- 29 -
actions, and petitioner has failed to demonstrate any harm to the
partnership on account of such recording.
Petitioner’s complaint with respect to respondent’s
monitoring or recording of conversations fails to establish any
ground on which to base any sanction of respondent in this case.
VII. "Use of fraud, deceit and trickery in order to procure
evidence for a criminal investigation.”
A. Introduction
In the motion, petitioner claims:
The Respondent’s civil examination of the AMCOR
partnerships began in May 1988. Although a concurrent
criminal investigation of the partnerships was ongoing,
the Respondent’s agents failed to notify AMCOR or its
general partners. Moreover, during the time the two
investigations were proceeding concurrently, civil
agents, acting as undercover criminal investigators,
collected thousands of pages of documents from the
AMCOR partnerships. These are the very documents
Respondent wishes to introduce as evidence during the
trial of this matter.
Petitioner demands:
Documents voluntarily disclosed to Respondent’s
civil examination agents during the time such agents
were acting as undercover criminal agents, should be
suppressed. United States v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299
(5th Cir. 1977). Information voluntarily produced by a
taxpayer cooperating with what he believes to be a
civil investigation must be suppressed if he was misled
and the investigation really was criminal. Id.
In petitioner’s memorandum, he states:
This case involves a clandestine criminal investigation
supported by civil agents, with the specific purpose of
obtaining evidence of criminal and civil fraud. The
result, however, was that Respondent illegally acquired
substantial volumes of documents, interviews and other
Page: Previous 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011