United States v. John Perry
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 9210
| 8th Cir. | 2013Background
- Perry was Ford Motor Company’s Materials, Planning, and Logistics Manager at the Hazelwood plant (2001–June 2004) with authority to approve vendor invoices.
- In 2011 Perry was indicted on four counts of willful income tax evasion under 26 U.S.C. § 7201 for 2001–2004 kickbacks and unreported income.
- A jury convicted him on all counts after a six-day trial; the district court sentenced him to 51 months after a comprehensive sentencing hearing.
- The PSR and district court tax-loss calculations determined $1,594,329 in unreported gross income and $926,602 total tax loss (including interest), producing a base offense level of 20 with two enhancements.
- Evidence at trial showed substantial kickbacks from vendor Buske, including cash payments, property purchases, and “consulting fees” disguising bribes; handwritten ledgers supported illicit profit allocations.
- Perry challenged suppression of statements to an FBI agent during a 2006 interview, and the district court’s suppression rulings at pretrial and pre-sentencing stages were reviewed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statute of limitations for tax evasion counts | Perry contends some counts were time-barred. | Perry argues the government failed to prove timely evasion within six years. | Counts based on after-March 24, 2005 evasion upheld; six-year limit satisfied. |
| Voluntariness of statements to agent Ricchio | Statements were involuntary due to deceptive assurances about target status. | Agent’s conduct and assurances did not overbear Perry’s will. | Statements voluntary; suppression not warranted. |
| Franks hearing adequacy | Warrant affidavit contained material false information; warrant invalid. | No substantial preliminary showing of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard. | No abuse of discretion; Franks hearing denied. |
| Restitution authority and offset against forfeiture funds | Funds seized in civil forfeiture should offset restitution. | Offset uncertain; funds may be used to pay victims if forfeiture resolves favorably. | Offset denied pending final forfeiture resolution; district court may adjust as appropriate. |
| Inclusion of interest in restitution | Interest should not be included absent trial evidence. | Interest is part of loss to compensate for time-value; allowed. | Interest properly included in restitution. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sansone v. United States, 380 U.S. 343 (U.S. 1965) (elements of tax-evasion offense; conduct may constitute evasion)
- United States v. Schoppert, 362 F.3d 451 (8th Cir. 2004) (evasion acts may be proven by various concealment methods)
- United States v. Silkman, 156 F.3d 833 (8th Cir. 1998) (evasion evidence and concealment theories accepted)
- United States v. Irby, 703 F.3d 280 (5th Cir. 2012) (statute of limitations for tax-evasion prosecutions)
- United States v. Dandy, 998 F.2d 1344 (6th Cir. 1993) (limitations period for tax offenses; governing rules)
- United States v. Tucker, 217 F.3d 960 (8th Cir. 2000) (proof of tax-loss-related facts at sentencing by preponderance)