- 6 -
discovery of the misappropriation in late 1967. Petitioner
alleges that during this review, Caplan instructed him to
cooperate with the auditors and show the auditors the checks they
were holding. Petitioner stated that several of these checks
were from Weisberger and that petitioner was holding them until
Weisberger could make good on them. Petitioner said he explained
the dealership's long-term relationship with Weisberger to the
auditors and that nothing came of that review.
Petitioner insisted that he kept only $40,000 of the
proceeds. Petitioner asserted that it was the Buick Motor
Division that initiated the late 1967 review, rather than Caplan
asking for assistance. Petitioner also stated that before this
review occurred, he told Caplan about the $40,000 he took and
about Weisberger's outstanding checks. Petitioner did not
explain where the rest of the proceeds went. Petitioner never
repaid Caplan for any of the money he took. The record contains
no evidence to corroborate petitioner's version of the events
relating to the scheme.3
3 Best testified that he could not recall any of the events
about which petitioner questioned him. Caplan is now deceased.
Petitioner's testimony and post-trial briefs were largely efforts
to blame everyone else. However, his efforts at blame shifting
failed to explain the deposits of large sums of money into his
personal bank account or to explain what happened to that money.
The Court did not find petitioner to be a credible witness, even
as to events that were well documented. For example, he insisted
he only stole a little over $40,000 during 1966 and 1967 and
insisted that he had pleaded guilty only to the theft of that
amount. However, count three to which he pleaded guilty was that
he had received taxable income of $92,168.61 in 1967 as to which
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011