United States vs Turner
Donald Tunner who was the author of a book called Tax Free! How the Super Rich Do It!, and his
employer Daniel Leveto were involved in busniess that heled clients with income tax evasion.
They were exposed by an undercover IRS agent who seized important dpcuments including
Leveto's foreign and domestic bank records.
Before trial, Turner filed a motion in limine to exclude pieces of evidence, including (1) the
recorded conversations between Leveto and Gonzalez, and (2) the foreign bank records that the
IRS seized from Leveto's office and residence. Turner argued that the Government failed to
properly authenticate the foreign bank documents. The District Court disagreed and held them
to be admissible.
Turner argues that the District Court erred in admitting the foreign bank documents under
Federal Rule of Evidence 807 because the Government did not prove that the documents had
exceptional guarantees of trustworthiness. The Government said that they need to look at the
following things while determining whethe bank records can be admitted:
(1) the appearance of the records, including their internal consistency;
(2) the contents of the records; and
(3) the circumstances surrounding the discovery of the records.
Turner conrtended that the source of the documents were not banks itself but rather they were
found in Leveto's residence therefore should not be admitted. The court held there was no
reason why Leveto would have been storing false bank documents that implicated him in tax
fraud and decided against Turner.
Morgenthow Latham v. Bank of N.Y. Co.
plaintiffs Morgenthow & Latham, New York International Insurance Group and Oriental XL
Funds (plaintiffs), invested $40 million through the purchase of 20,000 shares of stock of
defendant Joint Stock Bank Inkombank.
Central Bank of Russia conducted an audit of Inkombank and issued a highly critical report
containing numerous warnings concerning Inkombank's financial position.
Plaintiffs alarmed by the CBR Report decided to redeem their Inkombank shares.
The Bank of New York, Inkombank's correspondent bank in the US, convinced the plaintiffs to
withdraw their redemption demand.
Inkombank indeed became insolvent and the plaintiff sued both BNY and Inkombank.
BNY argued that allegations made by plaintiffs' "attorney-in-fact" and "trustee" in a separate
consolidated action pending in Federal District Court constituted binding judicial admissions
that are irreconcilable with plaintiff's allegations of fraud by BNY in the instant case.
The court ruled:
Informal judicial admissions are recognized as facts incidentally admitted during the trial. A
formal judicial admission in one action may become an admission in the evidentiary sense in
another action, and would be classified as an informal judicial admission in the later action.To
be sure, they are not conclusive, though they are `evidence' of the fact or facts admitted.
Furthermore, an admission in a pleading in one action is admissible against the pleader in
another suit, provided it is shown "by the signature of the party, or otherwise, that the facts
were inserted with his knowledge"
