DOJ-OGR-00009531.jpg

Case peneeeieees ememenees soso eee of 117 Case 1:09-cr-00581-WHP Document 605 _ Filed 03/18/13 Page 7 of 41 2. Parse’s Personal Tax Evasion Parse executed his own fraudulent SOS tax shelter transaction to eliminate the gains he eared in 2000, and received a free fraudulent opinion letter from J&G. The losses Parse created — $3,000,000 — were larger than Parse needed for the 2000 year, suggesting that he intended to eliminate taxes in more than one year. On his 2000 tax return, Parse claimed a $1,278,706 fraudulent loss, evading $517,542 in taxes on over $2.1 million in income. See GX 1001-132 (Parse 2000 Tax Return); GX 1000-52 (IRS Certificate of Assessment and Payments for Parse’s 2000 Taxes); GX 54-1 (J&G Opinion Letter for Parse). Parse's receipt of a free opinion letter, which would have otherwise cost him no less than $90,000 (and likely more)’ had he paid the going rate for a J&G opinion letter, violated Deutsche Bank's gift prohibition policy and almost certainly violated the law, in that it constituted his receipt of an unlawful commission or gift by a bank official. See 18 U.S.C. § 215 (unlawful for any bank employee to accept anything of value intended to be rewarded in connection with business of bank). 3. Parse’s Participation in the Fraudulent Backdating of Transactions As detailed in paragraphs 44-52 of the PSR, Parse’s conduct involved not only assisting in the design, marketing, and implementation of the fraudulent J&G tax shelters, but also the implementation of fraudulently backdated when Donna Guerin and others at J&G realized that the shelters had been implemented incorrectly, or not consistent with the clients’ wishes with respect to * Parse executed a $3,000,000 short options deal through J&G. Using a conservative 3% fee results in a $90,000 opinion letter value. Parse only deducted just over $1.2 million of the $3,000,000 in losses on his 2000 return, and thus had available just under $1.8 million in losses to use on future tax returns. Although Parse ultimately did not utilize those additional losses (because he reversed his own transaction when the IRS began investigating), the proper view of Parse’s own fraudulent transaction should take into account the full amount of fraudulent benefit he produced. 5 DOJ-OGR-00009531