Mario Biaggi and Estate of Marie Biaggi - Page 5




                                                - 5 -                                                  
            acquisition of the Wedtech shares; and (5) perjury in connection                           
            with falsely testifying before a grand jury.                                               
                  The Wedtech shares were not delivered to petitioner, but                             
            were delivered to his son, Richard Biaggi (Richard), who received                          
            the Wedtech shares as petitioner’s nominee.  Richard was                                   
            convicted of filing false income tax returns by overstating his                            
            income to include the receipt of the Wedtech shares on his 1983                            
            return and reporting gain from the sale of 25,000 shares on his                            
            1985 return.                                                                               
                  For a detailed discussion of the facts leading to the                                
            convictions of both petitioner and Richard, see United States v.                           
            Biaggi, 909 F.2d 662 (2d Cir. 1990).  In that case, the Court of                           
            Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the convictions of                                 
            petitioner on all counts and Richard for filing false income tax                           
            returns for 1983 and 1985.  The underlying criminal case against                           
            petitioner and Richard was designated United States v. Biaggi,                             
            No. 87 Cr. 265 (S.D.N.Y., Nov. 18, 1988) (the criminal case).                              
            Petitioner is collaterally estopped from contesting the facts                              
            established in the criminal case.1                                                         

            1     By the answer, respondent set forth his defense of                                   
            collateral estoppel, based on the criminal case and barring                                
            petitioner from denying certain facts (the estoppel facts)                                 
            established in that case.  See Rule 39.  By the reply,                                     
            petitioners denied the applicability of collateral estoppel.                               
            Subsequently, in Petitioners’ Opposition to Respondent’s Motion                            
            for Partial Summary Judgment and Cross Motion for Summary                                  
            Judgment in Petitioners’ Favor (the opposition), petitioners                               
                                                                         (continued...)                





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011