- 38 -- 38 - years at issue or to retain a portion of such proceeds during each of those years. The record establishes, and we have found as facts, that it was only in May or June 1989, after petitioner had made the first few deposits of those loan proceeds, that Mr. Kabeiseman became aware that petitioner had made those deposits. As soon as he became aware that petitioner was depositing K & H's construction loan proceeds into petitioners' account at Washing- ton Federal, Mr. Kabeiseman disapproved of what petitioner had done. Specifically, Mr. Kabeiseman advised petitioner at that time that petitioner's deposits of K & H's construction loan proceeds into petitioners' account at Washington Federal was not a good accounting practice, that Mr. Kabeiseman was unable to trace to any particular construction loan account of K & H the direct payments that petitioner had made to it during May or June 1989 of certain of its construction loan proceeds, that peti- tioner should direct Washington Federal to issue checks directly to K & H for the K & H construction loan proceeds sought in the draw requests that petitioner made, and that such checks should be deposited into K & H's checking account. Petitioner nonetheless continued to deposit K & H's construction loan proceeds into petitioners' account at Washington Federal after May or June 1989 and through July 1990, even after he ceased in the spring of 1990 being actively involved in the operations of K & H. Moreover, although petitioner testified that he obtained those loan proceeds from Washington Federal in order to pay thePage: Previous 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011