DOJ-OGR-00010212.jpg

rs mer a; mae el Case 1:09-cr-00581-WHP Document 605 Filed 03/18/13 Page 9 of 41 Sentencing Mem. at 12), the evidence showed and Yackee testified persistently, consistently, and credibly that she acted at all times at the instruction of David Parse. Given the foregoing, Parse’s attempt to blame her for his criminal conduct is inconsistent with the facts; it is also, in a larger sense, inexcusable. To the extent that Parse trial and current counsel have suggested and continue to suggest that the backdating transactions were approved by Deutsche Bank, the only approvals were from Parse himself, and on some of the trade tickets, the signature of the branch manager appears.’ Moreover, there is no evidence that the branch manager knew of the purpose and animus for the backdated transactions. To the extent that a branch manager actually knew what was occurring, that fact would only render the branch manager a co-conspirator, and not excuse Parse’s criminal conduct. However complex the tax shelters, the fraudulent backdating was nothing more than garden- variety fraud committed to achieve impermissible tax results. Basic principles of tax reporting — such as the annual accounting rule — prohibit the changing of tax results through transactions carried out after the close of the tax year. Carrie Yackee testified that she understood, based on her * Yackee made clear that the “Deutsche Bank approvals” on the backdated transaction were actually instructions from David Parse: Q. You also testified about acting in accordance with Deutsche Bank policy, correct? A. Correct. Q. Are you aware what Deutsche Bank's policy is for the use of as of dates on trades? A. I don’t know of the specific policy. Q. How do you know you acted in accordance with the policy? A. I was directed what to do by my boss. Q. So when you say you acted in accordance with policy, you mean you followed your boss’s orders? A. And I presumed that he would follow policy. So... (Tr. 5699). DOJ-OGR-00010212