Back to Office of Property Management main page
Columns DCWatch
Archives Elections Government and People Budget issues Organizations |
KENNETH L. WAINSTEIN Judiciary Center
PRESS RELEASE
President of Douglas Development Corporation and two high level employees indicted by federal grand jury on conspiracy, bribery, fraud and tax evasion chargesWashington, D.C. – United States Attorney Kenneth L. Wainstein, Michael A. Mason, Assistant Director in Charge of the FBI’s Washington Field Office, Inspector General for the District of Columbia Charles Willoughby, and Rick A. Raven, Special Agent in Charge, Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation, announced that today a federal grand jury sitting in the District of Columbia returned an eight-count indictment against Douglas Jemal, 62, President of Douglas Development Corporation; his son, Norman Jemal, 36, a Douglas Development executive; and Blake Esherick, 42, Director of Leasing at Douglas Development. The indictment charges the three individuals with engaging in a conspiracy between January 2001 and April 2004 to pay bribes to a District of Columbia government official, Michael Lorusso, in order to influence him in performing official acts for Douglas Development in connection with various real estate matters. Douglas Jemal is also charged with compensating Blake Esherick for his services by providing Esherick substantial income that Esherick failed to declare on his Federal income tax returns. Finally, all three men are alleged to have engaged in a fraudulent scheme that included sending a false document to a lender in order to obtain funds from a construction loan “draw” for Douglas Jemal’s and Norman Jemal’s personal use and benefit. The statutory penalty for bribery, upon conviction, is 15 years in prison. The remaining violations each carry up to five years in prison, upon conviction. An arraignment date has not yet been set by the Court. Today’s indictment is the latest action in the ongoing joint FBI, D.C. Inspector General’s Office, Internal Revenue Service and United States Attorney’s Office investigation into the activities of Michael Lorusso, the former Deputy Director of the District of Columbia’s Office of Property Management, who pled guilty to bribery conspiracy charges in November 2004. United States Attorney Wainstein stated, "The services of our public employees are not for sale. This prosecution demonstrates that we will bring the full force of the law against those government employees and contractors who corruptly pursue private gain at the expense of the public good." Rick A. Raven, Special Agent in Charge, Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation, stated "the prosecution of individuals who intentionally conceal income and evade taxes is a vital element in maintaining public confidence in our tax system. We should not expect the honest taxpayer to foot the bill for those who hide income from the IRS." Bribery Conspiracy, Fraud and Honest Services FraudAccording to the indictment, Lorusso used his official position to benefit, and attempt to benefit, Douglas Jemal and Douglas Development by arranging for the leasing of properties from Douglas Development for the District of Columbia. This included:
In return for this favorable treatment, as charged in the indictment, Douglas Jemal, Norman Jemal and Blake Esherick gave Lorusso items of value, including:
Tax Evasion ConspiracyAdditionally, the indictment alleges that Douglas Jemal gave Esherick compensation that would not be reported to the Internal Revenue Service, in a manner that would be difficult to detect and otherwise leave little or no record in the books of Douglas Development and, if scrutinized, could be characterized as reflecting loans, innocent accounting decisions, or accounting mistakes of others. Jemal did so in order to compensate Esherick for his services, including Esherick’s participation in the illegal bribery scheme. This compensation made by Douglas Development and Douglas Jemal, which Esherick did not report on his taxes, included:
Fraud in a Mortgage DisbursementFinally, Douglas Jemal, Norman Jemal and Blake Esherick are charged with engaging in a scheme to defraud a mortgage company, Mortgage Capital, Inc., by falsifying documents submitted to the mortgage company which resulted in the fraudulent release of $430,000 in loan proceeds directly to Douglas Jemal for his and Norman Jemal’s personal use and benefit, rather than to a third party vendor as required by the mortgage. In announcing today’s indictment, United States Attorney Wainstein, FBI Assistant Director Mason, Inspector General Willoughby and IRS Special Agent in Charge Raven commended City Councilmember Jim Graham for uncovering evidence of possible favoritism by Lorusso toward certain contractors during City Council hearings held by the Councilmember in 2003. They also thanked the city government for the assistance and cooperation it provided throughout this investigation. Lastly, they praised the work of FBI Special Agents David McClelland and Thomas Chadwick; District of Columbia Inspector General Agent Larry Carr; Special Agents of the Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation; legal assistant Lisa Robinson, and Assistant United States Attorney Mark H. Dubester, who will be prosecuting this matter. An indictment is merely a formal charge that a defendant has committed a violation of criminal laws. Every defendant is presumed innocent until and unless found guilty. Government of the District of Columbia Office of Communications
Statement by Mayor Williams on Indictment of Doug Jemal, Norman Jemal and Blake EsherickWashington, DC) Mayor Anthony A. Williams issued the following statement upon learning that a federal grand jury returned an eight-count indictment against Doug Jemal, Norman Jemal and Blake Esherick charging them with engaging in illegal conduct in their roles as government contractors. "We in the District government hold all of our employees as well as our contractors to the highest ethical standards, and we expect them to act fairly, openly and honestly as they deal with and represent the District government. District residents deserve to have complete confidence in their government, and I will accept nothing less. I am pleased that the US Attorney's office has turned its full attention to this case, and I encourage Mr. Wainstein to aggressively root out corruption anywhere he finds it, whether it is in the government or in the private sector. We will continue to cooperate fully in the investigation." UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Holding a Criminal Term UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. DOUGLAS JEMAL, NORMAN D. JEMAL, BLAKE ESHERICK, DefendantsCrim. No. GJO Charges:
INDICTMENT
COUNT ONE
|
|
DATE |
THING OF VALUE |
a. |
In or about May 2001 |
Hotel accommodations at the Bellagio Hotel, Las Vegas, |
b. |
In or about August 2001 |
Cash; |
c. |
In or about late August 2001 |
Rolex men’s wrist watch; |
d. |
In or about September or October 2001 |
Cash; |
e. |
In or about October 2001 |
Repairs to Lorusso’s Audi automobile; |
f. |
In or about February 2002 |
Trip to Florida; |
g. |
In or about May 2002 |
Air travel, hotels, and several meals in Las Vegas; |
h. |
In or about May 2002 |
Cowboy boots; |
i. |
Numerous dates in 2001 and 2002 |
Meals and entertainment, specifically including meals at the Capital Grille, Zola’s and other District of Columbia restaurants, and tickets to events at the MCI Center; |
j. |
Various unknown dates |
Use of Douglas Development’s limousine service for local travel in the District of Columbia area; |
k. | Unknown date in 2002 | Offer of a custom-made suit; |
to influence official acts of Michael A. Lorusso and to induce Michael A. Lorusso to do and to omit to do acts in violation of Michael A. Lorusso’s official duties, so that when the opportunity presented itself, Lorusso would take actions on defendant DOUGLAS JEMAL’s and Douglas Development’s behalf, to include:
i) actions in the nature of causing the DC Government to enter into leases of property owned in whole or in part by defendant DOUGLAS JEMAL;
ii) actions in the nature of causing the DC Government to attempt to purchase property owned by defendants DOUGLAS JEMAL and NORMAN D. JEMAL;
iii) actions in the nature of causing the DC Government to pay invoices submitted for payment by Douglas Development, including invoices which were false, fraudulent, unsupported, duplicate or excessive;
iv) actions in the nature of causing DC Government funds to be used to pay for financial obligations of Douglas Development; and
v) numerous routine actions involving the exercise of discretion in connection with the DC Government’s relationship with Douglas Development.
(Payment of Bribes to Public Official, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 201(b)(1)(A) & (C), and Aiding and Abetting and Causing an Act to be Done, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2)
1. Paragraphs One through Twelve of Count One of this Indictment are realleged and incorporated by reference as if stated in full.
2. From in or about May 2001 and continuing through at least in or about January 2003, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, defendants DOUGLAS JEMAL, NORMAN D. JEMAL and BLAKE ESHERICK, as principals, aiders and abettors and coconspirators, knowingly and willfully devised and intended to devise a scheme and artifice: a) to defraud and deprive the DC Government and to obtain money by means of false and fraudulent pretenses and representations; and b) to defraud and deprive the DC Government and the citizens of the District of Columbia of their right to the honest and faithful services of Michael A. Lorusso as an employee of OPM, performed free from deceit, favoritism, bias, self-enrichment, self-dealing and conflict of interest.
3. The purpose of the scheme was for the defendants to provide things of value to Michael A. Lorusso and thereby induce him to take actions as a DC Government official to financially benefit and enrich, directly and indirectly, defendants DOUGLAS JEMAL, NORMAN D. JEMAL, BLAKE C. ESHERICK and companies under their control.
It was part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that:
4. Paragraphs Fifteen and Sixteen of Count One of this Indictment are re-alleged as if set forth in full.
5. On or about the dates set forth below, the defendants, for the purposes of executing the above-described scheme, did knowingly place in any post office and authorized depository for mail matter and knowingly caused to be delivered by mail, the following items:
|
Date On or About |
Item mailed |
Description of Mailing |
1(a) |
June 22, 2001 |
American Express statement of NORMAN D. JEMAL, containing Bellagio Hotel charges |
American Express statement, addressed to Norman D. Jemal, 702 H Street, NW, Washington, D.C. |
1(b) |
July 17, 2001 |
Check drawn on account of Douglas Development in the amount $21,939.37 |
check mailed from Washington D.C. to American Express, Newark, NJ |
2(a) |
September 22, 2001 |
American Express statement of NORMAN D. JEMAL, containing charges from Fred Brown Jewelers |
American Express statement, addressed to Norman D. Jemal, 702 H Street, NW, Washington, D.C. |
2(b) |
October 15, 2001 |
Check drawn on account of NORMAN D. JEMAL, payable to American Express, in the amount of $30,158.01 |
check mailed from Washington, D.C. to American Express, Newark, NJ |
3(a) |
October 1, 2001 |
American Express statement of Douglas Development employee, containing charges from Fred Brown Jewelers in the amount of $70 |
American Express statement, addressed to Douglas Development employee, 702 H Street, NW, Washington, D.C. |
3(b) |
October 17, 2001 |
Check drawn on account of Douglas Development, payable to American Express, |
check mailed from Washington, D.C. to American Express, Newark, NJ |
4(a) | November 1, 2001 | American Express statement of Douglas Development employee, containing charges from auto repair business amount of $1,326.92 | American Express statement, addressed to Douglas Development employee, 702 H Street, NW, Washington, D.C. |
4(b) | November 16, 2001 | Check drawn on account of Douglas Development, payable to American Express, in the amount of $12,558.56 | check mailed from Washington, D.C. to American Express, Newark, NJ |
5(a) | February 22, 2002 | American Express statement of NORMAN D. JEMAL, containing charges for hotel reservations in Las Vegas and payments to a travel agency for airline ticket to Florida for “Lorusso/M” | American Express statement, addressed to Norman D. Jemal, 702 H Street, NW, Washington, D.C. |
5(b) | March 24, 2002 | Checks drawn on account of NORMAN D. JEMAL, payable to American Express, in the amount of $3,014.82, and on account of Douglas Development, in the amount of $521.84 | checks mailed from Washington, D.C. to American Express, Newark, NJ. |
6(a) | February 28, 2002 | American Express statement of NORMAN D. JEMAL, containing charges for American West airline ticket from Baltimore to Las Vegas for “Lorusso/M” | American Express statement addressed to Norman D. Jemal, 702 H Street, NW, Washington, D.C. |
6(b) | March 16, 2002 | Checks drawn on account of NORMAN D. JEMAL, payable to American Express, in the amount of $9,115.61, and on account of Douglas Development, in the amount of $5,019.33 | checks mailed from Washington, D.C. to American Express Chicago, Ill. |
7(a) | May 29, 2002 | American Express statement of NORMAN D. JEMAL, containing charges in Las Vegas | American Express statement, addressed to Norman D. Jemal, 702 H Street, NW, Washington, D.C. |
7(b) | June 14, 2002 | Check drawn on account of NORMAN D. JEMAL, payable to American Express, in the amount of $11,209.85. | checks mailed from Washington, D.C. to American Express, Chicago, Ill. |
8(a) | June 19, 2002 | American Express statement of Douglas Jemal, containing charges in Las Vegas, including the Boot Barn | American Express statement, addressed to Douglas Jemal, 702 H Street, NW, Washington, D.C. |
8(b) | June 27, 2002 | Check drawn on account of Douglas Jemal, payable to American Express, in the amount of $14,408.34 | checks mailed from Washington, D.C. to American Express, Newark, NJ |
(Mail Fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 1346, and Aiding and Abetting and Causing and Act to be Done, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2)
1. In or about early July 2001, the precise date being unknown, through July 20, 2001, defendant BLAKE C. ESHERICK did engage in a scheme with intent to defraud the District of Columbia Government and to obtain for Douglas Development Corporation (Douglas Development) property of the District of Columbia by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises and thereby did obtain property of the District of Columbia and caused the District of Columbia to lose property, said property of a value of $250 and more.
2. It was part of the scheme that defendant BLAKE C. ESHERICK would create and submit, and cause to be created and submitted, to the District of Columbia Government, an undated, unsigned, unnumbered false and fraudulent invoice captioned “77 P Street, NE, D.O.E.S. Relocation Expenses” seeking payment to Douglas Development of $38,000 related to purported damage resulting from the move of the District of Columbia Department of Employment Services into 77 P Street, NE, Washington, D.C, in late June 2001, said invoice being false and fraudulent as follows:
a. Said invoice set forth a claim for “80 man-hours overtime for staff supervision and engineering during move,” when, in truth and in fact, the extent of overtime compensation paid by Douglas Development was to a single employee for 16 hours in the total amount of $288.
b. Said invoice set forth a total claim for “D.O.E.S. Relocation Expenses” in the amount of $38,000 when, in truth and in fact, Douglas Development incurred actual expenses of approximately less than $10,000 resulting from move damage.
3. On or about July 20, 2001, the District of Columbia Government issued a check payable to Douglas Development in an amount consisting in part of $38,000 paid in response to the above-described false and fraudulent invoice.
(Fraud in the First Degree (felony), in violation of Title 22, District of Columbia Code, Sections 3221(a), 3222(a)(1))
1. Paragraphs One through Four of Count One of this Indictment are realleged and incorporated by reference as if stated in full.
2. Participant #1 was an employee at Douglas Development and a conspirator and aider and abettor in this count. This individual is not charged in this count or named in this Indictment;
3. Participant #2 was an employee at Douglas Development and a conspirator and an aider and abettor in this count. This individual is not charged in this count or named in this Indictment;
4. “Cayre Jemal’s Gateway, LLC,” also known as “Cayre Jemal’s Peoples, LLC,” was an entity owned 50% by defendant DOUGLAS JEMAL and 50% by an entity controlled by another individual. (This individual will be hereafter referred to as JEMAL’s partner.) Cayre Jemal’s Gateway owned the building and property at 77 P Street, NE, Washington, D.C. (77 P Street), which it purchased in 1998 for approximately $5 million. In substance, JEMAL and his partner each were 50% owners of 77 P Street.
5. From 1998 through 2001, Cayre Jemal’s Gateway borrowed monies from various lenders to develop 77 P Street, and as of November 2002, Cayre Jemal’s Gateway owed approximately $40 million on a construction loan. In addition, Cayre Jemal’s Gateway owed money to defendant DOUGLAS JEMAL’s partner, and defendant DOUGLAS JEMAL personally owed monies to his partner related to other personal borrowings. As of 2001, JEMAL owed his partner in excess of $19 million.
6. An entity called “MTD Real Estate Services, LLC” (occasionally referred to as “MTD”) was incorporated in the District of Columbia by the attorneys for Douglas Development in or about August of 2002. The initials MTD correspond to the first initials of sons of defendant DOUGLAS JEMAL, Participant #1 and defendant BLAKE C. ESHERICK.
7. On or about November 19, 2002, defendant DOUGLAS JEMAL, on behalf of the entities that owned 77 P Street, signed loan documents in relation to a $67 million loan from Morgan Stanley Mortgage Capital, Inc. (Morgan Stanley). The terms of the loan provided that the loan proceeds would be disbursed as follows:
approximately $41 million was to be distributed to pay off a lender for an outstanding construction loan;
approximately $7 million was to be held back by the lender and placed in escrow, to be used solely to finance certain construction and related costs; this portion of the loan proceeds was referred to as a “tenant improvement [TI] construction reserve” (tenant improvement reserve);
approximately $19 million was held back and to be distributed when all the tenants – DC Government agencies – had moved into 77 P Street and were paying rent.
8. The loan agreement setting forth the terms related to the tenant improvement reserve stated that the tenant improvement reserve funds were to be disbursed “directly to ... third party vendors and/or contractors that provide invoices, receipts and other similar written documents.” The term “third party vendor and/or contractor” was not defined. The agreement further stated: “In no event shall Agent disburse the [Tenant Improvement] Construction Deposit directly to Borrower.” The term “borrower” was defined in the loan agreement as “Cayre Jemal’s Gateway Holdings, LLC a District of Columbia limited liability corporation.”
9. By means of correspondence between Douglas Development and defendant DOUGLAS JEMAL’s partner prior to the November 19, 2002 loan settlement, it was agreed that JEMAL’s partner would receive nearly all the $19 million that was held back by the lender – the third category of funds described in paragraph 7 above – as partial repayment for the loans from the partner to Cayre Jemal’s Gateway and from the partner to defendant DOUGLAS JEMAL.
10. In or about December 2002, defendant DOUGLAS JEMAL had a need for approximately $400,000 in order to complete the purchase of a property in the District of Columbia.
11. From on or about November 1, 2002 through on or about January 31, 2005, in the District of Columbia, defendants DOUGLAS JEMAL, NORMAN D. JEMAL, BLAKE C. ESHERICK, Participant #1 and Participant #2, willfully, unlawfully and knowingly devised and intended to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud Morgan Stanley, JEMAL’s partner, and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and to obtain money under the control of Morgan Stanley, by means of false and fraudulent pretenses and representations.
12. It was the purposes of the fraud scheme that the defendants and participants would enrich defendants DOUGLAS JEMAL and NORMAN D. JEMAL by means of a scheme whereby the defendants and participants would use false and fraudulent documents to obtain proceeds from the lender out of the tenant improvement reserve for the personal use of defendants DOUGLAS JEMAL and NORMAN D. JEMAL in such a way as to: a) conceal from defendant DOUGLAS JEMAL’s partner that defendants DOUGLAS JEMAL and NORMAN D. JEMAL had obtained a portion of the loan proceeds for their personal use and benefit; b) conceal from Morgan Stanley that defendants DOUGLAS JEMAL and NORMAN D. JEMAL had obtained funds from the TI Construction Reserve for their personal use and benefit; and c) conceal from the IRS that defendants DOUGLAS JEMAL and NORMAN D. JEMAL had obtained funds for their personal use and benefit.
It was part of the scheme and artifice to defraud that:
13. On or about November 18, 2002, Participant #2 signed a memo to JEMAL’s partner, explaining details of the loan, which stated in part:
Note that $7 million is being held back to fund the remaining tenant improvement and leasing commissions (all of these are to outside brokers). [emphasis supplied]
14. On or about November 21, 2002, two days after settlement, Douglas Development submitted its first “draw” request to Morgan Stanley for a disbursement of approximately over $3.5 million from the tenant improvement reserve. Among the invoices submitted to justify the draw was an invoice from MTD Real Estates Services (MTD) to Cayre Jemal’s Gateway in the amount of $430,039.08. Said invoice was false, fraudulent and misleading as follows:
a. The invoice stated that the payment was due for representation of the DC Government Department of Transportation, when in fact, MTD had no agency relationship with the DC Government Department of Transportation;
b. The invoice set forth a commission schedule based on a ten year lease, when in fact the actual lease was for 8 ½ years;
c. The invoice represented that MTD had an address at Eastern Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C., though the defendants BLAKE ESHERICK, DOUGLAS JEMAL and Participant #1 did not have offices at the Eastern Avenue address;
d. Even though the invoice represented that MTD had an address at 6856 Eastern Avenue, NW, the phone number on the invoice was a phone number of a fax line at Douglas Development;
e. The invoice bore little or no relationship to the actual lease terms.
15. This false, fraudulent and misleading invoice was approved for payment by defendant BLAKE C. ESHERICK.
16. In response to a request from Morgan Stanley for a “lien release” and wiring information related to MTD, the defendants and Participants took the following acts:
a. They obtained the signature of an acquaintance of defendant DOUGLAS JEMAL on a “lien release” document, when in truth and in fact, this individual had no knowledge of the affairs of MTD and no knowledge of the representations in the document;
b. On or about December 10, 2002, defendant DOUGLAS JEMAL signed documents opening an account at Adams National Bank (Adams) in the name of MTD; defendant DOUGLAS JEMAL was the only signor on the MTD Adams account and the address on the account was the address of Douglas Development;
c. The defendants and Participants caused a memorandum to be prepared, purportedly from the acquaintance referenced in paragraph (a), above, to Douglas Development’s Controller, setting forth the wiring instructions for the MTD Adams account, when, in truth and in fact, the acquaintance was unaware of this memorandum, did not give permission to use his name in any such memorandum, and was unaware of any such bank account or wiring instructions;
d. Participant #1 sent by telefax the lien release and the memorandum containing wiring instructions described in the preceding paragraph from the offices of Douglas Development, in Washington, D.C. to the offices of the lender, in New York, NY.
17. On or about December 12, 2002, the lender authorized the transmission by wire of $430,039.08 from accounts located outside the District of Columbia to the MTD Adams account in the District of Columbia, and said funds were in fact wired.
18. On or about December 13, 2003, Participant # 2 and defendant NORMAN D. JEMAL directed that $400,000 be wired out of the MTD Adams account to the account of a settlement company, where the funds were used by defendants DOUGLAS JEMAL and NORMAN D. JEMAL to purchase a property in the District of Columbia.
19. On December 16, 2003, a $30,000 check was written from the MTD Adams account payable to Douglas Development, leaving a small balance in the MTD Adams account; thus, nearly the entire $430,039.08 was used for the benefit of defendant DOUGLAS JEMAL, and just a few dollars remained in the possession or control of MTD.
20. At no time after December 12, 2002 and prior to January of 2005 did the defendants or participants, on behalf of MTD, file a tax return with the IRS reporting MTD’s receipt of $430,039.08 income.
21. At no time after December 12, 2002 and prior to January of 2005, did the defendants or Participants inform the tax preparer for Douglas Development, defendant DOUGLAS JEMAL and defendant NORMAN JEMAL of the details of this transaction, of defendant DOUGLAS JEMAL’s and defendant NORMAN D. JEMAL’s receipt of funds in the manner described above, and of the existence of MTD.
For the purpose of executing the above scheme and artifice to defraud, defendants DOUGLAS JEMAL, BLAKE C. ESHERICK, and NORMAN D. JEMAL did cause to be transmitted by wire the following writing, signs, signals and sounds:
1. On or about November 18, 2002, a telefax from the District of Columbia to defendant DOUGLAS JEMAL’s partner in New York, NY;
2. December 10, 2002, a telefax from the District of Columbia to Morgan Stanley in New York, NY;
3. On or about December 12, 2002, approximately $430,039.08 by wire from a bank outside the District of Columbia to the MTD Adams account in the District of Columbia.
(Wire Fraud in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343, and Aiding and Abetting and Causing an Act to be Done, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2)
1. Defendant DOUGLAS JEMAL was owner and President of Douglas Development Corporation (Douglas Development) with offices on 702 H Street, NW, Washington, D.C.
2. Douglas Development managed real estate owned by defendant DOUGLAS JEMAL.
3. Norman D. Jemal was defendant DOUGLAS JEMAL’s son and an employee of Douglas Development. He is not charged in this count. Defendant DOUGLAS JEMAL and Norman D. Jemal jointly owned a property at 7804 Radnor Road, Bethesda, Maryland (the “Bethesda house”).
4. Defendant BLAKE C. ESHERICK was an employee of Douglas Development.
5. During calendar year 2001, defendant BLAKE C. ESHERICK received weekly salary payments from Douglas Development based on an annual salary of $70,200 (less a contribution to his “401K” plan); these salary payments were paid from Douglas Development’s payroll account and handled by a company which provided payroll services to Douglas Development.
II. Tax Evasion
6. From on or about January 1, 2001 through March 23, 2003, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, defendants DOUGLAS JEMAL, BLAKE C. ESHERICK and others, as principals, aiders and abettors and coconspirators, did willfully attempt to evade and defeat the payment of a large part of the income taxes due and owing by defendant BLAKE C. ESHERICK to the United States of America for the calendar year 2001, by:
A. concealing and attempting to conceal from all proper officers of the United States of America the true and correct income of defendant BLAKE C. ESHERICK for calendar year 2001 by the following acts:
1. causing BLAKE C. ESHERICK to receive the following as part of his compensation in 2001:
i. payments of $27,100 by check directly from Douglas Development to BLAKE C. ESHERICK’s ex-wife; said checks were prepared by Douglas Development personnel and signed by defendant DOUGLAS JEMAL;
ii. payments in excess of approximately $20,000 by checks directly from Douglas Development to BLAKE C. ESHERICK; said checks were prepared by Douglas Development personnel and signed by defendant DOUGLAS JEMAL;
iii. rent-free housing, to include utilities at the Bethesda house, of a fair market rental value of approximately of $2,000 per month; the checks for the mortgage payment for the house were prepared by Douglas Development personnel and signed by Norman D. Jemal;
iv. payments in excess of $10,000 in the form of checks directly from Douglas Development as payments for an automobile personally owned by and used by BLAKE C. ESHERICK; said checks were prepared by Douglas Development personnel and signed by defendant DOUGLAS JEMAL;
2. on or about a date in 2002, submitting to the Internal Revenue Service a Form W-2 reporting defendant BLAKE C. ESHERICK’s “wages and earning” as $66,000, that is, solely the amount paid to ESHERICK through Douglas Development’s standard payroll process, based on a salary of approximately $70,200 less a “401K” contribution, and not including the aforesaid items of compensation;
3. by causing the above income items to be recorded in the books and records of Douglas Development, or, in the case of the Bethesda house, handled through the personal bank account of Norman Jemal, so as to conceal defendant BLAKE C. ESHERICK’s true compensation;
B. in or about various dates in 2001, causing Douglas Development to withhold and pay to the Internal Revenue Service taxes of $2,842 from defendant BLAKE C. ESHERICK’s salary, that is, the amount withheld solely on the $66,000 income that ESHERICK was paid through Douglas Development’s standard payroll process with no withholding on the aforesaid income items;
C. on or about March 23, 2003, causing to be prepared, signed, filed and mailed a false and fraudulent federal income tax return, Form 1040, for calendar year 2001, for defendant BLAKE C. ESHERICK, said return being false and fraudulent in that:
1. the return represented, at line 22, that BLAKE C. ESHERICK’s total income for calendar year 2001 was $70,135, when, in truth and in fact, BLAKE C. ESHERICK’s total income for calendar year 2001 was substantially in excess of that amount;
2. the return represented at line 36, that BLAKE C. ESHERICK had itemized deductions of $47,721, as set forth in Schedule A, consisting in part of home mortgage interest and points of $26,996, as reported on Schedule A, line 10, and real estate taxes of $3,956, as reported on Schedule A, line 6, when in truth and in fact, BLAKE C. ESHERICK did not have itemized deductions of $47,721, did not pay mortgage interest of $26,996 and did not pay real estate taxes of $3,956 in calendar year 2001;
3. the return represented, at line 58, that BLAKE C. ESHERICK’s total income ax due and owing for calendar year 2001 was $1,394 when in truth in truth and in fact, BLAKE C. ESHERICK’s income tax due was substantially in excess of that amount.
(Attempt to Evade and Defeat Taxes and Payment Thereof, in violation of Title 26, United States Code, Section 7201, and Aiding and Abetting and Causing an Act to be Done, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2) )
1. Paragraphs One through Four of Count Six are incorporated by reference as if set out in full.
2. During calendar year 2002, defendant BLAKE C. ESHERICK received weekly salary payments from Douglas Development based on an annual salary of $70,200 (less a “401K” contribution); these salary payments were paid from Douglas Development’s payroll account and handled by a company that provided payroll services for Douglas Development.
3. From on or about January 1, 2002 through March 23, 2003, in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, defendants BLAKE C. ESHERICK, DOUGLAS JEMAL and others, as principals, aiders and abettors and coconspirators, did willfully attempt to evade and defeat the payment of a large part of the income taxes due and owing by BLAKE C. ESHERICK to the United States of America for the calendar year 2002 by:
A. concealing and attempting to conceal from all proper officers of the United States of America the true and correct income of defendant BLAKE C. ESHERICK for calendar year 2002 by the following acts:
1. causing causing defendant BLAKE C. ESHERICK to receive compensation in 2002 in forms not reported to the Internal Revenue Service, including:
i. payments of $26,950 directly from Douglas Development to BLAKE C. ESHERICK’s ex-wife; said checks were prepared by Douglas Development personnel and signed by defendant DOUGLAS JEMAL;
ii. payments of approximately in excess of $20,000 in the form of checks directly from Douglas Development to BLAKE C. ESHERICK; said checks were prepared by Douglas Development personnel and signed by defendant DOUGLAS JEMAL;
iii. payments of $3000 directly to a credit card account of BLAKE C. ESHERICK.
iv. rent-free housing, to include utilities, in the Bethesda house, of a fair rental value of approximately of $2,000 per month; checks for the mortgage payment for the house were prepared by Douglas Development personnel and signed by Norman D. Jemal;
v. payments in excess of $23,000 in the form of checks directly from Douglas Development as payments for automobiles personally owned by BLAKE C. ESHERICK; said checks were prepared by Douglas Development personnel and signed by defendant DOUGLAS JEMAL;
2. on or about a date in 2003, submitting to the Internal Revenue Service a Form W-2 reporting defendant BLAKE C. ESHERICK’s “wages and earning” as $66,000, that is, solely the amount paid to ESHERICK through Douglas Development’s standard payroll process based on a salary of $70,200 less a 401K contribution, and not including the aforesaid items of compensation;
3. by causing the above income items to be recorded in the books and records of Douglas Development, in the case of the Bethesda house, handled through the personal bank account of Norman Jemal, so as to conceal BLAKE C. ESHERICK’s true compensation;
B. in or about various dates in 2002, causing Douglas Development to pay withholding to the Internal Revenue Service of a total of $3,295, that is, the amount withheld solely on the $66,000 paid through Douglas Development’s standard payroll process, with no withholding on the aforesaid income items; and,
C. causing to be prepared, signed, filed and mailed a false and fraudulent federal income tax return, Form 1040, for calendar year 2002, for defendant BLAKE C. ESHERICK, said return being false and fraudulent in that:
1. the return represented, at line 22, that BLAKE C. ESHERICK’s total income for calendar year 2002 was $66,000, when, in truth and in fact, BLAKE C. ESHERICK’s income for calendar year 2002 was substantially in excess of that amount;
2. the return represented at line 38 that BLAKE C. ESHERICK had itemized deductions of $59,899, as set forth in Schedule A, consisting in part of home mortgage interest and points of $26,078, as reported on Schedule A, line 10, and real estate taxes of $4,389, as reported on Schedule A, Line 6, when in truth and in fact, BLAKE C. ESHERICK did not have itemized deductions of $59,899, did not pay mortgage interest of $26,078 and did not pay real estate taxes of $4,389 in calendar year 2002;
3. the return represented, at line 55, that the BLAKE C. ESHERICK’s total tax due for calendar year 2002 was $0 when in truth in truth and in fact, BLAKE C. ESHERICK’s income tax due was substantially in excess of that amount.
(Attempt to Evade and Defeat Taxes and Payment Thereof, in violation of Title 26, United States Code, Section 7201, and Aiding and Abetting and Causing an Act to be Done, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2)
1. Paragraphs One through Four of Count Six are incorporated by reference as if set out in full.
2. During calendar year 2003, defendant BLAKE C. ESHERICK received weekly salary payments based on an annual salary of $70,200 less a “401K” contribution; these salary payments were paid from Douglas Development’s payroll account and handled by a company which provided payroll services.
3. During the calendar year 2003, defendant BLAKE C. ESHERICK had and received gross income of approximately in excess of $150,000, resulting in taxable income in excess of approximately over $140,000; upon said taxable income there was owing to the United States of America an income tax in excess of approximately $40,000; well knowing and believing the foregoing facts, defendants BLAKE C. ESHERICK, DOUGLAS JEMAL and others, as principals and aiders and abettors and coconspirators, did willfully attempt to evade and defeat a large part of the income tax due and owing by him to the United States of America and payment thereof for said calendar year by:
A. on or before April 15, 2004, in the District of Columbia, failing to make an income tax return, as required by law, to any proper officer of the Internal Revenue Service;
B. on or before April 15, 2004, failing to pay to the Internal Revenue Service said income tax;
C. concealing and attempting to conceal from all proper officers of the United States of America the true and correct income of defendant BLAKE C. ESHERICK for calendar year 2003 by the following acts:
1. causing defendant BLAKE C. ESHERICK to receive compensation in 2003 in forms not reported to the Internal Revenue Service, including:
i. payments of $22,536 directly from Douglas Development to BLAKE C. ESHERICK’s ex-wife; each of said checks was prepared by Douglas Development personnel and signed by defendant DOUGLAS JEMAL;
ii. payments of approximately in excess of $45,500 in the form of checks directly from Douglas Development to BLAKE C. ESHERICK; each of said was checks prepared by Douglas Development personnel and signed by defendant DOUGLAS JEMAL;
iii. a payment in excess of $5000 directly to American Express as payment for expenses incurred personally by BLAKE C. ESHERICK;
iv. from in or about January 2003 through approximately July 2003, rent-free housing, to include utilities, in the Bethesda house owned by defendant DOUGLAS JEMAL and Norman D. Jemal, of a fair rental value of approximately of $2,000 per month; checks for the mortgage payment for the house were prepared by Douglas Development personnel and signed by Norman D. Jemal;
v. from in or about August 2003 through December 2003, rent-free housing, to include utilities, in a Washington, D.C. house purchased by defendant DOUGLAS JEMAL for $825,000 in June 2003 at defendant BLAKE C. ESHERICK’s request; said property had a fair-market value rental value of $3,000 per month and checks for the mortgage payment for the house were prepared by Douglas Development personnel and signed by defendant DOUGLAS JEMAL;
vi. payments in excess of $3,000 in the form of checks directly from Douglas Development as payments for an automobile personally owned by defendant BLAKE C. ESHERICK; each of said checks was prepared by Douglas Development personnel and signed by defendant DOUGLAS JEMAL;
2. by causing the above income items to be recorded in the books and records of Douglas Development or, in the case of the Bethesda house and the 6001 Nevada Avenue house, handled through the personal bank accounts of defendant DOUGLAS JEMAL and Norman Jemal, so as to conceal defendant BLAKE C. ESHERICK’s true compensation;
3. in or about Spring 2004, submitting to the Internal Revenue Service a Form W-2 reporting defendant BLAKE C. ESHERICK’s “wages and earning” as $66,000, that is, solely the amount paid to ESHERICK through Douglas Development’s standard payroll process and not including the aforesaid items of compensation;
D. in or about various dates in 2003, causing Douglas Development to pay withholding to the Internal Revenue Service of a total of $1,727, that is, the amount withheld solely on the $66,000 paid through Douglas Development’s standard payroll process, with no withholding on the aforesaid income items.
(Attempt to Evade and Defeat Taxes and Payment Thereof, in violation of Title 26, United States Code, Section 7201, and Aiding and Abetting and Causing an Act to be Done, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 2)
A TRUE BILL:
FOREPERSON
ATTORNEY OF THE UNITED STATES IN AND FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Send mail with questions or comments to webmaster@dcwatch.com
Web site copyright ©DCWatch (ISSN 1546-4296)