Henry Deletis, Jr. - Page 6

                                        - 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            

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