tech37 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2023 9:55 am
Kismet wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2023 9:22 am
Former IRS agent Martin Sheil offers his perspective on what’s next in the Hunter Biden case. Felony tax charges and a plea deal to avoid an acquittal at trial.
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 ... l-doj.html
AS for HB, apparently not the brightest bulb and a user which often offers some rationale for shoddy behavior.
"Simply stated, can Weiss prove that Biden, in the grip of alcoholism and addiction, possessed the requisite level of criminal intent to concoct and commit a tax fraud scheme over a period of years to willfully defraud the IRS? That is the crux of the matter that would go before a court and jury, likely in California, where the tax crimes were committed or where the taxes should have been paid, should the special counsel go ahead with his indictment and the Biden legal team opt to take its chances in trial instead of negotiating a plea."
"prove" ? Such BS... certainly not the "crux of the matter." This coming from an ex IRS agent?
"in the grip of alcoholism and addiction" is specious at best. He either paid his taxes or he didn't. "intent" ? HA!
And then there's politics. Again, no one but the wealthy and connected with high profile lawyers gets this sort of consideration.
I'm not sure how you think our justice system works or should work.
The burden of proof is on the prosecution to persuade a judge or jury, if so elected by the defendant, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed the crime charged. Or do you think that such burden is not or should not be on the prosecution??
And yes, for most crimes intent matters a ton as to what level of crime was committed (eg felony levels or misdemeanor) and whether the crime charged was the appropriate charge. Or do you think intent doesn't or shouldn't matter??
Again, burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove
all elements of the crime charged.
Here in the US and throughout most western democracies, we purposely tilt the burden this way because otherwise the individual, including the innocent, would be at the mercy of the state entirely...pretty fundamental part of our system to protect the innocent, even if that means some guilty parties go free.
If this goes to trial, the defense will undoubtedly argue that Hunter did not have the requisite intent to commit a crime, the prosecution will try to prove that he did. The mere existence of non-payment does of course establish such fact, but not the intent behind it.
Clearly you are of a pre-set mindset that of course he intended to commit the crime and, therefore, if so, it would be inappropriate for you to serve on a jury with such pre-set, as you haven't heard the defense presented nor heard witness testimony, nor seen what the prosecution has beyond the mere existence of non-payment. But your reaction is certainly a natural one and undoubtedly many prospective jurors will share that mindset going in, even if they don't admit it during voir dire...the question is whether they will have open enough minds to consider the alternative, and form a reasonable doubt in that process.
And the prosectors know this, right now, as they consider taking this before a jury. So, unless they have some strong documentation and/or testimony about Hunter's criminal intent, they know they risk losing at trial if a single juror forms that reasonable doubt.
So, if they don't have high confidence in their evidence convincing all of the jury, their incentives are to charge a lower crime and/or accept a plea for a lower crime. The plea locks it down.
And as others have pointed out, it's actually rare that when taxes are ultimately paid, that more than some fines and penalties are assessed. It's typically only when the taxpayer has not only egregiously avoided taxes but also refused to pay them with penalties, contesting the matter, that prosecutions are brought.
And, contrary to your speculation about the "wealthy and connected", the IRS and DOJ like to bring cases involving high profile, egregious cases so as to send a message. But not if the taxpayer makes good, those get settled...smaller cases where the taxpayer makes good are almost never prosecuted.
Complicated cases with lots of layers, challenges around proof of intent, are where the very rich and connected
do have a serious advantage versus the schlubs like you and me. They typically have mountains of papering making their tax avoidance plausibly legal, or at least very hard to unravel, having spent millions on tax accountants and lawyers to create plausible protections, or someone else to point the finger at...
But that's not the situation here.
There is another high profile situation, though, that fits that category...
