Executive Function Issues
The New Jersey Supreme Court accepted a convicted attorney’s consent disbarment for conduct described by the Disciplinary Review Board
In or around September 2005, respondent and Alan Messner formed Thirdstone Aircraft Leasing Group, a company which never owned any aircraft or possessed any significant capital. In late 2006, respondent and Messner, through Thirdstone, criminally conspired to obtain a $1 million security deposit from Merpati Nusantara Airlines, a company based in Indonesia, purportedly in exchange for the lease of two purported aircraft owned by Thirdstone. As part of their criminal scheme, respondent and Messner made multiple fraudulent statements to Merpati to induce it to advance the $1 million deposit.
Specifically, respondent provided Merpati a forged document purporting to demonstrate that Company B had agreed to sell the two aircraft to Thirdstone. However, no such agreement existed between Thirdstone and Company B. Additionally, respondent sent Merpati a letter, purportedly signed by the named partner of Hume & Associates, stating that Hume & Associates would act as the “security agent” for Merpati’s $1 million deposit. Respondent, however, concealed from Merpati the fact that no attorney at Hume & Associates ever had agreed to act as a “security agent” for the deposit.
We were able to glean additional facts underlying respondent’s conduct towards Merpati based on significant confidential information contained in the record, which information respondent adopted in connection with the criminal proceedings.
On December 21, 2006, Merpati electronically transferred its $1 million security to deposit to the bank account of Hume & Associates. That same day, respondent issued a $980,000 check, made payable to himself, from the bank account of Hume & Associates, and deposited the check in his personal bank account. Thereafter, between December 21, 2006 and sometime in 2007, respondent disbursed to Messner $284,500 of Merpati’s $1 million security deposit, from his personal bank account. Respondent spent Merpati’s remaining $695,500 on his personal expenses.
Federal authorities and respondent agreed that $558,100 of Merpati’s $1 million security deposit constituted respondent’s taxable income that should have been reported to the Internal Revenue Service (the IRS) for the 2006 tax year. However, in respondent’s 2006 income tax return, he reported only $100,000 of Merpati’s security deposit, stating that his total taxable income for that year was negative $28,430, and requesting a $6,645 tax refund from the federal government. Had respondent properly reported the $558,100 as taxable income, his total taxable income for the 2006 tax year would have been $448,727.28, and he would have owed the federal government $133,464.86 in income tax. Respondent’s criminal conduct, thus, resulted in a $140,109.86 tax loss to the federal government, considering his receipt of the improper $6,645 tax refund.
He pleaded guilty to tax evasion and explained
Respondent also alleged that, at the time he committed the offense, “there was something organic happening that was having an effect on his executive function,” including “stressors” such as engaging in “unrealistic” expenditures driven “by his desire to please his new wife.” Although respondent admitted that his “actions to push the deal to completion were never permissible[,]” he characterized his behavior as a “fail[ure] to investigate” resulting in “faulty judgment and risky conduct.” Respondent, however, conceded that his crime “was a serious offense for which he ha[d] great remorse.”
Sentencing judge not impressed
Judge Jackson rejected, as mitigation, respondent’s purported “[r]omancing of a woman, narcissism, [and] executive function issues.” Judge Jackson also stated that, “up until the moment of sentencing,” respondent “consistently downplayed and minimized” his actions and refused to “take any ownership of what [he] did wrong[.]” Indeed, prior to sentencing, Judge Jackson stated that respondent’s position had been: “I can’t believe this is happening to me.” Finally, Judge Jackson noted that respondent’s actions were motivated by greed to pay for multiple home loans and for an automobile loan on a luxury vehicle.
(Mike Frisch)