• August 24, 2016

    Court Victory Against the IRS

    A 6-year long ordeal for our client finally ended when a federal jury found him Not Guilty of All Charges last month. In previous newsletters we discussed how this client was tried and wrongfully convicted due to the testimony of a lying government witness. We fought to get him a new trial and succeeded when the federal District Court judge presiding over the case agreed with our view that the verdict was a “manifest injustice.” The government then appealed the judge’s decision granting a new trial to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. We defended our client in the appellate court and won there too. Yet, despite our victories before the District Court and in the Second Circuit, the IRS kept going after our innocent client. Statistically, the IRS wins 99.75% of all cases they bring so they decided to try him again last month. We were there again to fight for him. After three weeks of trial, the jury deliberated less than 2 hours and cleared our client of all charges. Though statistically, we only had a .25% chance of winning, we prevailed and our client finally got the justice he deserved.   Defense team outside the Eastern District of New York Courthouse after our win. From Left: Joseph Caiazzo; Vinoo Varghese; our Client; Dennis Ring; & Katie Lanphere. Articles fromLaw360 about the trial win and our prior appellate victory can be found on our firm’s press page here. Special mentions and thanks are due to co-counsel Dennis Ring, our resident sage, Larry Sharpe, and our forensic accounting expert, David Gannaway.

    Continue reading
  • October 20, 2015

    New York Law Journal Seeks Vinoo Varghese’s Comments About High Profile Trial

    The New York Law Journal sought Vinoo’s opinion on the highly-covered 76-day trial in which the government charged three former executives with fraud claiming their actions led to the demise of the white-shoe law firm Dewey & LeBoeuf. The judge declared a mistrial yesterday after 21 days of deliberations and the jury deadlocked on most counts against the three. Vinoo described to the New York Law Journal the process of and history behind a judge’s instructions to a jury to continue deliberations when there’s no verdict. He also explained what a mistrial means for the defense and client. Specifically Vinoo told the New York Law Journal: If a jury hasn’t reached a verdict and sends notes declaring that it is deadlocked, the judge can read a so-called “Allen” charge instruction, derived from an 1896 U.S. Supreme Court case, that is basically a push from the judge to reach a verdict…. Some defense lawyers believe that a mistrial is good because you live to fight another day, but the question then becomes, does the client have the stomach for that. This isn’t a simple issue for a defense lawyer. You can read the full article quoting Vinoo on our website’s press page here.

    Continue reading
  • October 19, 2015

    Vinoo Varghese Named A Super Lawyer

    We are so pleased to announce that our principal, Vinoo Varghese, has been selected to the 2015 New York Metro Super Lawyers list — an honor only 5% of lawyers receive each year! Vinoo’s profile on the Super Lawyers website can be viewed here. A brief biography of Vinoo is also featured in the Super Lawyers Magazine. Click on the image below to see his page in the digital version of the magazine. A special video providing more details including an explanation of the selection process can be found on our website here. Thank you all for the support you’ve given us with your consistent kind words of encouragement and the trust you’ve given us by allowing us the privilege of defending those you care about. We couldn’t have become as successful without your support and trust.

    Continue reading
  • June 28, 2015

    Our Victory Against DOJ TAX & IRS

    We are so pleased to announce that last month we secured another victory for one of our clients — this time against the Department of Justice (DOJ) Criminal Tax Division and IRS — in a federal appellate court. In January, we had told you that a federal district court judge had granted our retrial motion for our client, who was wrongly accused in a criminal tax case. When our client was arrested in August 2013, the DOJ & IRS issued a joint press release announcing his indictment. Our client, a Peruvian immigrant and owner of a construction company, who in good faith had relied on the advice of his accountant, was charged with tax fraud based mainly on that accountant’s testimony. Undeterred, in 2014, we went to trial and our client took the stand in his own defense. At trial, the judge found our client’s testimony more credible than that of the accountant. The judge, in fact, declared that the accountant’s trial testimony was “patently incredible” — in layman’s terms — the accountant lied and lied often. The judge also concluded that federal prosecutors had made “truly fallacious” and “baseless” arguments in their summations that “inflamed the jury and tainted its deliberations” causing them to “stray from the facts” leading to an unjust verdict. The judge held that the verdict against our client constituted a “manifest injustice” and ordered a retrial under Rule 33 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in order to “avert a miscarriage of justice.” Despite all these problems, the government decided to appeal the judge’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. After oral arguments on April 15, Tax Day, no less, against the DOJ Criminal Tax Division, the Court of Appeals agreed with us, found the government’s evidence “problematic” and affirmed the judge’s decision granting our motion for a retrial. We refused to let an unjust result against our client stand. We didn’t give up when others did, we fought for him, and achieved what the magazine Law360 called a “rare” victory because of the small number of such cases that prevail on appeal. Read more about this great win for our client here.

    Continue reading