$30 Million Seized From Vatican Bank In Money Laundering Probe

Italian monetary authorities have seized $30 million from a Vatican bank account and placed the Vatican Banks director general, Paolo Cipriani, and its chairman, Ettore Gotti Tedeschi, under investigation for possible violations of Italys anti-money laundering laws. Italian prosecutors have announced that the money was seized as a precaution until the investigation can be completed.

The investigation comes as the Italian government is implementing anti-money laundering directives issued by the European Union. The new measures, designed to prevent money laundering and the financing of terrorism, require all foreign banks operating in Italy, including those of the sovereign Vatican City, to provide detailed information about the origins of money transfers.

Authorities began their investigation after the Bank of Italy notified the Italian government of two suspicious transfers on September 6, 2010, from a Vatican bank account at a Rome branch of Credito Artigiano S.p.A., an Italian bank. The suspicious transactions involved the transfer of $26 million to an account held by the Vatican at a Frankfurt, Germany branch of J.P. Morgan, and a $4 million transfer directed to an account held at the Banca del Fucino in Rome. Authorities are investigating whether the Vatican Bank violated anti-money laundering regulations for failing to reveal to financial authorities where the money involved in the transfers came from.

This new investigation is not the first investigation of the Vatican Bank, formally known as the Institute for Religious Works, for potential money laundering violations. Last year, Italian authorities launched a broad investigation into Italian bank accounts that received transfers from the Vatican Bank. The Vatican Bank was also implicated in the 1980s in a money laundering scandal that lead to the collapse of Italys then largest private bank, Banco Ambrosiano. In the 1980s Banco Ambrosiano collapsed after the disappearance of $1.3 billion in loans to Latin American companies. Though the Vatican Bank denied any wrongdoing, it agreed to pay $250 million to Banco Ambrosiano creditors after the collapse.

If you have questions pertaining anti-money laundering compliance or how to ensure that your business maintains regulatory compliance, contact Fuerst Ittleman PL at contact@fidjlaw.com.

Willful Blindness Jury Instruction Upheld In Tax Conviction

On September 9, 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit held that the use of a “willful blindness” jury instruction satisfies the willfulness element of a criminal tax offense. In finding the jury instruction appropriate, the court concluded that, where warranted by the trial evidence, a willful blindness instruction “properly appl[ies] to a defendants knowledge of his legal duties.”

The 3rd Circuit upheld the conviction of Richard Stadtmauer, an account and executive vice president of Kushner Companies, for conspiracy to defraud the United States and for willfully aiding in the filing of materially false or fraudulent tax returns. The charges against Stadtmauer grew out of an investigation of Charles Kushner, chairman of Kushner Companies. Prior to Stadtmauers charging and conviction, Charles Kushner pled guilty to assisting in the filing of false returns. While Kushner was under investigation Stadtmauer was charged with conspiracy to take $6 million in improper deductions for limited partnerships owned by Kushner.

Mr. Stadtmauers appeal centered on the District Courts instructions to the jury regarding Stadtmauers knowledge of the falsity of his companys tax returns. For the government to establish that Stadtmauer willfully aided in preparing false returns, it was required to prove that Stadtmauer intentionally violated a known legal duty. In his instructions to the jury, U.S. District Court Judge Jose Linares told the jury it could convict if it found that Stadtmauer knew about applicable IRS requirements or if Stadtmauer “deliberately closed hiseyes to what hehad every reason to believe.”

Stadtmauer argued on appeal that the jury instruction did not satisfy the requirement that the government establish that the law imposed a duty on the defendant and that the defendant knew of this duty. Stadtmauer relied heavily on Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991), a 1991 U.S. Supreme Court case, which Stadtmauer argued prevented the use of willful blindness to satisfy the willfulness element in tax fraud cases. The 3rd Circuit rejected this argument finding that Stadtmauers case was clearly distinguishable stating “Stadtmauers attempt to equate a person who deliberately avoids learning of a legal duty with a personwho is ignorant of that duty by virtue of a good-faith belief or misunderstanding is not persuasive.” The decision of the 3rd Circuit falls in line with decisions of the 1st, 5th, 7th, and 11th Circuits which have also held that Cheek does not prevent a willful blindness instruction in tax fraud cases.

The appeals court also rejected arguments by Stadtmauer that willful blindness improperly applied to intent and that the government was required to provide direct evidence of conscious avoidance to satisfy a willful blindness instruction. A copy of the 3rd Circuits opinion can be read here: U.S. v. Stadtmauer.

Do you need to speak with an attorney about IRS tax relief or litigation?
Contact us for a consultation about fraud-related tax losses.

Allergan Pleads Guilty To Misbranding Charge Agrees To Pay $600 Million In Fines And Penalties

Allergan, Inc., the manufacturer of Botox ® Cosmetic, has agreed to plead guilty to one count of misbranding, a violation under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”). The company pled guilty to misbranding for its off-label promotion of Botox for unapproved uses.

Botox is an injectable neurotoxin commonly used in cosmetic procedures to smooth wrinkles. The FDA has also approved the use of Botox to treat certain muscle spasms and excessive underarm sweating. However, authorities allege that from 2000 to 2005 Allergan marketed Botox for use in treating headaches, pain, muscle stiffness, and cerebral palsy in juveniles, none of which were ever approved by the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”). Under Federal law, although doctors can prescribe drugs for unapproved uses, pharmaceutical companies are prohibited from advertising or promoting unapproved uses for drugs currently on the market. Authorities also allege Allergan paid kickbacks to doctors who used Botox for off-label purposes and taught doctors how to miscode Botox claims when submitting these claims for Medicare and Medicaid billing.

Under the terms of the plea agreement, Allergan agreed to plead guilty to one count of misbranding and will pay $375 million in criminal penalties. The company also agreed to a five year compliance plan that will require it to disclose payments to doctors on its website and have senior executives and board members annually certify that the company is complying with federal regulation. The plea agreement also required the company to drop its lawsuit against the FDA which it filed in October 2009 that challenged an FDA rule that prohibits pharmaceutical companies from marketing drugs for off-label uses. Allergan also agreed to pay $225 million to resolve the civil claims against the company filed by five whistle-blowers in Georgia under the False Claims Act. The $600 million settlement is the fifth largest amount paid by a single defendant in a misbranding case.

In the wake of the companys guilty plea and $600 million penalty, a shareholder of Allergan has filed suit against the members of Allergans board of directors. The suit, filed in Delaware state court, alleges breaches of fiduciary duties and is seeking to shift settlement costs to the members of the Allergan board of directors in an effort to hold board members responsible for the $600 million in penalties the company now faces.

For more information on FDA regulations, labeling guidelines, and acceptable pharmaceutical marketing practices please contact us at contact@fidjlaw.com.

Forest Pharmaceuticals To Plead Guilty For Food, Drug, And Cosmetic Act Violations

On September 15, 2010, the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) announced that Forest Pharmaceuticals (“Forest”) has agreed to plead guilty to two violations of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”). Forest has agreed to plead guilty to one count of distributing an unapproved drug in interstate commerce and one count of distributing a misbranded drug in interstate commerce. Additionally, Forest has agreed to plead guilty to one count of obstruction of justice. Charges stem from Forests marketing of two drugs, Levothroid and Celexa.

In 1997, the FDA announced that Levothroid, though already on the market, would be considered a new drug within the meaning of the FDCA. At that time, the FDA advised drug manufacturers that in order to continue to market Levothroid they would have seek new drug approval by the FDA. However, Forest failed to obtain drug approval, continued to market unapproved Levothroid, and disregarded an FDA warning letter ordering Forest to stop production and distribution. As a result of these actions, Forest was charged with distribution of an unapproved drug in violation of the FDCA.

U.S. authorities also charged Forest with distributing a misbranded drug based on its off-label marketing of Celexa to treat depression in children though the drug was only approved for use in adults. Prosecutors allege that Forest paid doctors to prescribe Celexa and failed to inform prescribing doctors of negative studies regarding the effects of Celexa on adolescents. Forest was also charged with obstruction of justice because of false statements made by employees during the FDA investigation.

As part of the plea agreement, Forest has agreed to plead guilty to all three counts and pay $164 million in criminal penalties. Additionally, Forest has agreed to resolve a civil complaint against it by paying $149 million in civil fines and entering into a Corporate Integrity Agreement with the Office of Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services.

For more information on FDA regulation and labeling guidelines, please contact us at contact@fidjlaw.com.

FDA Cracks Down On Nutrition And Health Claims By Green Tea Makers

The Food and Drug Administration has issued warning letters to two large producers of green tea drinks to discontinue unauthorized and unproven health and nutrient claims on their labels and websites. The warning letters were issued to the Dr. Pepper Snapple Group for its Canada Dry Sparking Green Tea Ginger Ale (“Canada Dry”) and to Unilever Inc. for its Lipton Green Tea 100% Naturally Decaffeinated product (“Lipton”). The warning letters are part of a larger campaign by the FDA to improve the accuracy and useful information of food labeling.

In its warning letter to Canada Dry, the FDA stated that the company’s sparkling green tea ginger ale made improper claims to be “enhanced” with antioxidants. Canada Dry’s label claims its green tea ginger ale is “enhanced with 200mg of antioxidants from green tea and vitamin C.” However, because Canada Dry is a carbonated drink, the FDA classifies it as a snack food. Current FDA policy does not consider it appropriate to fortify snack foods. As a result, Canada Dry cannot claim that its product is enhanced with antioxidants. Additionally, the FDA also warned Canada Dry that the ingredients claiming to contain antioxidants “are not nutrients with recognized antioxidant activity” under FDA regulations. As a result of these violations the FDA has found Canada Dry to be misbranded under the Food Drug and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”).The full warning letter to Canada Dry can be read at: FDA Warning Letter To Canada Dry.

Unilever, the manufacturer of Lipton, was warned that its website for its Lipton product made misleading health claims and that Lipton’s antioxidant labeling did not follow FDA guidelines. In its warning letter, the FDA takes issue with Lipton’s website’s reference to four studies that showed a cholesterol-lowering effect of drinking green tea. The FDA found that the therapeutic claims are misleading because it suggests that Lipton is designed to treat or prevent disease. The FDA stated that these claims would result in Lipton being classified as a drug under the FDCA and subject Lipton to requirements for proving the safety and effectiveness of the cholesterol-lowering claims before the product could be legally marketed in the US. The FDA also stated that Lipton’s antioxidant labeling claims violate several federal guidelines. Due to these violations, the FDA has found Lipton to be misbranded under the FDCA.  A full copy of the FDA’s warning to Lipton can be read at: FDA Warning Letter To Lipton.

As the nutrient-enriched beverage market continues to grow into a multibillion dollar business, the FDA will continue its efforts to crack down on companies that overstate the benefits of their products. For more information on FDA regulation and labeling guidelines, please contact us at contact@fidjlaw.com.

Mitchell Fuerst Comments on Proposed FASB Standards

On September 14, 2010, Mitchell Fuerst of Fuerst Ittleman was interviewed by webcpa.com on the issue of why the Financial Accounting Standards Board’s (FASB) proposed standards on loss contingency disclosures could violate attorney-client privilege and be subject to legal and congressional challenges. The podcast from Mr. Fuerst’s interview is available for download here.

If you have questions regarding how these proposed FASB standards could affect you or your business, contact Fuerst Ittleman at 305-350-5690 or contact@fidjlaw.com.

OFAC Begins Process Of Lifting Sanctions In Post-War Iraq

On September 13, 2010, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) of the US Department of the Treasury announced the removal of the Iraqi Sanctions Regulations from the Code of Federal Regulations, 31 C.F.R. Part 575, and added the Iraq Stabilization and Insurgency Sanctions Regulations (“ISISR”) to the Code at 31 C.F.R. Part 576. The new regulations implement Executive Order 13350 terminating the national emergency declared in Iraq by the US in 1990 in Executive Order 12722.

Prior to the new regulations US law prohibited the importation of any goods or services from Iraq to the US and prohibited the exportation of goods, services, or technology from the US to Iraq. ISISR authorizes all transactions involving property and interests in property that were previously prohibited under Executive Order 12722. However, importers and exporters should be aware that certain transactions relating to Iraq remain subject to sanctions. OFAC announced that the removal of 31 C.F.R. Part 575 from the Code of Federal Regulations will neither affect ongoing enforcement proceedings nor prevent the initiation of enforcement proceedings where the statute of limitations has not run. A full copy of ISISR can be read in the Federal Register at: Federal Register Announcement.

For more information regarding OFAC and strategies on maintaining compliance with federal regulations, please contact Fuerst Ittleman at 305-350-5690 or contact@fidjlaw.com.

FDA Closer To Approving Genetically Modified Salmon

The Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) has moved one step closer to approving the first genetically modified animal food for human consumption, genetically modified Atlantic salmon. The impending decision has caught the eye of investors, biotechnology companies, consumer groups and environmental organizations.

On September 3, 2010, a panel of scientists advised the FDA that AquaAdvantage salmon, a genetically modified version of Atlantic salmon, was safe to eat. The panel also found that genetically modified salmon have no biologically relevant differences from ordinary farm raised Atlantic salmon and both contain the same amount of nutrients.

The key difference between the genetically modified salmon and the ordinary salmon is its rate of growth. Normally, Atlantic salmon take close to 3 years to fully develop because its growth rate slows during cold weather. However, genetically modified Atlantic salmon have been modified by adding growth hormone genes from Chinook salmon and ocean pout, allowing these fish to grow to full size in only 18 months. The quicker growth rates allow farmers to increase production and yields.

The FDA is evaluating the genetically modified salmon as it does new veterinary drugs. As a result, much of the research and data gathered to determine the safety of these fish has been kept confidential. This has drawn criticism from consumer groups and independent labs concerned that an overworked and understaffed FDA may be missing something in its evaluation. Consumer groups are also concerned the genetically modified salmon could escape breeding tanks and breed with wild salmon. The FDA believes that genetically modified salmon will not pose a threat to the environment because 99% of all genetically modified salmon will be sterile and, unlike traditional farmed raised salmon which are raised in ocean based tanks, genetically modified salmon will be raised in inland tanks, minimizing the chances of escape.

An approval of genetically modified salmon for human consumption could open the door for other genetically modified animals to receive approval for human consumption. Currently, scientists are seeking FDA approval for a genetically modified hog, and are developing genetically modified cows that are resistant to mad cow disease.

The FDA is scheduled to hold public hearings on genetically modified salmon from September 19-21, 2010. The hearings will include discussions on the technology used to produce genetically modified animals and FDAs regulatory procedures for evaluating these animals, a discussion on the animal health, food safety, and environmental concerns associated with genetically modified salmon, and a discussion on potential labeling issues should the FDA approve genetically modified salmon for human consumption. More information regarding the upcoming hearings can be found on FDAs website at FDA Announces Public Meeting on Genetically Engineered Atlantic Salmon.

For more information regarding current FDA authority, procedure, or regulations please contact us at contact@fidjlaw.com.

FDA Begins Crackdown On E-Cigarette Industry Announces Intent To Regulate E-Cigarettes

On September 9, 2010, the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) announced its intent to regulate electronic cigarettes and issued warning letters to five e-cigarette manufacturers for violations of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”). Warning letters were issued for various violations of the FDCA including violations of good manufacturing practices, making unsubstantiated drug claims, and using the devices as delivery mechanisms for active pharmaceutical ingredients. A copy of the FDAs press release can be read here: FDA Acts Against E-Cigarette Distributors.

E-cigarettes are battery-powered devices that allow users to inhale vaporized liquid nicotine instead of tobacco smoke. As these devices have become more popular, the FDA has become increasingly concerned with the safety and effectiveness of these devices as smoking cessation aids. In July, the FDA issued a press release expressing its concerns with the e-cigarette stating that because e-cigarettes have not been submitted to the FDA for evaluation or approval, the levels of nicotine and other chemicals that the products deliver to its users are unknown. The press release regarding safety concerns with the e-cigarettes can be read at FDA Warns of Health Risks Posed by E-Cigarettes.

In a letter to the Electronic Cigarette Association on September 8, 2010, the FDA advised the e-cigarette industry of its intent to regulate e-cigarettes. The FDA has determined that e-cigarettes “meet the definitions of both a drug and a device under the [FDCA] and the definition of a combination product in 21 C.F.R. Part 3, with a drug primary mode of action.” A full copy of the FDAs letter to the Electronic Cigarette Association can be read at FDAs Letter to the E-Cigarette Association.

As a result of this new classification by the FDA, e-cigarette manufacturers will have to comply with the FDCA and numerous regulations regarding the marketing and approval of drugs. Under the FDCA, a company must demonstrate that a drug is safe and effective for its intended use before that product will gain FDA approval. This will require e-cigarette manufacturers to provide proof that e-cigarettes safely and effectively reduce its users dependence on nicotine. Additionally, manufacturers must demonstrate that its manufacturing practices preserve the strength, quality, and purity of the drug. The FDCA also prohibits a company from claiming that a drug can treat or mitigate a disease, including nicotine addiction, unless the drugs safety and effectiveness has been proven.

For more information regarding current FDA authority, procedure, or regulations please contact us at contact@fidjlaw.com.

U.S. Government successfully forfeits $13 .3 million from online poker sites

The federal government recently forfeited $13.3 million in proceeds derived from two online poker sites for being in violation of the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act (“UIGEA”). According to the civil forfeiture complaint filed in the case, the funds constituted proceeds of operating an illegal gambling business that were deposited between January 2009 and May 2009 in an account at Goldwater Bank in Scottsdale, Arizona. Those funds were traceable to PokerStars, the worlds biggest online poker firm, and other offshore online gambling companies, and include “proceeds of the illegal transmission of gambling information and operating an illegal gambling business.”

Ahmad Khawaja, together with his firms, Allied Wallet and Allied Systems, reached the civil settlement to end a year-long struggle that began when the FBI seized the $13.3 million in June 2009. According to the civil forfeiture complaint, all of the funds were linked to allegations of money laundering, and some of the funds were traceable to wire transfers from outside the U.S. by individuals who knew that the funds represented the proceeds of the illegal transmission of gambling.

This case is significant in that it shows that the government is focusing on enforcement in the area of internet gambling, a growing entertainment business in the U.S., often run from internet sites based outside the U.S.

The UIGEA makes it a crime for anyone engaged in “unlawful internet gambling ” across state lines to accept credit cards, wires, checks or other forms of financial transactions in connection with such gambling. In other words, it makes it illegal to pay money in regard to a bet, or receive money in connection with a bet in the U.S.

Under the UIGEA, “unlawful internet gambling” means to place, receive or transmit a bet or wager through the internet where the bet or wager is illegal, under among other things, any state law where the bet or wager is initiated or received. In addition, “unlawful internet gambling” does not include bets or wagers initiated or received entirely within a single state, or expressly authorized by that states laws.

The vast majority of states make it illegal to engage in gambling except under limited circumstances, such as tribal casinos, pari-mutuel horse racing, penny-ante poker games or regulated poker card rooms or slot machines. Currently, some states have proposed legislation to allow internet poker under restricted and regulated circumstances, but such legislation is still pending. Until the federal or state governments can figure out how to regulate, tax and otherwise obtain fees from internet gambling, it will most likely remain unlawful and the forfeiture of gambling proceeds from online gambling sites under the UIGEA will continue.