Alton C. Bingham - Page 6

                                         -6-                                          
               Petitioner claimed a $13,015 loss on Schedule E of his 1984            
          Federal income tax return as a result of his purchase of the                
          Yreka property.                                                             
          E.   Petitioner's Indictment and Conviction                                 
               In February 1990, petitioner was indicted under section                
          7206(1) for filing a false income tax return for 1984 and for               
          forging the Lopps' signatures on four Federal tax refund checks             
          totaling $195,489.  The indictment alleged that petitioner                  
          received but failed to report the proceeds of the refund checks.            
          Petitioner was also indicted for delivering U.S. obligations                
          bearing forged endorsements and uttering, passing, and publishing           
          U.S. obligations regarding the four refund checks.  On January              
          17, 1991, petitioner was convicted of those charges.                        
               Petitioner was also indicted for embezzling and failing to             
          report as income $676,720.68 from the Lopps' escrow account.  He            
          was acquitted of those charges.                                             
               The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed               
          petitioner's conviction, without published opinion.  United                 
          States v. Bingham, 958 F.2d 378 (9th Cir. 1992).                            
          F.   Trial and Petitioner's Assertion of the Fifth Amendment                
               Privilege Against Self-Incrimination                                   
               Before trial, petitioner asserted that he had a Fifth                  
          Amendment right not to testify on the grounds that his testimony            
          could be used against him in further criminal proceedings.                  
          Respondent did not call petitioner or any other witnesses to                





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