United States v. Gene Jirak
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17937
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- Between 2005–2009 Jirak filed fraudulent federal tax submissions: an amended 2005 Form 1040X (filed Jan 9, 2009) attaching five fabricated 1099‑OID forms listing withheld taxes and claiming a $56,999 refund, and an electronic 2008 return (filed Mar 27, 2009) claiming similar fictitious OID income and a $53,787 refund.
- The amended 2005 return used his then‑wife Jean Kingery’s name, SSN, and a forged signature; Kingery did not authorize or know of the filings.
- The IRS issued a treasury refund check for $69,139.07 based on the 2005 amendment; Jirak forged Kingery’s signature and attempted to deposit it.
- Bank employees and the purported payors of the 1099‑OID forms testified the OID forms were fabricated and that the listed institutions had no accounts for Jirak. The check was ultimately returned to the IRS.
- Jirak was indicted on five counts (two false claim counts under 18 U.S.C. § 287, uttering a forged treasury check, mail fraud, and aggravated identity theft), proceeded largely pro se at trial, was convicted on all counts, and was sentenced to 45 months plus three years supervised release.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Jirak) | Defendant's Argument (Government/District Court) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for false‑claim counts (§ 287) | Did not knowingly submit false claims; lacked requisite knowledge and intent | Evidence (fabricated 1099‑OID forms, prior returns, wife’s testimony, altered federal return) shows he knew claims were false and claims were material | Affirmed: sufficient evidence for knowledge and materiality |
| Sufficiency for uttering forged treasury check, mail fraud, aggravated identity theft | No intent to defraud because deposit was to a jointly held account; lacked criminal intent | Forgery, use of wife's SSN/signature without authorization, and mailing the false amendment show intent to defraud the government; identity theft requires no separate intent to defraud | Affirmed: sufficient evidence on intent and identity‑theft elements |
| Exclusion of evidence re: reliance on tax advice (motion in limine) | Sought to show good‑faith belief/reliance on Liberty Tree advice to negate criminal intent | Advice was unreasonable, not from a qualified tax professional, and defendant made no showing of full disclosure—thus irrelevant and prejudicial | Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion excluding the evidence |
| Denial of continuances and proceeding pro se | Denial prejudiced his ability to prepare while pro se | He had time to prepare, standby counsel remained available, and no specific prejudice shown | Affirmed: no abuse of discretion |
| Supervised‑release contact condition (written vs. oral conflict) | Written judgment read as total ban on contact with children; sought correction | Court orally limited ban to contact with ex‑wife and family, allowing visitation arranged through intermediaries | Affirmed but remanded to modify written judgment to conform to oral pronouncement |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Quevedo, 654 F.3d 819 (8th Cir. 2011) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- United States v. Refert, 519 F.3d 752 (8th Cir. 2008) (elements of a false claim under 18 U.S.C. § 287)
- Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192 (1991) (willfulness and good‑faith misunderstanding defense in tax crimes)
- United States v. Jaynes, 75 F.3d 1493 (10th Cir. 1996) (forged check and intent to defraud the government)
- DeMier v. United States, 616 F.2d 366 (8th Cir. 1980) (mail fraud: intent to defraud those to whom false statements are made)
- United States v. Meyer, 808 F.2d 1304 (8th Cir. 1987) (reliance on tax preparer defense requires full disclosure of relevant facts)
- United States v. Morais, 670 F.3d 889 (8th Cir. 2012) (oral pronouncement controls where it conflicts with written judgment)