- 28 -
3. Ms. Simpson’s Analysis
Ms. Simpson’s analysis of petitioners’ accounts does not
prove theft. Ms. Simpson’s analysis merely shows the missing
amounts of the corporate employment tax funds. Her analysis does
not set forth any conclusions with regard to whether funds were
in fact embezzled by anyone. Therefore, Ms. Simpson’s testimony
does not prove embezzlement occurred.
4. Missing Evidence
Both petitioners and Ms. Simpson claim that, during Ms.
Simpson’s engagement, petitioners obtained some of Mr. Kanz’s
bank statements and copies of cashier’s checks payable to Mr.
Kanz that correspond in time and amount with some of the checks
that were allegedly embezzled.
Petitioners have the burden of proof. Petitioners have not
introduced any evidence, documentary or otherwise, such as copies
of Mr. Kanz’s bank statements or copies of cashier’s checks made
payable to him. Petitioners claim the documentary evidence was
taken and retained by Mrs. Grothues’s criminal and civil lawyers.
There is nothing in the record and no other evidence to
substantiate petitioners’ claim to this effect.
Petitioners have failed to meet their burden of proving that
theft occurred.
Page: Previous 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011