United States of America v. Ali
Filing
87
MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER granting 79 MOTION for Release of Funds filed by Melina Ali; directing the Clerk to reimburse Respondent in the amount of $486,500. Signed by Judge Paul W. Grimm on 4/16/2020. (ybs, Deputy Clerk)
Case 8:13-cv-03398-PWG Document 87 Filed 04/16/20 Page 1 of 17
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Southern Division
United States of America,
*
Petitioner,
*
v.
*
Melina Ali,
*
Respondent.
*
*
*
Case No.: 8:13-cv-03398-PWG
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses Ms. Melina Ali’s request for the Court
to return funds to her that she paid while in civil contempt of an Order to comply with an Internal
Revenue Service (“IRS”) summons. In March 2016, I held Ms. Ali in contempt, but gave her a
period of time to purge herself of the contempt before she would have to pay monetary sanctions
of $500 per day. To purge herself of contempt, Ms. Ali had to use “all reasonable efforts” to
comply with the IRS summons. Ms. Ali eventually paid these sanctions for almost three years,
until I approved a joint stipulation in March 2019 that Ms. Ali purged her civil contempt and
complied with the IRS summons. ECF No. 78. Shortly thereafter, Ms. Ali filed the pending
motion for release of funds, asking the Court to return the monetary sanctions she paid on the
basis that she actually purged herself of contempt before the sanctions started. ECF No. 79.
Because Ms. Ali used all reasonable efforts to comply with the IRS summons before the
sanctions started, her motion is granted.
1
Case 8:13-cv-03398-PWG Document 87 Filed 04/16/20 Page 2 of 17
Background
IRS Summons and Contempt Order
The long history of this case is summarized in my previous Memorandum Opinions and
Orders issued on April 24, 2014, November 4, 2014, and March 29, 2016.1
In short, in
November 2013, the United States of America filed a Petition to enforce an IRS summons served
on Ms. Ali. ECF No. 1. The IRS was investigating Ms. Ali’s income tax liability for the tax
years 2004–2011 and whether to assess penalties for failure to report a foreign bank account
under 31 U.S.C § 5314 and failure to file forms under 26 U.S.C. § 6677. ECF No. 1 ¶ 5. The
IRS summons required Ms. Ali to produce documents and appear for testimony on June 3, 2013.
Id. at ¶ 6. On June 3, 2013 Ms. Ali appeared, but did not comply with the summons as she
invoked her Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and did not produce the
documents requested in the summons. Id. at ¶ 9. The United States sought to compel Ms. Ali to
comply with the summons. Id. at ¶ 11.
In November 2014, I ordered Ms. Ali to comply with the summons in part, finding the act
of producing the documents sought by the summons would not require Ms. Ali to incriminate
herself. ECF No. 24. The Order required Ms. Ali to produce records that related to foreign bank
accounts and corporate records for domestic or foreign entities. Id.
Despite my Order, Ms. Ali still did not produce the documents. On March 29, 2016, I
held a show cause hearing as to why Ms. Ali should not be held in contempt for failure to
produce the foreign bank records and corporate records. ECF No. 52 at 6:1–22. Under relevant
1
See United States v. Ali, No. PWG-13-3398, 2014 WL 1660280 (D. Md. Apr. 24, 2014); United
States v. Ali, No. PWG-13-3398, 2014 WL 5790996 (D. Md. Nov. 5, 2014); United States v. Ali,
No. PWG-13-3398, 2016 WL 8628348 (D. Md. Mar. 29, 2016), aff'd, United States v. Ali, 874
F.3d 825 (4th Cir. 2017).
2
As of November 30, 2016, Ms. Ali contacted the following companies to obtain information or
2
Case 8:13-cv-03398-PWG Document 87 Filed 04/16/20 Page 3 of 17
case law, Ms. Ali was required to take “all reasonable steps” to produce the summonsed records.
United States v. Darwin Const. Co., 873 F.2d 750, 755 (4th Cir. 1989). Starting with the foreign
bank records, I asked Mr. Klimas, counsel for the Government, what reasonable steps it
contended that Ms. Ali should take to meet this standard.
THE COURT: So you tell me all reasonable steps, what are the further reasonable
steps on UBS that you contend that Ms. Ali or her counsel should have taken that
they didn't.
MR. KLIMAS: Yes, Your Honor. As an initial matter, we don't know what steps
she did take but, certainly, reasonable steps could include contacting UBS by
letter, by phone, through an attorney, talking to family members who she believes
might have a connection –
THE COURT: Well, she did. . . . So there was some effort to try and get them,
right?
MR. KLIMAS: Yes, if we -THE COURT: So tell me what more should have been done. . . . So tell me now,
with regard to the foreign bank accounts, including UBS, Credit Suisse, Deutsche
Bank, what additional steps you believe would be required for me to be able to
find that Ms. Ali had met the all reasonable steps test.
MR. KLIMAS: Yes, Your Honor. With respect to the UBS account, Ms. Ali could
have tried to contact the bank through family members, or she could have
considered legal remedies.
THE COURT: Like what?
MR. KLIMAS: Such as filing a lawsuit against the bank, which is -- I believe it
was contemplated by the 11th Circuit in its Hayes opinion, where the taxpayer
flew overseas, contacted his business partner, asked for the records, was rebuffed,
and did not bring suit against his business partner, did not take -THE COURT: Well, that's a business partner. That's not the bank. . . . [T]he 11th
Circuit didn't say Hayes had to sue the bank, did they?
MR. KLIMAS: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. So tell me what you think Ms. Ali and her
representatives should have done as to UBS and any other foreign bank account.
MR. KLIMAS: If we look at the notes from Ms. Ali’s attorney, what UBS said
was that there were two signatures that were needed to access the account. At a
3
Case 8:13-cv-03398-PWG Document 87 Filed 04/16/20 Page 4 of 17
minimum, we think that Ms. Ali should have tried to figure out who the second
signature was by inquiring among her family members who may have had an
interest in the ROMEIS Foundation. Beyond that, it’s possible she could have
taken legal recourse against her family members, depending on what information
she found out. With respect to Deutsche Bank and Credit Suisse, there’s no
evidence that she even took the step of calling or writing a letter to those banks.
Id. at 48:4–51:3. In other words, at the hearing, the Government’s counsel suggested that for the
foreign bank records, reasonable steps could include Ms. Ali contacting the foreign banks herself
or through family members, discussing the accounts with family members, and potentially filing
legal action to obtain the records.
During the hearing I also asked the Government what reasonable steps it believed Ms. Ali
should take with respect to the corporate records, limiting this category to three corporate entities
– Deerwood, White Pearl Investment Company, and Richtree.
THE COURT: And so talk to me about the other category, the corporate
representational relationship, the Deerwood -- I'm going to limit it to . . .
Deerwood, she had a power of attorney, at least back in -- when the house was
purchased. . . . And then for White Pearl Investment Company and Richtree,
where your submissions say that she was the secretary-treasurer of these
corporations from between mid-1990's and 2013, tell me what you think would be
evidence that would be equal to, in the judgment of the IRS, all reasonable efforts
to produce the documents that I ordered produced regarding this category of
documents.
MR. KLIMAS: Yes, Your Honor. At a minimum, Ms. Ali would have to state
under oath that she looked for the documents, whether in her own files or in the
files of her agent, such as attorneys or accountants.
THE COURT: Well, someone with some personal knowledge about where her
documents are, right? Maybe her, maybe not her. The chance of her answering
questions under oath at this point [-- it] seems like her lawyers have done a pretty
good job of making sure she hasn't done that. I suppose she could always start at
some point, if she doesn't want to be held in contempt, but she's got a right not to.
So what other evidence -- regardless of who does it, what steps would have to be
taken to meet this test, so I can figure out whether it's been met?
MR. KLIMAS: Yes, Your Honor. In addition to looking in her own files or the
4
Case 8:13-cv-03398-PWG Document 87 Filed 04/16/20 Page 5 of 17
files of her agents, it might also be appropriate, because she says these entities are
controlled by her family, to contact her family members or people associated with
the entities to see whether they would give her the documents upon her asking.
Id. at 48:4–51:3. In other words, the Government suggested that Ms. Ali, or someone with
sufficient knowledge, testify under oath that she looked for the documents. The Government
also suggested that she contact her family members or people associated with the corporations to
see if they would give her any documents.
These suggestions by the Government were reasonable, and during the hearing I told the
parties that had Ms. Ali tried these things and failed, I may have been convinced that she used all
reasonable efforts to comply with the summons. Id. at 55:19–24. Thus, I issued a ruling from
the bench finding that Ms. Ali was in contempt of my previous Order with respect to documents
related to foreign bank accounts and the corporate entities Deerwood, White Pearl, and Richtree.
Id. at 67:21–68:6. My ruling was memorialized in a separate Order. ECF No. 51. Ms. Ali was
ordered to purge herself of contempt by April 28, 2016 by using all reasonable efforts to produce
these documents or provide evidence that she is unable to do so. Id. If Ms. Ali did not purge
herself of contempt by that date, she was to pay monetary sanctions of $500 per day, payable
weekly, until she did. Id. The deadline for compliance with the summons without monetary
sanctions was extended to June 20, 2016. ECF No. 56.
Efforts to Comply with the Summons Prior to Monetary Sanctions
Following the hearing and contempt order, Ms. Ali started a flurry of activity to comply
with the summons. First, Ms. Ali abandoned her assertion of a Fifth Amendment privilege
against self-incrimination and provided a 122 paragraph declaration to the Government regarding
her knowledge of the requested documents. ECF No. 80-2. As to the foreign bank accounts, Ms.
5
Case 8:13-cv-03398-PWG Document 87 Filed 04/16/20 Page 6 of 17
Ali stated that the only foreign bank account that she was associated with to her knowledge was
a UBS account in Switzerland. Id. at ¶ 7. Ms. Ali also provided information about the ROMEIS
foundation, which owned the account at UBS Bank, and stated that she had in fact renounced all
interest in the foundation’s assets and provided supporting documentation. See id. at ¶¶ 44–63.
Ms. Ali also included a description of efforts to obtain the documents to date. Despite stating
that the only account she was aware of was the UBS account related to the ROMEIS Foundation,
which she had renounced, Ms. Ali contacted UBS, Credit Suisse, and Deutsche Bank, to see if
they had any responsive documents. See id. at ¶¶ 8, 26–29, 40–41, 70–72. When she did not
receive responsive records, Ms. Ali sent subpoenas duces tecum to UBS, Credit Suisse, and
Deutsche Bank. See id. at ¶¶ 30–33, 42–43, 73–74.
For the corporate records, Ms. Ali stated that as to Deerwood, she had no ownership or
beneficial interest in the company, was appointed power of attorney for the purpose of handling
real estate transactions, and had no compensation from the company. Id. at ¶¶ 76–78, 88. The
Deerwood power of attorney and additional correspondence were produced to the IRS. Id. at ¶
79. Ms. Ali also hired a private firm, BVICompanySearches.com, to provide information on
Deerwood, the results of which were produced to the IRS. See id. at ¶¶ 92–93.
For Richtree and White Pearl Investment Company, Ms. Ali stated that she had a nonfunctioning board positions in both companies, and received no compensation from, made no
investments in, and possessed no documents from either company. See id. at ¶¶ 94–98; 108–12.
Ms. Ali also contacted Mr. Jonathan Feucht, an officer of Richtree and White Pearl, to obtain
documents regarding those companies. Id. at ¶¶ 105, 119. Ms. Ali also sent a subpoena to Mr.
Feucht for records related to Richtree and White Pearl, as well as their parent company, COW
Holdings, Ltd. Id. at ¶¶ 107, 121, 122. The corporations and Mr. Feucht objected to the
6
Case 8:13-cv-03398-PWG Document 87 Filed 04/16/20 Page 7 of 17
subpoenas, stated that they “previously produced thousands of pages of documents to the IRS
responsive to subpoenas which sought the same information,” and threatened sanctions against
Ms. Ali. See ECF No. 80-16. Nonetheless, Ms. Ali’s lawyers and the IRS deposed Mr. Feucht
on May 9, 2016. See ECF No. 80-17.
Ms. Ali also contacted family members for any information or records regarding the
foreign bank accounts and corporations. See ECF No. 80-2 at ¶¶ 10–25.
In addition to providing a declaration, producing documents, sending subpoenas to all of
the banks and corporate entities identified in my Order, and contacting family members, Ms. Ali
also voluntarily sat for a deposition with the IRS on June 9, 2016. See ECF No. 80-3 (transcript
of deposition). During that deposition, Ms. Ali disclosed the existence of several additional
trusts that she had previously renounced her interest in. See id. at 103:13–116:6. For one of
those renounced trusts, Ms. Ali stated that she received a check for approximately $400,000 but
did not cash the check. Id. Following the deposition, the IRS requested additional documents
about these trusts, which Ms. Ali provided on June 27, 2016. See ECF No. 80-4.
Despite these efforts, the Government took the position that Ms. Ali had not purged
herself of contempt. Ms. Ali began paying the monetary penalty of $500 per day, and her efforts
to produce documents continued.
Continued Efforts After Sanctions Started
To potentially locate documents within her constructive control, Ms. Ali hired a private
investigation firm to search for bank accounts associated with her name in countries the IRS had
mentioned, namely, Switzerland, Indonesia, Singapore, and Hong Kong. See ECF No. 80-18.
The investigation did not find any accounts. Id. Ms. Ali continued to contact potential sources
7
Case 8:13-cv-03398-PWG Document 87 Filed 04/16/20 Page 8 of 17
of information identified by the Government and by reviewing documents. Ms. Ali provided
monthly updates to the Government about her efforts, what she had learned, and any documents
she obtained. See ECF No. 80-21 (updates from Ms. Ali’s counsel to the IRS on 8/8/2016,
9/7/2016, 10/13/2016, 12/9/2016).
Throughout this process, Ms. Ali repeatedly asked the IRS for guidance on what steps it
still wanted Ms. Ali to take to purge herself of contempt. See ECF Nos. 80-21, 80-27, 80-29. In
response, the Government provided only general guidance, directing Ms. Ali to conduct an
iterative investigation, following up on various leads as she comes across them to see if they
yield any documents. See ECF Nos. 80-22, 80-28. The Government also continually threatened
that it would move for additional sanctions or that the $500 per day sanctions were insufficient.
See ECF Nos. 80-24, 80-28.
By November 30, 2016, Ms. Ali had attempted to obtain documents or information from
approximately 50 different entities on three continents.2
See ECF No. 80 at 11. But the
Government still was not satisfied and would not agree that Ms. Ali had purged her contempt.
2
As of November 30, 2016, Ms. Ali contacted the following companies to obtain information or
records: White Pearl Investment Company; Rim Pacific Management Inc.; Access Property
Services; Cow Holdings Limited; Deerwood International Ltd.; Mossack Fonseca law firm in the
British Virgin Islands; CitiTrust (Cayman) Limited; JP Morgan Chase Bank U.S.; JP Morgan
Trust Company (Bahamas); JP Morgan Channel Islands; JP Morgan Chase Bank Switzerland;
Deutsche Bank Switzerland; Deutsche Bank Indonesia; Deutsche Bank Liechtenstein; Deutsche
Bank Singapore; HSBC Bank – U.S.; HSBC Bank – Singapore; HSBC Bank – Indonesia; Credit
Suisse – Singapore; Credit Suisse – Switzerland; Credit Suisse – U.S.; Credit Suisse
Liechtenstein; UBS AG Switzerland; UBS AG Singapore; UBS AG Indonesia; Citibank N.A.
US; Citibank – Singapore; Citibank N.A. Indonesia; Citibank N.A. Liechtenstein; ABN Amro
Bank NV – Singapore; ABN Amro Bank NV Hong Kong; ABN Amro Bank NV Indonesia;
ABN Amro Bank NV Liechtenstein; Walkers BVI; O’Neal law firm; Ronald Walla; Diana
Soetrisno; Sharon Santoso; Jean-Michel Gross; Janice Beazer; Paolo Flury; Daniel Kieber;
Brigitte Feger; Rosemarie Flax; Marta Edghill; Imogene Wilson; and Vianca Scott.
8
Case 8:13-cv-03398-PWG Document 87 Filed 04/16/20 Page 9 of 17
See ECF No. 80-28. Instead, the IRS said that Ms. Ali had not taken a sufficient “iterative
approach,” by, for example, not following up again with particular wealth managers or
institutions, or using additional permutations of names to potentially find documents from banks.
Id. However, the Government declined again to provide more concrete guidance on what it
wanted Ms. Ali to do. Id. Ms. Ali did not ask this Court to rule on whether she had purged her
contempt. So the search, and fines, continued.
In 2017 and 2018, Ms. Ali’s provided additional information, documents, and periodic
updates to the Government as her investigation persisted. See ECF Nos. 80-29 (updates from
Ms. Ali’s counsel to IRS on 1/13/2017, 5/23/2017, 6/21/2017, 8/4/2017, 10/9/2017); 80-30
(updates from Ms. Ali’s counsel to IRS on 1/19/2018, 6/19/2018).
Finally, on March 12, 2019, the parties filed a joint stipulation that Ms. Ali had purged
herself of contempt no later than June 19, 2018. ECF No. 77. On March 20, 2019, I approved
the stipulation. ECF No. 78. The delay between the agreed upon date that Ms. Ali purged her
contempt and the filing of the joint stipulation was apparently due, in part, to the Government
shutdown. ECF No. 79 at 13–14. Ms. Ali had continued to pay the sanctions until the week of
March 20, 2019, when I approved the joint stipulation, thereby paying $98,000 in sanctions after
the date the parties agreed she was no longer in contempt. In total, Ms. Ali paid $486,500 in
fines while in contempt.3 Ms. Ali also states that her investigation to comply with the summons
cost her hundreds of thousands of dollars. Id. at 2.
3
The docket shows receipt by the Clerk of the Court of 121 checks of $3,500 each, totaling
$423,500. Ms. Ali states that all receipts are not reflected on the docket, and that she submitted a
check for each week of the 142-week period between June 24, 2016 and March 20, 2019,
totaling $497,000. The Clerk of the Court has confirmed that not all receipts appear on the
docket. However, the Clerk received 139 checks of $3,500 each, for a total of $486,500 paid by
Ms. Ali.
9
Case 8:13-cv-03398-PWG Document 87 Filed 04/16/20 Page 10 of 17
After I approved the joint stipulation, Ms. Ali filed the pending Motion for Release of
Funds. ECF No. 79. Ms. Ali requests that the Court return of all the monetary sanctions that she
paid from June 2016 to March 2019 on the basis that she purged her contempt before the
sanctions started, and at the very least to return the $98,000 she paid after June 19, 2018, the date
the parties agreed she was not in contempt.
Discussion
To begin, the parties agreed in their joint stipulation, which I approved, that Ms. Ali
purged her contempt by June 19, 2018. ECF Nos. 77, 78. Therefore all of the payment she made
after that date, totaling $98,000, will be returned to Ms. Ali.
For the payments made prior to this date, the relevant legal question is whether,
consistent with my Order, Ms. Ali made “in good faith all reasonable efforts to comply with [the
summons]” before the contempt sanctions started. United States v. Darwin Const. Co., 873 F.2d
750, 754–55 (4th Cir. 1989) (quoting United States v. Ryan, 402 U.S. 530, 534 (1971) (internal
quotation marks omitted). This required Ms. Ali to take “all reasonable steps . . . to ensure
compliance.” Id. at 755 (internal quotation marks omitted). While this standard does not require
perfect compliance, “inadvertent omissions are excused only if such steps were taken.” Id.
Comparing Ms. Ali’s efforts with the activities discussed during the contempt hearing
and existing case law, I find that Ms. Ali had purged herself of contempt prior to the
commencement of the civil fines.
First, as discussed above, the Government suggested several steps that Ms. Ali should
take to satisfy the “all reasonable steps” standard and comply with the summons. Specifically,
the Government suggested that Ms. Ali contact her family members and individuals known to be
10
Case 8:13-cv-03398-PWG Document 87 Filed 04/16/20 Page 11 of 17
associated with the accounts, that she or someone else testify regarding the existence of the
documents, and to potentially use legal process to obtain the documents. I agreed that these steps
were reasonable and stated that had Ms. Ali done these things prior to the contempt hearing, I
may have found that she could not produce any of the requested records and had satisfied the
summons. Ms. Ali did all this and more. She hired a private investigation firm to obtain
information, submitted a sworn declaration, sat for a deposition, contacted the banks and
corporate entities discussed in the hearing and requested documents, and sent subpoenas to each
of them when she did not receive any documents. In other words, she completed all of the things
that either the Government or the Court discussed during the contempt hearing and went further
than that to obtain the documents.
Second, during the hearing and in my Order, I cited United States v. Darwin Constr. Co.,
873 F.2d 750 (4th Cir. 1989), United States v. Hayes, 722 F.2d 723 (11th Cir. 1984), and United
States v. Plath, No. 03-60439-Civ., 2003 WL 23138778 (S.D. Fla. Oct. 29, 2003), in finding that
Ms. Ali had not in good faith used all reasonable efforts to comply with the summons. See ECF
No. 51 at 2–3l; ECF No. 52 at 55:25–60:23. These cases are instructive as to what is required by
the “all reasonable efforts” standard.
In Darwin, the IRS served a summons on Lester J. Robinson demanding that Darwin
Construction Company produce documents related to twenty-five categories of business records
and all records pertaining to the corporation from 1980 to 1983. United States v. Darwin Const.
Co., 873 F.2d 750, 751 (4th Cir. 1989). Like in this case, Robinson first refused to produce
documents, citing his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
Id.
The IRS
petitioned the District Court for Darwin to produce the documents, and, following a show cause
hearing, the Court ordered Darwin to comply with the summons. Id. at 752. But Darwin
11
Case 8:13-cv-03398-PWG Document 87 Filed 04/16/20 Page 12 of 17
produced documents in only two of the twenty-five categories. Id. On June 23, 1986, the
District Court held another hearing and found that Darwin had not adequately explained why it
failed to produce the documents. Id. It held Darwin in civil contempt and ordered it to pay
$5,000 per day until it complied with the summons. Id.
The sanctions spurred Darwin into action, and, on June 24, 1986, Darwin delivered nine
boxes of documents to the IRS. Id. However, the IRS found that documents were still missing
in twelve of the twenty-five categories. Id. After another search of the office, Darwin produced
additional documents on June 30, 1986. Id. The District Court assessed $30,000 in sanctions for
the six days between June 24 and June 30, 1986. Id. at 753. Darwin appealed.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed, finding that the District Court did not hold Darwin to a
standard of “perfect compliance,” only “good faith substantial compliance.” Id. at 754. The
Fourth Circuit noted that as to the six-day lag between the productions on June 24 and June 30,
“Darwin had not asserted that the documents missing from the June 24 production were beyond
its possession or control, and second, Darwin had made no special effort to ensure that the June
24 production was complete.” Id. The Fourth Circuit also noted that the District Court found
Darwin “was both ignorant of and apparently unconcerned about the contents of the nine boxes
of documents dumped in the IRS office on June 24.” Id. at 755. Accordingly, it found that
Darwin “did not take ‘all reasonable efforts’ to comply with the court order” prior to June 30.
Id.4
In Hayes, the IRS served John Hayes with two summons regarding tax shelters sold and
4
The Fourth Circuit did reduce the fine by $10,000 for two business holidays (Saturday and
Sunday) during the period that the District Court imposed the fine. United States v. Darwin
Const. Co., 873 F.2d at 756–57.
12
Case 8:13-cv-03398-PWG Document 87 Filed 04/16/20 Page 13 of 17
managed by Hayes. United States v. Hayes, 722 F.2d 723, 724 (11th Cir. 1984). Hayes partially
complied with the summons, but did not provide information related to foreign partnership
agreements. Id. Hayes had created the relevant partnerships with Frederick Thom, a Swiss
resident, who also served as the managing partner. Id. The District Court held a contempt
hearing regarding the failure to produce the foreign partnership documents, during which Hayes
testified that the records were in Switzerland, that he had traveled there twice to request them
from Thom, and that Thom refused to produce them because of concern over a separate tax
investigation. Id. The District Court declined to hold Hayes in contempt, finding that “it was not
proven that Hayes had or has any legal means of forcing Frederick Thom to produce documents .
. .” and that Hayes “made some effort to comply with the summons.” Id. at 724–25 (internal
quotation marks omitted).
The Eleventh Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded back to the District Court,
finding that the District Court failed to apply the correct “all reasonable efforts” standard in favor
of a “some efforts” standard. Id. at 726. The Eleventh Circuit further held that Hayes did not
make all reasonable efforts to produce the documents. Id. It explained:
While Hayes may have been diligent in going to Switzerland to ask Thom for the
documents, the record of the contempt hearing clearly indicates that other avenues
for obtaining the material were never explored. Following Thom’s refusal, Hayes
did not take any steps pursuant to the partnership agreements to either remove
Thom as manager or otherwise compel disclosure. Hayes apparently did not
even try to determine what legal rights he, as trustee, had against Thom under the
partnership contracts, nor did he consult with an attorney about the problem.
When asked if he had ever told Thom that he would take steps to see that the
documents were released, Hayes emphatically replied that he had not. Hayes'
failure to do anything other than ask Thom for the records demonstrates that “all
reasonable efforts” were not made.
Id. at 725–26. In other words, Hayes traveled to Switzerland but did nothing more than ask
Thom to produce the records and did not even consider what legal rights or action he could take
13
Case 8:13-cv-03398-PWG Document 87 Filed 04/16/20 Page 14 of 17
as a trustee against his partner or consult an attorney on the issue.
In Plath, the IRS issued two summonses to Robert and Beverly Plath to produce
documents related to foreign bank accounts, foreign bank cards, and a business called 1120
Eiffel Design. United States v. Plath, No. 03-60439-CIV., 2003 WL 23138778, at *2 (S.D. Fla.
Oct. 29, 2003). After the Plaths failed to respond, the District Court entered an order directing
the Plaths to appear and testify before the IRS and produce the summonsed documents. Id. The
Plaths appeared, but did not produce any documents or testify. Id. The court held a contempt
hearing. Id. At the time of the hearing, the Plaths had only produced one document: a copy of
the sales agreement for the business 1120 Eiffel Design, Inc. During the hearing, Robert Plath
testified that he did not possess any of the records requested in the summons. Id. at *3. He also
said that he did not make any efforts to obtain documents relating to foreign accounts or cards
because he did not know who to contact. Id. However, the Government testified that Robert
Plath was linked via a credit card statement to an entity called the Leadenhall Trust.
Based on this record, the court found that the Plaths had not made all reasonable efforts
to produce the summonsed documents, holding them in contempt. It summarized:
Plath explained to the Court that he has not complied with the Summons because
he does not possess the documents. Plath has not, however, adequately
demonstrated to the Court that he has taken all reasonable efforts to comply with
the Summons. In fact, the only effort taken by Robert Plath to comply with the
Summons was his contact with a law firm to request one item listed in the
Summons, the Eiffel Design sales agreement. The evidence indicates that Plath
received a package purchased on the Leadenhall Trust account, and thus he had
some knowledge of the offshore account at Leadenhall Trust. Yet, Plath failed to
use any efforts to contact Leadenhall Trust to obtain the necessary documentation.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Plath has failed to meet the substantial and
rigorous burden of showing that he has made “all reasonable effort to comply.”
Id. In other words, Plath had only contacted his attorney to produce one document and did not
use any other efforts to reach out to known entities to produce records.
14
Case 8:13-cv-03398-PWG Document 87 Filed 04/16/20 Page 15 of 17
The lassitude of Ms. Ali’s efforts before I found her in contempt were much like the
efforts of the respondents in Darwin, Hayes, and Plath. She had refused to produce documents
and did not testify, nor did someone else testify, regarding her knowledge of the summonsed
documents. In short, Ms. Ali had exhibited very little effort, let alone “all reasonable efforts,” to
produce the summonsed documents. On this basis, I found Ms. Ali in contempt. See ECF Nos.
51 at 2–3; 52 at 67:21–68:20.
But Ms. Ali’s efforts to comply with the summons after I found her in contempt and prior
to the start of monetary sanctions far exceed the types of activities that were found lacking by the
courts in Darwin, Hayes, and Plath. In Darwin, the civil contempt sanctions ended six days after
they started when Darwin went back to its office a second time to produce documents. Here Ms.
Ali conducted an international investigation, hired a private investigation firm, submitted a
declaration stating her knowledge of the documents, sat for a deposition, and produced additional
documents regarding renounced accounts that were requested by the Government.5 In Hayes,
the Eleventh Circuit found that Hayes only asked his partner for the documents, but did not even
consider any legal recourse to obtain them. Here Ms. Ali issued subpoenas duces tecum to each
of the companies discussed in my Order, and took the deposition, with the IRS, of a corporate
officer of two of the companies. In Plath, the Plaths did not follow up on any leads to locate
documents or reach out to any known entities to produce documents. Here, as discussed, Ms. Ali
incurred substantial expense, and hired a private investigation firm, sent subpoenas to the
relevant banks and corporate entities, and contacted representatives of those entities and
members of her family to locate documents and information. In short, Ms. Ali’s activities to
5
Ms. Ali produced documents requested by the Government in the deposition on June 27, 2016.
While this is a week after the date monetary sanctions started, the delay in producing these
additional documents – or, as discussed above, any other additional documents – does not
preclude the finding that Ms. Ali had purged herself of contempt by June 20, 2016.
15
Case 8:13-cv-03398-PWG Document 87 Filed 04/16/20 Page 16 of 17
comply with the IRS summons far surpass the things that constituted a failure to expend all
reasonable efforts in these cases.
The Government argues that Ms. Ali did not take all reasonable steps prior to the start of
sanctions, because she continued to produce documents for the next two years. ECF No. 83 at 9–
10. But these additional documents were produced after Ms. Ali spent hundreds of thousands of
dollars in private investigators and lawyers fees to search for documents around the world that
she had no knowledge about. Her efforts over this period go far beyond the “all reasonable
efforts” required for Ms. Ali to purge herself of contempt. The fact that she located additional
documents with extraordinary effort is perfectly consistent with the conclusion that she purged
herself of contempt after expending reasonable efforts to comply with the summons.
The Government also argues that Ms. Ali did not purge herself of contempt prior to June
18, 2019 because there were additional names and accounts at each point that Ms. Ali could have
contacted to obtain documents before then. Id. But this argument is hardly credible, given that
at no point in the years leading up to June 18, 2019 did the Government agree that Ms. Ali
purged herself of contempt, taking the position that there was always “more” that she could do.
This includes, for example, in November 2016 when the Government declined to agree that Ms.
Ali purged herself of contempt after she had contacted over 50 different entities on three
continents to locate documents she already testified that she knew nothing about. Moreover, the
Government provides no case, and I have not found any, in which a court held that the type of
effort that Ms. Ali expended here did not constitute “all reasonable efforts” to comply with an
IRS summons. Therefore, the Government’s arguments are unavailing.
16
Case 8:13-cv-03398-PWG Document 87 Filed 04/16/20 Page 17 of 17
Given that Ms. Ali met the standard for “all reasonable efforts” to comply with the IRS
summons prior to the commencement of sanctions on June 20, 2016, all of the civil contempt
fines that she paid will be returned to her.
Conclusion
For the reasons discussed above, Ms. Ali purged herself of contempt prior to the
commencement of civil monetary fines on June 20, 2016. Accordingly, the Clerk will be
directed to reimburse Ms. Ali in the amount of $486,500.
ORDER
For the reasons stated in this Memorandum Opinion and Order, it is, this 16th day of
April 2020, hereby ORDERED that
1. Respondents’ Motion for Release of Funds, ECF No. 79, is GRANTED;
2. The CLERK is directed to reimburse Respondent in the amount of $486,500.
3. This case will remain CLOSED.
/S/
Paul W. Grimm
United States District Judge
17
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?