- 16 -
credible Markovski’s testimony with respect to the wire transfer
to Mila Panarey of $24,500. That sum was received pursuant to an
agreement that Ms. Panarey would turn the sum over to Ludmila
Piker, her cousin. Ludmila Piker had been a consultant to
American Valmar and was Markovski’s stepdaughter. Markovski
testified that he knew nothing of that transaction other than
that he had been instructed by a customer, Interrosa, to wire the
money to Ms. Panarey. He also testified that the $24,500 never
came back to American Valmar.
Since we found Markovski’s testimony to be unconvincing with
respect to both the apartment transaction and the Mila Panarey
wire transfer, we think it a fair assumption that Markovski (or
American Valmar) benefited from both transactions. In the
apartment transaction, it was his living quarters that were
improved; with respect to the Mila Panarey wire transfer, it was
Markovski’s step-daughter who ended up with the money. In both
cases, the expenditures were charged to the contracts payable
account. We find that Markovski benefited from both
transactions; we therefore question his assertion that the
American Valmar deposits, accounted for by the contracts payable
account, were held under an obligation to use them solely for the
benefit of the customers. Petitioners have failed to convince us
of that fact and, on that basis, we sustain respondent’s
adjustment with respect to the American Valmar deposits.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011