Experienced Attorney David M. Garvin will represent you in all tax fraud matters as it has for the past 30 years.
Tax Lawyer David M. Garvin can be reached at (305) 371-8101, he be glad to talk to you about any criminal matter that you
may be facing.
He is the perfect IRS Attorney to represent you when a income tax or any criminal tax matter arises, his trial records speak for
White Collar Criminal,FBAR, FATCA,OVDP ( Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program ),Fraud, IRS Lawyer, with ample experience in all
facets of tax and criminal related matters, simple or complex.
Criminal Tax Attorney David M. Garvin will represent you in Federal or Civil court with any alleged white collar crime.
Top rated Tax Fraud Lawyer with over 30 years of experience and with a track record that will impress you.
David M. Garvin is a Florida Bar Board Certified Tax Fraud Attorney.
Ft. Lauderdale Tax Attorney David M. Garvin is a Florida Bar Board certified and AV and AVVO rated attorney.
The streamlined filing compliance procedures described below are available to taxpayers certifying that their failure to report
foreign financial assets and pay all tax due in respect of those assets did not result from willful conduct on their part.
The streamlined procedures are designed to provide to taxpayers in such situations (1) a streamlined procedure for filing
amended or delinquent returns and (2) terms for resolving their tax and penalty obligations.
These procedures will be available for an indefinite period until otherwise announced.
As reflected below, the streamlined filing procedures that were first offered on September 1, 2012 have been expanded and
modified to accommodate a broader group of U.S. taxpayers. Major changes to the streamlined procedures include:
(1) extension of eligibility to U.S. taxpayers residing in the United States,
(2) elimination of the $1,500 tax threshold, and
(3) elimination of the risk assessment process associated with the streamlined filing compliance procedure announced in 2012.
General eligibility for the streamlined procedures:
The modified streamlined filing compliance procedures are designed for only individual taxpayers, including estates of individual
taxpayers. The streamlined procedures are available to both U.S. individual taxpayers residing outside the United States and U.S.
individual taxpayers residing in the United States. Descriptions of the specific eligibility requirements for the streamlined
procedures for both non-U.S. residents (the "Streamlined Foreign Offshore Procedures") and U.S. residents
(the "Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures") are set forth below.
Taxpayers using either the Streamlined Foreign Offshore Procedures or the Streamlined Domestic Offshore Procedures
will be required to certify, in accordance with the specific instructions set forth below, that the failure to report
all income, pay all tax, and submit all required information returns, including FBARs (FinCEN Form 114, previously Form TD F 90-22.1),
was due to non-willful conduct.
If the IRS has initiated a civil examination of a taxpayer's returns for any taxable year, regardless of whether the
examination relates to undisclosed foreign financial assets, the taxpayer will not be eligible to use the streamlined procedures.
Taxpayers under examination may consult with their agent. Similarly, a taxpayer under criminal investigation by IRS
Criminal Investigation is also ineligible to use the streamlined procedures.
The implementation of FATCA and the ongoing efforts of the IRS and the Department of Justice to ensure compliance by
those with U.S. tax obligations have raised awareness of U.S. tax and information reporting obligations with respect
to non-U.S. investments. Because the circumstances of taxpayers with non-U.S. investments vary widely, the IRS offers
the following options for addressing previous failures to comply with U.S. tax and information return obligations with
respect to those investments:
Eligibility for the Streamlined Foreign Offshore Procedures like Offshore Voluntary Disclosure Program (OVDP)
In addition to having to meet the general eligibility criteria described above, individual U.S. taxpayers, or estates of individual
U.S. taxpayers, seeking to use the Streamlined Foreign Offshore Procedures described in this section must:
(1) meet the applicable non-residency requirement described below (for joint return filers, both spouses must meet the applicable
non-residency requirement described below) and (2) have failed to report the income from a foreign financial asset and pay tax as
required by U.S. law, and may have failed to file an FBAR (FinCEN Form 114, previously Form TD F 90-22.1) with respect to a foreign
financial account, and such failures resulted from non-willful conduct. Non-willful conduct is conduct that is due to negligence,
inadvertence, or mistake or conduct that is the result of a good faith misunderstanding of the requirements of the law.
For information on the meaning of foreign financial asset, see the instructions for FinCEN Form 114, which may be found at
FinCen and the instructions for Form 8938, which may be found at Instructions for Form 8938.
Voluntary Disclosure Program Specialist
Tax attorney David M. Garvin
• The hiring of a defense attorney is an important decision that should not be based solely upon advertisements.
• Before you make any decision, ask us to send you free written information about our qualifications and experience.
• This web site is designed for general information only.
• The information presented at this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a counselor/client relationship.
• Serious representation for serious legal matters.
Miami Criminal Tax Attorney
Contact our office today:
Miami 200 S. Biscayne Blvd.
(305) 371-8101 or email us at firstname.lastname@example.org
Available for consultation
Ft. Lauderdale (954) 640-1414
Tampa (813) 413-0140
Orlando (407) 218-4650
The tax defense firm of David M. Garvin, P.A. has proudly provided exemplary legal services to clients throughout the United States including Orlando,
Tampa, Miami, Fort Lauderdale, West Palm Beach, Orlando, Naples, Hollywood, Miami Beach, Coral Gables, Key West, Tallahassee, Jacksonville, Los
Angeles, Chicago, New York, Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, Knoxville, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, San Francisco, San Diego, Little Rock, Cleveland, Washington
DC, Las Vegas and Boston. Servicing Miami-Dade County, Broward County, Palm Beach County, Monroe County, Leon County, Duval County and
The Firm of David M. Garvin, P.A. in Miami, Florida holds a Martindale-Hubbell AV Rating (Highest rating) and has been a member of the Bar Registry of Preeminent
Lawyers, Criminal Attorney Section as well as a Martindale-Hubbell Preeminent Lawyer, Tax Attorney - Tax defense Section member since 1999. Mr. Garvin has been
selected by Super Lawyer Magazine each year since 2006 - White Collar Criminal Attorney - Criminal tax defense and was selected for the Top Florida Lawyers List 2006
White Collar Criminal Attorney - Criminal Lawyer. Mr. Garvin was selected by Super Lawyers, Corporate Counsel Edition, and recognized as an outstanding attorney in the
area of criminal defense : White Collar Crime, Tax Fraud, Voluntary Disclosure Program, FATCA. David M. Garvin is a Florida Bar Certified since 1990, with a Masters in
tax law 1987, a Juris Doctor in law 1982, and a Certified Public Accountant since 1982.
Need a IRS defense counselor?
If you are seeking an Appeal or an IRS Tax Attorney, if you are in need to be represented by an experienced attorney in matters like Voluntary Disclosure Program, then
Miami Tax and White Collar Attorney David M. Garvin is your IRS Tax Lawyer of choice, he will handle your alleged Tax Fraud, Tax Violations, IRS Investigations, Insider
Trader, Internet Crime, Wire Fraud, Money Laundering, FATCA, OVDP and white collar crime matters with a proven record.
Tax Attorney David M. Garvin can be reached at (305) 371-8101.
Miami Tax Attorney Proud recipient of the Daily Business Review's Most Effective Lawyer Award for 2010 in the area of complex litigation
The Federal Bank Fraud Statute, 18 U.S.C. ? 1344, provides as follows:
Whoever knowingly executes, or attempts to execute, a scheme or artifice-
(1) to defraud a financial institution; or
(2) to obtain any of the moneys, funds, credits, assets, securities or other property owned by,
or under the custody or control of, a financial institution, by means of false or fraudulent
pretenses, representations, or promises;
shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both.
While the two subsections proscribe slightly different conduct, "a person may commit bank fraud by violating either subsection." United States v.
Brandon, 298 F.3d 307, 311 (4th Cir. 2002), citing United States v. Colton, 231 F.3d 890, 897 (4th Cir. 2000). The "two subsections are in the disjunctive, so that an individual may commit bank fraud under provision (1) by defrauding a financial institution without making the false or fraudulent representations required by provision (2)." United States v. Brandon, 150 F.Supp.2d 883 (E.D.Va. 2001).
The criminal law elements of a violation of 18 U.S.C. ? 1344 (1) bank fraud which must be contained in an indictment and must be proved by the government beyond a reasonable doubt are as follows:
The defendant knowingly executed or attempted to execute a scheme or artifice to defraud.
The defendant did defraud or attempt to defraud the financial institution.
The defendant used a material misrepresentation or concealment of a material fact as part of the scheme or attempted scheme.
The financial institution was insured or chartered by the federal government.
United States v. Neder, 527 U.S. 1 (1999); United States v. Akers, 215 F.3d 1089, 1100 (10th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1023 (2000); United States v. Omer, 395 F.3d 1087 (9th Cir. 2005) (conviction reversed for failure of the indictment to allege the element of a material misrepresentation of fact).
The criminal law elements of a violation of 18 U.S.C. ? 1344 (2) bank fraud which must be contained in an indictment and must be proved by the government beyond a reasonable doubt are as follows:
The defendant knowingly executed or attempted to execute a scheme or artifice to obtain the money (or other property) owned by, or under the custody or control of, a financial institution.
The defendant used materially false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises in the execution or attempted execution of the scheme.
The financial institution was insured or chartered by the federal government.
United States v. Miller , 70 F.3d 1353, (D.C. Cir. 1995); United States v. Neder, 527 U.S. 1 (1999).
In Neder, the Supreme Court defined a matter as "material" if "a reasonable man would attach importance to its existence or nonexistence in determining his choice of action in the transaction in question." Neder, 527 U.S. at 22, n. 5. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has defined a material misrepresentation as one "capable of influencing a bank's actions." United States v. Rodriguez, 140 F.3d 163 (2nd Cir.1998).
The issue of materiality is a question for the jury, not the judge. United States v. Neder, 527 U.S. 1 (1999); United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506 (1995) (materiality in a false statement case is a jury question).
18 U.S.C. ? 20 defines a "financial institution" as used in Title 18 of the US Code as follows:
An insured depository institution (as defined in section 3(c)(2) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act).
A credit union with accounts insured by the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund.
A Federal home loan bank or a member, as defined in section 2 of the Federal Home Loan Bank Act ( 12 U.S.C. 1422), of the Federal home loan bank system.
A System institution of the Farm Credit System, as defined in section 5.35(3) of the Farm Credit Act of 1971.
A small business investment company, as defined in section 103 of the Small Business Investment Act of 1958 ( 15 U.S.C. 662).
A depository institution holding company (as defined in section 3(w)(1) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act.
A Federal Reserve bank or a member bank of the Federal Reserve System.
An organization operating under section 25 or section 25(a) of the Federal Reserve Act.
A branch or agency of a foreign bank (as such terms are defined in paragraphs (1) and (3) of section 1(b) of the International Banking Act of 1978).
The government is not required to prove an actual loss to the financial institution "so long as there is evidence that the defendant intended to expose the institution to such a loss[.]" United States v. Laljie, 184 F.3d 180, 189 (2nd Cir.1999); United States v. Colton, 231 F.3d 890, 908 (4th Cir. 2000) (sufficient if bank was exposed to an actual or potential risk of loss).
18 U.S.C. ? 1346 which defines a scheme or artifice to defraud, provides as follows:
For the purposes of this chapter, the term "scheme or artifice to defraud" includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.
The phrase "scheme to defraud" of 18 U.S.C. ? 1344 has been broadly construed by the courts. "The 'scheme to defraud' clause of Section 1344(1) is to be interpreted broadly, . . . and requires that the defendant act with the 'specific intent to deceive or cheat, . . . for the purpose of getting financial gain for one's self or causing financial loss to another[.]'" United States v. Moede, 48 F.3d 238, 241 (7th Cir.1995), citing United States v. Colton, 231 F.3d 890, 897-98 (4th Cir. 2000); United States v. Brandon, 298 F.3d 307 (4th Cir. 2002); United States v. Goldblatt, 813 F.2d 619, 624 (3d Cir.1987) ("The term 'scheme to defraud,' however, is not capable of precise definition. Fraud instead is measured in a particular case by determining whether the scheme demonstrated a departure from fundamental honesty, moral uprightness, or fair play and candid dealings in the general life of the community.").
Depending on how a bank fraud is charged in an indictment, a scheme involving checks may or may not constitute a bank fraud. United States v. Brandon, 298 F.3d 307 (4th Cir. 2002) (stolen and forged checks constituted bank fraud); United States v. Celesia, 945 F.2d 756 (4th Cir. 1991) (check kiting scheme constituted bank fraud); United States v. Orr, 932 F.2d 330 (4th. Cir. 1991) (check cashed on insufficient funds account did not constitute bank fraud).
An attempt or conspiracy to commit bank fraud is subject to the same criminal penalties as the substantive bank fraud. 18 U.S.C. ? 1349 provides as follows:
Any person who attempts or conspires to commit any offense under this chapter shall be subject to the same penalties as those prescribed for the offense, the commission of which was the object of the attempt or conspiracy.
The statute of limitations for a federal bank fraud case is 10 years. 18 U.S.C. ? 3293 provides as follows:
No person shall be prosecuted, tried, or punished for a violation of, or a conspiracy to violate--
(1) section 215, 656, 657, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1014, 1033, or 1344;
(2) section 1341 or 1343, if the offense affects a financial institution; or
(3) section 1963, to the extent that the racketeering activity involves a violation of section 1344; unless the indictment is returned or the information is filed within 10 years after the commission of the offense.
There are a number of other federal statutes prohibiting fraud against banks or other similar financial institutions, including, but not necessarily limited to, the following:
• 18 U.S.C. ? 1004. Certification of checks.
• 18 U.S.C. ? 1005. Bank entries, reports and transactions.
• 18 U.S.C. ? 1006. Federal credit institution entries, reports and transactions.
• 18 U.S.C. ? 1007. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation transactions.
• 18 U.S.C. ? 1013. Farm loan bonds and credit bank debentures.
• 18 U.S.C. ? 1014. Loan and credit applications generally; renewals and discounts; crop insurance.
• 18 U.S.C. ? 1029. Fraud and related activity in connection with access devices.
• 18 U.S.C. ? 1032. Concealment of assets from conservator, receiver, or liquidating agent of financial institution.
Sentencing regarding federal bank fraud violations is generally governed by the Section 2B1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines, which are advisory pursuant to United States v. Booker, 125 S.Ct. 738 (2005), and the factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. ? 3553(a). United States v. Staples, 435 F.3d 860 (8th Cir. 2006); United States v. Reid, 2006 WL 41194 (C.A.4 (Va.)).
18 U.S.C. ? 3553 provides as follows:
(a) Factors to be considered in imposing a sentence. --The court shall impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with the purposes set forth in paragraph (2) of this subsection. The court, in determining the particular sentence to be imposed, shall consider--
(1) the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant;
(2) the need for the sentence imposed--
(A) to reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense;
(B) to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct;
(C) to protect the public from further crimes of the defendant; and
(D) to provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner;
(3) the kinds of sentences available;
(4) the kinds of sentence and the sentencing range established for--
(A) the applicable category of offense committed by the applicable category of defendant as set forth in the guidelines--
(i) issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to section 994(a)(1) of title 28, United States Code, subject to any amendments made to such guidelines by act of Congress (regardless of whether such amendments have yet to be incorporated by the Sentencing Commission into amendments issued under section 994(p) of title 28); and (ii) that, except as provided in section 3742(g), are in effect on the date the defendant is sentenced; or
(B) in the case of a violation of probation or supervised release, the applicable guidelines or policy statements issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to section 994(a)(3) of title 28, United States Code, taking into account any amendments made to such guidelines or policy statements by act of Congress (regardless of whether such amendments have yet to be incorporated by the Sentencing Commission into amendments issued under section 994(p) of title 28);
(5) any pertinent policy statement--
(A) issued by the Sentencing Commission pursuant to section 994(a)(2) of title 28, United States Code, subject to any amendments made to such policy statement by act of Congress (regardless of whether such amendments have yet to be incorporated by the Sentencing Commission into amendments issued under section 994(p) of title 28); and
(B) that, except as provided in section 3742(g), is in effect on the date the defendant is sentenced.
(6) the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct; and
(7) the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense.
18 USC § 1344
Cases presented in this website are representative of the type of cases the law firm handles. Not all cases have been included. Speak to a Board Certified Tax Attorney and specialist in federal criminal tax cases about your case
U.S. v. Jose Chaoui
Not Guilty in all Counts.
The results of past cases is not indicative of future results. Each case has its own unique facts which substantially affect its outcome.
Miami criminal tax attorney David M. Garvin, has been recognized as one of the top criminal and tax defense lawyers in Florida.
David M. Garvin, defends criminal cases alleging Tax Fraud, Commodities Fraud, Bank Fraud, Wire Fraud, Health-Care fraud, Ponzi Schemes, Tax Evasion, Money Laundering, False Statements,Voluntary Disclosure, Grand Jury and other serious white collar crimes.
Copyright © 1999-2013
Tax Attorney David M. Garvin, P.A.
Web designed and maintained By
Robert 'Bobby' Rugilo