- 20 -
occasions that he has trouble remembering events of the prior day
let alone events that occurred during the subject years.
For some undisclosed reason, respondent chose not to
introduce into evidence other testimony and/or exhibits to
support his proposed finding that Mr. Feinsmith actually received
cash from the scheme. Respondent could have presented the
testimony of one or more of the promoters as to which Randy Hall
shareholders they dealt with in the scheme. We understand from
the record that the promoters insisted that their identity be
known by only a limited number of individuals from each invoice-
purchasing company. We are skeptical that the promoters would
have agreed to deal with Mr. Feinsmith upon his joining Randy
Hall, when at that time their identity was already known by Mr.
Perry and/or Mr. Rosenthal. Such is especially true given the
fact that the promoters knew when Mr. Feinsmith joined Randy Hall
that respondent was investigating either or both of the other
shareholders and were edgy about respondent’s learning their (the
promoters’) identity. Respondent also could have presented the
testimony of Mr. Rosenthal as to his understanding of Mr.
Feinsmith’s involvement in the scheme. Respondent also could
have introduced into evidence one or more Randy Hall checks that
were paid to the promoters for the false invoices and that were
traceable to Mr. Feinsmith; e.g., by his signature. Although the
record contains many of the false invoices, it contains none of
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