged constitutional violations, the type of which, if a court is going
(33:52):
to overturn a conviction, it's these exact types that we see that get new trials ordered.
And in some cases, the verdict is set aside if it's really found to be egregious.
And while I still don't agree with the statements by their attorney that say
that since Georgia was thrown out, the tax evasion case should be thrown out,
(34:16):
it does appear that they have some serious problems with their case.
And based on the appeal anyway, it seems they can prove it with the government's own words and actions.
Now, this is just from Todd Crisley's appeal. There are actually three appeals
running. He's got this, one from Julie, and another appeal from their accountant, Tarantino, right?
(34:42):
Yes. Now, Tarantino's is actually pretty interesting on its own.
It addresses five separate issues for this CPA.
Remember this guy, Dom? He's the one that failed the CPA exam many times over
20 years and was unqualified to handle the Chrisley Spidances?
I remember. Well, here's his case.
(35:05):
Reminder, Peter Tarantino, the CPA for the Chrisleys, was convicted of tax-related
crimes and is associated with the broader case against the Chrisleys,
forging bank documents, etc.
While he's filed a separate appeal from them, this indicates that while his
case is related to theirs, he has distinct legal arguments or issues he is contesting.
(35:30):
A significant part of Tarantino's appeal is the argument that he should not
have been tried alongside Todd and Julie Chrisley.
His defense seems to be centered around the idea that the bulk of the evidence
presented at trial was focused on the Chrisleys' actions,
(35:50):
and he was merely performing his
professional duties as a CPA without any knowledge of criminal activity.
His argument suggests that his inclusion in the same trial with the Crisleys
unfairly prejudiced his case.
Leading the jury to associate him with the crimes of his clients.
(36:12):
His defense strategy appears to be based on distancing his professional actions
as a CPA from the criminal actions of the Chrisleys.
The essence of this argument is likely that he was unaware of the fraudulent
nature of what they were doing and was simply doing his job.
(36:33):
Tarantino was convicted and
sentenced, though his sentence was less severe than each of the Chrisleys.
It reflects the different degrees of involvement or types of charges against each defendant.
So shouldn't he have been tried separately?
I don't remember the details exactly, but I think this was the case where he
was assisting in creating fraudulent stock documents with the Chrisleys.
(36:59):
Isn't that what they were doing?
They They were trying to shift assets out of the reach of the IRS,
and he was preparing all these documents to turn, change the ownership of the businesses?
I think so. And he also knowingly, or perhaps forgetfully, as we know can happen
with overworked tax pros, omitted businesses from the Chrisley's tax filings,
(37:23):
which in effect evaded tax.
He also gave false testimony to the IRS when they were investigating.
What's really crazy to me, Tom, is that if the Chrisleys get their verdicts
set aside for the constitutional violations, does that mean that Tarantino also
gets his verdict set aside?
(37:44):
I don't know, but maybe because the case is actually U.S. v.
Chrisley and Tarantino.
So I guess if they get set aside, maybe his gets thrown out,
too. I guess unless they throw out specific verdicts.
But one thing is for sure, the IRS is so powerful.
(38:04):
Watch out. You have to keep them on their toes because they're human beings. They do make mistakes.
And how about just follow the law? That sounds like the perfect end to this episode.
Despite these challenges, there is a glimmer of hope for the couple.
Their sentences have actually been reduced.
(38:26):
Todd is now set for release in 2033 and Julie in 2028, thanks to being model
inmates and the first step.
The legal battles continue to unfold.
The appeal is just getting started. They're scheduled to have oral arguments,
which, again, is a little bit unusual.
(38:47):
They've got new twists and turns in that process.
And the Grizzlies remain determined to fight for their freedom and clear their names.
And we'll be here at Tax Crime Junkies to keep you updated. So stay tuned.
Thank you, everyone, for listening. We're happy you decided to join us.
And we hope you consider subscribing to the show and even share it with some
(39:11):
friends who could use a Tax Crime Junkie podcast in their life.
Help us spread the word and come back for more.
We hope you'll join us again next week as we continue our mission to find the
loopholes that went left and close them for good.
Until next time, remember that every crime has a trail that leads to the truth.
(39:33):
Thanks for listening to Tax Crime Junkies. We hope you enjoyed this episode.
Don't forget to rate and review us. Stay on top of what's happening with the
podcast by following us on Instagram and X at TaxCrimeJunkies or visit TaxCrimeJunkies.com.
Next time on Tax Crime Junkies, we dive back into the high-stakes world of the
Chrisleys with some jaw-dropping updates.
Chrisley knows best? More like Chrisley knows courtrooms.
We're unpacking the latest legal drama of this once-TV glamorous family.
They've been behind bars, but that has not stopped Todd and Julie Chrisley from flipping the script.
(00:25):
Get ready for a million-dollar twist in their ongoing saga.
From family feuds to questionable government actions, the plot thickens,
and we're dissecting every angle of their contentious legal battle and surprising lawsuit victories.
And with prison life taking its toll, we'll also talk about how the Krizzlies
(00:47):
are fighting now for more than just their freedom.
It's a roller coaster of revelations, and we're here to break it all down.
This episode is packed with unexpected turns and explosive accusations.
So tune in for an episode that is as intriguing as it is unbelievable.
(01:08):
You won't want to miss this deep dive into the Chris Lee case update.
Welcome to Tax Crime Junkies, the one-of-a-kind true crime podcast where the
fascination with taxes meets the world of crime.
Expert duo dom and tom combine their
extensive tax knowledge with their love for unraveling crime
(01:29):
stories we'll explore shocking cases of
embezzlement fraud money laundering and more we'll speak to experts lawyers
and yes even to the criminals themselves but it's not just about the thrill
of the crime they're here to educate you on the importance of tax compliance
helping you steer clear of the IRS's watchful eye.
(01:51):
Thanks for joining us on Tax Credit.
Music.
Your go-to podcast for the most riveting financial scandals, white-collar crimes.
I'm your host, Dominique. I'm a CPA, certified tax strategist,
leader of the American Institute of Certified Tax Planners with a degree in law.
(02:16):
And with me, as always, is my oh-so-lovable co-host, Tom Gorzinski.
Hey, everybody. I'm Tom Gorzinski. I'm an enrolled agent.
I'm admitted to practice us before the U.S. tax court as a non-attorney. I'm a tax planner.
And like you, I love true crime. I love tax.
And Dominique and I have this great podcast called The Tax Crime Junkies.
(02:40):
And today, who would have thought we'd already be revisiting one of our first
cases we covered on this show way back from episode two?
We're unraveling the complex saga of Todd and Julie Julie Chrisley,
the reality TV stars from Chrisley Knows Best.
(03:00):
Ah, yes, Tom. Episode two, back when we were wee babies.
Hey, you may have noticed a new introduction to the show as well.
Thank you to our new show editor, Ed Bishop.
The Chrisleys first dazzled America in 2014.
Their show on the USA Network portrayed them as the epitome of Southern luxury.
(03:22):
But their path to fame was far from straightforward.
Before their TV debut, Todd was dreaming big, wasn't he, Tom? Oh, absolutely.
He had his sights set on a fashion-centric department store,
branching out from his real estate ventures.
Yet this dream never materialized.
Despite the setback, the show pivoted to focus on their lavish lifestyle and
(03:47):
dynamic family life. They certainly didn't hold back, showcasing their extravagant
spending, but I guess that's what TV's all about, right?
It did get interesting, though. Just two years prior to the show,
Todd was deep in financial turmoil.
That's right. He filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, declaring debts of nearly $50
(04:08):
million against assets of just over $4 million.
And that's where the trouble began.
Oh, yeah, those loans, remember? The contrast is stark.
On TV, we saw a life of opulence, but in reality, Todd was grappling with these
significant financial challenges.
The couple had a business partner, and they all conspired to take loans illegally
(04:33):
from banks. So that's what started it.
They created these fake documents, they claimed to have money in other banks,
and they used these community banks to approve their loans.
That's right. They used this money to sponsor their lifestyle,
which amounted to about $36 million.
They spent most of it on trips, hotels, luxury wear, and apartments.
(04:59):
Then whenever a loan was due, the trio would defraud another bank and use the
loan to pay back the previous one.
But look, that can only go so far. When they couldn't keep up,
Todd filed for bankruptcy and attempted to walk away from all those loans.
They kind of just wanted a do-over because they wanted to wipe the slate clean
(05:22):
of their debts and start letting the new money from their TV contract roll in.
I remember that was to get ready for the show that they were going to film.
And after their TV show became successful
back in 2014, the Crisley couple failed to pay the tax they owed.
(05:43):
They ensured that their company, Seven Seas Productions, would be difficult
to tax by registering it as the wife's company.
Then they created false documents and later recorded the company as Todd's mom's company.
They and their new accountant kept this on to evade 2009 taxes and other taxes in 2013 through 2016.
(06:08):
And then the cookie began to crumble. So the plot continued to thicken in regard to their taxes.
From 2013 to 2016, despite the show's enormous success, they didn't file tax
returns or pay their taxes, and their legal woes continued.
(06:29):
In 2019, the Chrisleys found themselves facing serious charges,
conspiracy, bank fraud, wire fraud, tax evasion.
Their defense strategy hinged on shifting blame to Mark Braddock,
a former business associate.
(06:49):
Braddock, however, had his own revelations in court. He sure did.
Braddock claimed to have committed fraud for the Grizzlies, but he was granted
immunity in exchange for his testimony.
In the end, the jury deliberated for less than three days before reaching a verdict.
And guess what? It wasn't good news for the Chrisleys.
(07:11):
No, it wasn't. Both Todd and Julie were convicted on all counts.
And the verdict was really a turning point for them because now they're going
to start this new chapter in their lives.
And it was dramatically different. They were placed under house arrest until sentencing.
And this period was marked by a notable shift in their public presence,
(07:36):
of course, because they weren't available and they couldn't do all their shenanigans flying cross country.
But they were able to maintain a connection with their audience by candidly
discussing their situation.
They formed a podcast and they call it Grizzly Confessions.
That's right around when we got involved, Dom.
(07:58):
November 2022 brought their sentencing where Todd received 12 years,
Julie received seven years, and their accountant, Tarantino, got three years.
And despite those harsh sentences, they were actually below the federal guidelines.
They could have gotten worse.
And factors like age, health, that all played a role, family responsibilities.
(08:23):
Possibilities Todd's emotional plea for Julie
during sentencing was particularly moving he
highlighted her crucial role as a caregiver but
the court wasn't moved by Julie's request for home confinement and they both
began their prison sentences in January of 2023 Todd was sent to the federal
(08:45):
prison camp in Pensacola Florida while Julie was sent to Marietta Florida about
two and a a half hours from Todd.
But as we know, in the world of white collar crime, the story doesn't end there.
And the Grizzlies have continued to fight their convictions.
And in an unexpected term, they actually won a million dollar lawsuit that they
(09:08):
filed against a Georgia tax official.
They filed the suit for alleged misconduct in their investigation.
So they're using this legal victory as a rare glimmer of hope for Chrisley fans
while they're undergoing their appeals process.
Their attorney came out right away. He cited this as proof that the couple had
(09:34):
committed no crimes and they had been railroaded.
And because tax law is so complicated, it might have fooled some audience members to believe that.
Despite their legal battles and imprisonment, their show aired its final episodes,
filmed before the trial, in early 2023.
(09:55):
That's what's so crazy about TV, Dominique.
There can be a timing delay between filming and when a show airs.
It's a stark contrast, isn't it?
On screen, they're enjoying a ski trip in Lake Tahoe.
Off screen, they're in club Fed in federal prison.
(10:16):
Todd's prison conditions, as he described them, were far from the luxury he
once knew and the luxury that he showed on TV.
Reports of poor food and attempts at extortion have emerged.
Here he is discussing prison life with Chris Cuomo on NewsNation.
(10:46):
Year. It's a year past that today. And they are literally starving these men to death here.
These men are getting, I don't know that they're getting a thousand dollars.
You've got rats, you've got squirrels in the storage facility where the food is.
They just covered it up with plastic and tore the ceiling out because of all
(11:06):
the black mold and found a dead cat in the ceiling that dropped down on the top of the thing.
This whole story is a cautionary tale of how quickly Exactly.
Fortunes can change, especially when legality is in question.
And it's also one of the first cases we covered, Tom, where we started to see
patterns in the habits of convicted tax evaders.
(11:28):
Oh, you mean where there's all this extravagant spending and living way beyond
someone's actual means?
Yes, that is the pattern I was thinking of.
Not everything is as it seems. And so we find ourselves back today to provide
an update where I'll continue this idea of not everything as it seems, Tom.
(11:52):
Good, because I definitely wanted to delve deeper into the life of the Chrisleys
and see what they've been up to lately.
You know, it's already a whirlwind of drama and legal battles.
What's a few more astonishing turns to keep us tuning in?
It's almost like a Hollywood production, wouldn't you say? day.
Yeah, it kind of does. In fact, it sounds like a Hollywood production that you and I might create.
(12:18):
What what would it be called? Would it be called Empire of Illusions?
Nah, I like Southern Secrets, The Fall of Chrisley.
Ooh, watch out, world. Tom, I think you may have found your second career path.
Well, let's start with the bombshell news. Despite being behind bars,
(12:39):
Todd and Julie Chrisley secured a huge legal victory when they were awarded
a staggering $1 million in a lawsuit.
That's right. They sued Joshua Waits, the former director of special investigations
at the George Department of Revenue. The Chrisleys claimed Waits made bogus
(13:00):
claims about them, essentially abusing his power.
Apparently, Waits specifically targeted the Chrisleys, including providing compromising
text messages he had allegedly sent to Todd's estranged daughter,
Lindsay, about Todd and Julie.
I heard that he was trying to get her to be like an informant or a witness,
(13:23):
like give up the dirt on them.
And then at one point, she was actually thinking that maybe that's something she would do.
But then I think she changed her mind and she decided against doing that.
And that's why Lindsay and Savannah have no relationship at this point. They just don't talk.
They've been very vocal about why they aren't talking. And Lindsey's also said
(13:47):
Savannah's out here acting like she's grieving her parents.
I'm grieving my parents, too. It's not just her, but Savannah's not out here grieving her parents.
She's also now raising younger siblings.
She's advocating for prison reform and also for her parents to have the appeal
that they feel they deserve.
(14:08):
They actually began this battle with Georgia Department of Revenue before their
federal trial, and Georgia dropped the charges.
And I think also the state awarded other money to them, didn't they?
Yes, it looks like the couple was granted $2 million compensation in a state
(14:28):
tax evasion case in Georgia in 2019, subsequently filing a lawsuit against Mr.
Waits, alleging that he had specifically targeted their family in an act of apparent retaliation.
The lawsuit included compromising text messages that Waits had allegedly sent
Lindsay about Todd and Julie and a rep for the Georgia Department of Revenue.
(14:53):
Insisted its investigators are fair and impartial, but acknowledged that Chrisley's
revelations were very disappointing.
They owed quite a bit of restitution, I recall, and they also,
of course, owe attorneys fees. So if, in fact...
This means that they've been awarded now a total of $3 million.
That's probably where it all went. Right. Directly to the government and attorneys.
(15:18):
And this is where their attorney irritated you, Dom, because he made public
statements about the meaning of this award.
Little has been said publicly.
It's nearly unprecedented for one arm of the government to pay money to defendants
when another arm is fighting to keep them in jail.
(15:38):
Here he is on News Nation. Yeah, so the lawsuit was against the state of Georgia,
which was the first arm that started this investigation against Todd and Julie.
The arm that prosecuted them was the federal government, which secured convictions,
which we are challenging.
So specifically, the tax evasion charges on a number of grounds.
One of the things that the district courts found in that federal case is that
(16:00):
Georgia had violated the Fourth Amendment. amendment.
And so the federal court, when we do the appeals, already starting with the
presumption that Georgia has violated the Fourth Amendment.
And so, you know, that's a key part of our appeal in the federal criminal case.
But it's absolutely unprecedented.
I've never seen a case like this where, you know, somebody is in jail,
they're fighting to get out.
And over the same events, another part of the government saying,
(16:21):
actually, here's a million dollars.
Yeah, I don't think I see it the same way, Tom. That's why you're irritated
about it. Well, it's misleading.
Georgia was attempting to get evidence by enticing an estranged daughter to
turn state's evidence, and she didn't.
Their attorney, Alex Little, called the settlement an encouraging sign amidst their ongoing appeal.
(16:43):
It's two different issues, right? And two different agencies. emergencies
he pointed out how unusual it is
for the government to compensate individuals it's simultaneously
trying to keep locked up but first
of all like i said it's two separate branches of government with different criminal
charges this is hardly two different people from the same office down the hall
(17:06):
trying to use the same stuff this lawsuit uncovered a labyrinth of alleged misconduct
and personal vendettas.
It claimed that Waits targeted Lindsay, using her to gather compromising information
about the family, but she didn't participate.
Now we'll get to the Fourth Amendment violations brought up in the appeal.
(17:28):
But I do agree with you. It paints a picture to the public that the Chrisleys did nothing wrong here.
Being innocent and having your conviction overturned by a constitutional rights
violation are two completely different things.
So I absolutely see your point.
Exactly. Exactly. And that's why we do this show, Tom, so we can break down
(17:52):
these complicated tax and fraud cases, better understand the evidence,
the verdicts, and know what took place.
There is outside fallout, and I think the Georgia case just shows how egregious
the state's actions were.
I'm not saying they're right, but that's how our system works.
(18:13):
We have checks and balances. It was one person, but they're a representative
of the state, albeit with short man syndrome.
Hey, wait a minute. Wait a minute. What?
You're not short, Tom. It's OK. It's just a figure of speech.
Sometimes people get power crazy.
And, you know, with that, they're doing things outside of the law because they're
(18:35):
convinced they are doing the right thing to, quote, get the bad guys convicted. evicted.
And the fallout of that not only damages the standard of law,
meaning if they get away with it, and some do, but it also damages people.
In this case, the family dynamics have taken a hit too. These are human beings.
(18:57):
The tension between Lindsay and her sister Savannah has been palpable largely
due to these legal entanglements and family secrets.
Now, speaking of Savannah, Her role has evolved significantly.
She's not just grieving her parents' imprisonment. She's now a caregiver to
her younger siblings and an advocate for prison reform in her parents' legal battle.
(19:21):
On the legal front, the Chrisleys are fervently pushing for their release from prison.
They argue they should be serving their sentences under house arrest.
Maintaining their innocence and a right to a fair appeal.
Now, apparently they've got it about as good as it can get. They traded their
luxurious lifestyle for prison time in January of 23.
(19:42):
According to a story in the Pensacola News Journal, the Pensacola prison in
which Todd Chrisley is serving time was actually noted by Forbes.
I didn't know Forbes tracked this as the second cushiest prison in the United States.
And Julie there, of course, they're not in the same facility.
She asked to serve her sentence at the Florida Correctional Institute, Tallahassee.
(20:08):
That's about 500 miles away from Nashville, where the family's base is.
But she actually got assigned to Mariana, Florida. And then that changed to neither prison.
And she's, in fact, serving her sentence at a federal medical center in Lexington, Kentucky.
(20:28):
Now, an online prison rating system listed things like the staff is really respectful.
There's no politics. There's great medical and good food. It was very laid back
here as if it were a camp and virtually has no violence.
Those were some of the perks that were listed online.
(20:48):
So wait a minute. There's an online prison rating system like a hotel?
Oh, yeah. In this review culture, school teachers are ranked,
restaurants, shopping products, everything's ranked and so are the prisons.
So I guess that's so if you have to go, you can try to get a good one. Aye, aye, aye.
(21:08):
But of course, even with a so-called cushy prison, the Chrisleys don't describe
it that way, as you could probably expect.
Here's Todd talking about our News Nation with Chris Cuomo.
(21:35):
Well,
it is prison. I'm not sure I expected any better.
But if that's considered cushy, what are the other ones like?
I know. That sounds absolutely disgusting.
So let's get into the appeal. I want to break this down a bit because the appeal
(21:56):
centers around alleged government misconduct.
And this includes claims of an illegal search warrant and improper testimony
by IRS Revenue Officer Betty Carter. So we'll focus on Betty Carter to begin with.
And what she testified to is that the Chrisleys owed back taxes for several years.
(22:20):
But here's the thing. Later revelations indicated that these claims were false,
raising serious questions about the integrity of the evidence presented at their trial.
You know, prosecutors cannot knowingly present and fail to correct any false
testimony from IRS revenue officers.
(22:44):
That's right. And there are procedures for correcting evidence so they later
become aware of an error.
And it can result in a new trial if, when this happens, it is considered to
have an impact on the jury's verdict.
In this case, Revenue Officer Carter prepared for her testimony by examining
the relevant tax payment records in the IRS's internal systems.
(23:08):
Specifically, she said that she had reviewed the IRS's integrated data system,
which, quote, shows returns that are filed, taxes that are due,
payments that are made, basically the activity on the money side of the account.
The appeal goes on to say, purportedly based on her review of these records,
(23:30):
a revenue officer, Carter, testified that the Chrisleys failed to pay taxes
for various years and still owed the IRS money for these years.
For example, she said that based on her review of the records,
which she claimed she completed the morning before her testimony,
that Chrisleys still owed taxes for 2010 and 2014. Okay.
(23:52):
Revenue Officer Carter also testified on cross-examination that the Chrisleys
owed money for 2015 and 2016.
While she could not recall the exact amount, she told defense counsel she would
let them know what it was, and that didn't happen. No.
And this is where all the problems begin, because not only did Revenue Officer
(24:15):
Carter not contact defense counsel with those alleged balances during the trial.
Instead, after the government had obtained its convictions, she reached out,
contacted the Chrisley's accountants and admitted that the couple did not owe the IRS the money.
(24:36):
Now, keep in mind, that's all part of restitution, right?
And they were convicted of tax evasion.
She claimed at trial that they did owe the money.
So it's a really big problem, not only for the government in its case,
but it's a problem for our justice system and specifically the tax court system.
(25:00):
I mean, we have to know that the government is telling the truth.
She told the accountant after the trial that the Chrisleys were current on their
taxes for 2014, 15 and 16, but that the IRS had failed to apply the payments to their account.
(25:20):
In later emails with the accountant, Revenue Officer Carter confirmed that the
IRS's system showed that the Chrisleys had made payments for 2014 to 2016,
and those payments actually exceeded the amounts owed for these years.
Yet her testimony left the misimpression impression that the Chrisleys still
(25:44):
owed substantial sums to the IRS, when in fact, the IRS had been failing to
apply payments that the Chrisleys previously made.
Now, this, of course, is a major problem for the government's case because they're
being tried for tax evasion.
They're being tried because they didn't pay their taxes.
(26:07):
So the jury hears something like this, believes these people are skipping out
on their taxes, and it's a jury of their peers.
I know as a taxpayer, I'd be pretty prejudiced to hear the defendant isn't paying
and for that long. I don't think you can say it did not have an effect on the jury.
(26:29):
So this is why you say, Tom, it's a Giglio claim.
The Chrisleys allege that the prosecution knowingly presented and failed to
correct false testimony.
And that's a serious violation of legal standards.
You're right. Now, it does appear that perhaps they made the payments before
(26:49):
the trial, but way later than when they were due.
So, in fact, the attorney general could have argued that he just came in to
look better and pay it right before court.
But in this case, they didn't do that. And they didn't have to do that because
the IRS made it seem like the taxes were still outstanding.
This is why we often say the IRS is not always right.
(27:13):
You may think they're right, but as you and I both know, Dominique,
their systems are antiquated, although getting better in recent years.
And in this case, that ancient computer showed the wrong balance due.
This is why everyone needs to keep diligent records and stay on top of their
(27:36):
IRS matters and hire real professionals who can testify at trial that they already
paid it and now owe no money simply because the IRS hasn't updated their accounts.
I agree. I'm kind of surprised that their accountant didn't testify to that
in the original trial to contradict what the IRS was saying.
(27:59):
So to remedy this, this is what's happening now in the appeal,
defense raised a Giglio claim in their motion for a new trial and they requested
an evidentiary hearing.
The government's response admitted, now it was in a footnote,
but they admitted that the prosecution team knew during the trial that Revenue
(28:22):
Officer Carter's testimony was false and that they did nothing to correct it.
And even in the face of these admissions, the district court declined to hold a hearing on this topic.
It summarily denied the new trial motion without stating any reasons.
Three days after the court ruled, the Chrisleys received documents in response
(28:47):
to a records request from from the IRS that they had made many months prior.
And these records had internal IRS audit trails and it substantiated the Chrisley's
Giglio claims and refuted the government's assertion that revenue officer Carter's false testimony.
(29:09):
Unintentional, and that the prosecutors were unaware of the payments.
So it's based in part on this evidence that the Chrisleys filed a motion for
reconsideration. They should have gotten that evidentiary hearing to sort out that matter.
So it actually was going down in real time during the trial.
(29:30):
It's just that the district court declined.
The renewed motion alleged, alleged, among other things, that the prosecutors
and Officer Carter had planned to mislead the jury and the court by basing Revenue
Officer Carter's testimony about the tax payments on an IRS database that they knew to be incorrect.
(29:52):
Big allegation. It's huge. And if that was done, it is a bigger problem of overreaching
and even illegal behavior by the government.
The Chrisley's motion provided factual support through affidavits,
and it's largely corroborated by the government's own words,
(30:12):
their explicit and implicit admissions in its response to the new trial request.
So the appeal claims that Revenue Officer Carter lied, but it really looks to
me like the backwoods computer system spit out the wrong info,
which to your point, Tom, you and I see all the time as practitioners.
(30:33):
Yeah, don't remind me. Right.
Identifying there's a problem is the easiest part. Getting them to fix it,
that is a whole nother ball of wax. Oh, I know.
Weren't you telling me now that you've had a telephone rep from the practitioner
hotline instruct you to file amended returns to correct problems?
(30:53):
IRS's own error? Yes. And how do I do that?
How am I going to do that? Show an amended return with no changes?
I'll put a sticky note on it that says, check your system. You entered it incorrectly.
It's maddening. That's why when you get a good phone person,
I just wish we could get their direct phone number.
(31:16):
And that's why you will never have a direct phone extension for most post-IRS employees.
Now, there's also other claims in the appeal. Let's talk about the Fourth Amendment claim.
The Chrisleys argue that the district court admitted evidence obtained through
an alleged unlawful search, a significant breach of their rights.
(31:38):
Todd Chrisley's other argument with regard to the search warrant is that the
court erred when it admitted evidence in violation of their Fourth Amendment rights.
The Giglio violation is not the only error that requires a new trial.
At the government's insistence, the district court admitted substantial volumes
of evidence of trial that were obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment,
(32:02):
even though the evidence had been suppressed by a prior ruling that the government did not appeal.
Specifically, the court admitted copies of documents illegally seized from the
Chrisley's warehouse, and other evidence derived from the unlawful warehouse search.
When it did so, the court did not require the government to make any showing
(32:25):
that this evidence qualified for an exception to the exclusionary rule that
would permit its admission.
This is another bad thing for the prosecution in this case. It's a flat-out error.
The facts already in the record establish that nearly all the investigative
steps that federal agents took
(32:45):
after March 2017 were prompted by what they found in that illegal search.
And as a result, much of the evidence the government collected should have been inadmissible at trial.
But prosecutors sought to admit some of it anyway.
And when the Chrisleys raised the issue, the district court declined to decide
(33:08):
the question on its merits.
Exactly. This is the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine.
The effect of the court's procedural ruling was to permit the government to
introduce fruits of the illegal warehouse search, fruits of the poisonous tree.
They get this stuff in without showing they met an exception to the exclusionary rule.
(33:29):
So under this doctrine, any evidence later found in a subsequent search should
be suppressed. rest if the search warrant was prompted by what investigators
found in the prior unconstitutional search.
So here we have a criminal trial.
Two alleged constitutional violations, the type of which, if a court is going
(33:52):
to overturn a conviction, it's these exact types that we see that get new trials ordered.
And in some cases, the verdict is set aside if it's really found to be egregious.
And while I still don't agree with the statements by their attorney that say
that since Georgia was thrown out, the tax evasion case should be thrown out,
(34:16):
it does appear that they have some serious problems with their case.
And based on the appeal anyway, it seems they can prove it with the government's own words and actions.
Now, this is just from Todd Crisley's appeal. There are actually three appeals
running. He's got this, one from Julie, and another appeal from their accountant, Tarantino, right?
(34:42):
Yes. Now, Tarantino's is actually pretty interesting on its own.
It addresses five separate issues for this CPA.
Remember this guy, Dom? He's the one that failed the CPA exam many times over
20 years and was unqualified to handle the Chrisley Spidances?
I remember. Well, here's his case.
(35:05):
Reminder, Peter Tarantino, the CPA for the Chrisleys, was convicted of tax-related
crimes and is associated with the broader case against the Chrisleys,
forging bank documents, etc.
While he's filed a separate appeal from them, this indicates that while his
case is related to theirs, he has distinct legal arguments or issues he is contesting.
(35:30):
A significant part of Tarantino's appeal is the argument that he should not
have been tried alongside Todd and Julie Chrisley.
His defense seems to be centered around the idea that the bulk of the evidence
presented at trial was focused on the Chrisleys' actions,
(35:50):
and he was merely performing his
professional duties as a CPA without any knowledge of criminal activity.
His argument suggests that his inclusion in the same trial with the Crisleys
unfairly prejudiced his case.
Leading the jury to associate him with the crimes of his clients.
(36:12):
His defense strategy appears to be based on distancing his professional actions
as a CPA from the criminal actions of the Chrisleys.
The essence of this argument is likely that he was unaware of the fraudulent
nature of what they were doing and was simply doing his job.
(36:33):
Tarantino was convicted and
sentenced, though his sentence was less severe than each of the Chrisleys.
It reflects the different degrees of involvement or types of charges against each defendant.
So shouldn't he have been tried separately?
I don't remember the details exactly, but I think this was the case where he
was assisting in creating fraudulent stock documents with the Chrisleys.
(36:59):
Isn't that what they were doing?
They They were trying to shift assets out of the reach of the IRS,
and he was preparing all these documents to turn, change the ownership of the businesses?
I think so. And he also knowingly, or perhaps forgetfully, as we know can happen
with overworked tax pros, omitted businesses from the Chrisley's tax filings,
(37:23):
which in effect evaded tax.
He also gave false testimony to the IRS when they were investigating.
What's really crazy to me, Tom, is that if the Chrisleys get their verdicts
set aside for the constitutional violations, does that mean that Tarantino also
gets his verdict set aside?
(37:44):
I don't know, but maybe because the case is actually U.S. v.
Chrisley and Tarantino.
So I guess if they get set aside, maybe his gets thrown out,
too. I guess unless they throw out specific verdicts.
But one thing is for sure, the IRS is so powerful.
(38:04):
Watch out. You have to keep them on their toes because they're human beings. They do make mistakes.
And how about just follow the law? That sounds like the perfect end to this episode.
Despite these challenges, there is a glimmer of hope for the couple.
Their sentences have actually been reduced.
(38:26):
Todd is now set for release in 2033 and Julie in 2028, thanks to being model
inmates and the first step.
The legal battles continue to unfold.
The appeal is just getting started. They're scheduled to have oral arguments,
which, again, is a little bit unusual.
(38:47):
They've got new twists and turns in that process.
And the Grizzlies remain determined to fight for their freedom and clear their names.
And we'll be here at Tax Crime Junkies to keep you updated. So stay tuned.
Thank you, everyone, for listening. We're happy you decided to join us.
And we hope you consider subscribing to the show and even share it with some
(39:11):
friends who could use a Tax Crime Junkie podcast in their life.
Help us spread the word and come back for more.
We hope you'll join us again next week as we continue our mission to find the
loopholes that went left and close them for good.
Until next time, remember that every crime has a trail that leads to the truth.
(39:33):
Thanks for listening to Tax Crime Junkies. We hope you enjoyed this episode.
Don't forget to rate and review us. Stay on top of what's happening with the
podcast by following us on Instagram and X at TaxCrimeJunkies or visit TaxCrimeJunkies.com.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
The Nikki Glaser Podcast
Every week comedian and infamous roaster Nikki Glaser provides a fun, fast-paced, and brutally honest look into current pop-culture and her own personal life.