US v. Sookyeong Sebold
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cr-00434-LMB-1 Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999250802].. [13-4205]
Appeal: 13-4205
Doc: 31
Filed: 12/03/2013
Pg: 1 of 5
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-4205
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SOOKYEONG KIM SEBOLD, a/k/a Sophia Kim,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:12-cr-00434-LMB-1)
Submitted:
November 25, 2013
Decided:
December 3, 2013
Before MOTZ, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael S. Nachmanoff, Federal Public Defender, Kevin R. Brehm,
Assistant Federal Public Defender, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellant.
Kathryn Keneally, Assistant Attorney General, Frank
P. Cihlar, Chief, Criminal Appeals & Tax Enforcement Policy
Section, Gregory Victor Davis, Joseph B. Syverson, Tax Division,
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 13-4205
Doc: 31
Filed: 12/03/2013
Pg: 2 of 5
PER CURIAM:
Sookyeong Kim Sebold was convicted by a jury of filing
a false individual income tax return and criminal tax evasion,
26 U.S.C. §§ 7201, 7206 (2012), both with respect to Sebold’s
2005
federal
individual
income
tax
liability.
The
court sentenced Sebold to 24 months’ imprisonment.
district
She appeals,
arguing that the Government failed to prove that her conduct was
willful within the meaning of the statutes of conviction.
The
evidence presented at Sebold’s trial, viewed in the light most
favorable to the Government, see United States v. Burgos, 94
F.3d 849, 854 (4th Cir. 1996) (en banc), was as follows.
Between
$810,000
from
Foundation
2002
her
(KCFF),
supporting
the
company.
Sebold
and
2005,
employer,
a
Korean
nonprofit
Universal
was
the
Sebold
Ballet
KCFF’s
stole
approximately
Cultural
organization
Company,
treasurer
authority over its bank accounts.
a
and
and
Freedom
devoted
Korean
had
to
ballet
signatory
She used her authority to
divert funds sent to KCFF into her own bank accounts, which she
then used to support her gambling and day-trading habits, among
other
things.
In
2005
alone,
Sebold
spent
over
$58,000
at
casinos using her debit card, and withdrew another $86,000 in
cash from ATM’s located near casinos.
William Pangoras, the
operations controller for Bally’s Atlantic City, testified that
Sebold
made
34
gambling
trips
2
to
Atlantic
City
in
2005,
Appeal: 13-4205
Doc: 31
Filed: 12/03/2013
Pg: 3 of 5
totalling 180 hours of playing time, and involving $167,845 in
cash
transactions.
Sebold
also
engaged
in
extensive
day-
trading, sometimes trading the same stock ten times in one day.
In one month alone in 2005, Sebold placed over 800 buy and sell
orders.
On her 2005 federal income tax return, Sebold reported
zero wage income and zero total income. She claimed a short-term
capital loss of $277,962, attributable to losses sustained in
her day-trading activities with money stolen from KCFF.
testified that she completed the return personally.
Sebold
She does
not deny that she stole the funds from KCFF; rather, Sebold
argues that the Government failed to prove that she knew that
those funds were reportable as taxable income. *
We
will
uphold
a
jury’s
verdict
if
substantial evidence in the record to support it.
United States, 315 U.S. 60, 80 (1942).
there
is
Glasser v.
In determining whether
the evidence in the record is substantial, we view the evidence
in
the
light
most
favorable
to
the
Government,
and
inquire
whether there is evidence that a reasonable finder of fact could
*
I.R.C. § 61 defines gross income as “all income from
whatever source derived” and includes gains from illegal
activities.
See James v. United States, 366 U.S. 213 (1960)
(overruling Commissioner v. Wilcox, 327 U.S. 404 (1946)).
3
Appeal: 13-4205
Doc: 31
Filed: 12/03/2013
Pg: 4 of 5
accept as adequate and sufficient to establish a defendant’s
guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Burgos, 94 F.3d at 862.
In
evaluating the sufficiency of the evidence, this court does not
review the credibility of the witnesses and assumes that the
jury resolved all contradictions in the testimony in favor of
the Government.
United States v. Kelly, 510 F.3d 433, 440 (4th
Cir. 2007).
A
conviction
“under
section
7206(1)
requires
proof
that: (1) a person made or subscribed to a federal tax return
which he verified as true; (2) the return was false as to a
material matter; (3) the defendant signed the return willfully
and knowing it was false; and (4) the return contained a written
declaration
that
it
was
made
under
the
penalty
of
perjury.”
United States v. Presbitero, 569 F.3d 691, 700 (7th Cir. 2009).
In order to sustain a conviction under § 7201, the Government
must
prove
that:
(1)
Sebold
owed
a
substantial
income
tax
liability; (2) that she attempted in any manner to evade or
defeat
the
willfully.
of
that
tax;
and
(3)
that
she
did
so
United States v. Wilkins, 385 F.2d 465, 472 (4th
Cir. 1967).
evasion.
payment
A formal assessment is not required to prove tax
See United States v. Silkman, 156 F.3d 833, 835 (8th
Cir. 1998).
Convictions under both §§ 7206 and 7201 require the
Government to prove that Sebold’s actions were willful.
4
See
Appeal: 13-4205
Doc: 31
Filed: 12/03/2013
Pg: 5 of 5
United States v. Aramony, 88 F.3d 1369, 1382 (4th Cir. 1996)
(filing false tax returns). Failure to supply an accountant with
accurate information is evidence of willfulness.
United States
v. Useni, 516 F.3d 634, 650 (7th Cir. 2008).
And, although
willfulness cannot be inferred solely from an understatement of
income, willfulness can be inferred from making false entries or
alterations,
or
false
invoices
or
documents,
destruction
of
books or records, concealment of assets or covering up sources
of income, handling of one’s affairs to avoid making the records
usual in transactions of the kind, and any conduct, the likely
effect of which would be to mislead or to conceal.
Spies v.
United States, 317 U.S. 492, 499 (1943).
We
have
reviewed
the
record,
including
the
trial
testimony, and find that the jury heard sufficient evidence of
willfulness to support its finding of guilt.
affirm
Sebold’s
conviction.
We
dispense
with
Accordingly, we
oral
argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
AFFIRMED
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?