DOJ-OGR-00010193.jpg

CaébasiAQOAS UR DARN PO O38 FSS DATO? ab atige 6F af1171 7 Case 1:09-cr-00581-WHP Document 604 _ Filed 03/16/13 Page 9 of 14 yA ZUCKERMAN SPAEDER ie The Honorable William H. Pauley, II] March 7, 2013 Page 9 the relationship. Shih introduced David and his partner Rod McKay to Daugerdas, and they began doing business. As the Court knows, Deutsche Bank’s participation in the tax shelters was approved at the bank’s highest levels.” That fact, coupled with the prominence of the Jenkins firm and the knowledge that other law and accounting firms were marketing similar products, gave David comfort that the tax shelters were lawful. Like many others, he believed that Daugerdas and his partners had found a “loophole” that could be exploited until it was closed. From 1998 to 2001, tax shelter trades became a part of David's business. As we see it, the jury accepted the proposition that David was not a culpable participant in the overall Jenkins tax shelter scheme. His acquittal on the tax conspiracy count and the substantive tax evasion counts (and the complete acquittal of his co-defendant Craig Brubaker) confirm the point. The jury, it seems, concluded that David did not know that a lack of economic substance made the Jenkins shelters illegal. If that is correct, then David's convictions for mail fraud and tax obstruction reflect his involvement in the three “backdating” transactions. In each instance, trades effected in one year (¢.g., 2002) were used to generate tax See, e.g., Tr. 2965 (discussing letter from Irwin Mayer to Bob Price, Alex Brown’s general counsel); Tr. 5678-79 (confirming that approvals from legal, credit, tax and compliance had been obtained for the Homer transaction), DOJ-OGR-00010193