Harold Wapnick - Page 12




                                       - 12 -                                         
               Gold and Rosenblatt testified that they verified the                   
          accuracy of the computer records by:  (1) Comparing petitioner’s            
          copies of clients’ tax returns with the information in the                  
          computer records; (2) comparing the names of clients in the                 
          computer records to client names petitioner wrote on the bank               
          deposit slips; (3) obtaining copies of clients’ canceled checks             
          and comparing them to the computer records; and (4) contacting              
          the clients and comparing their records to the computer records.            
          Gold and Rosenblatt verified the accuracy of the computer records           
          for interest income earned from petitioner’s lending activity by            
          reviewing loan files, Forms UCC-1, Financing Statement,                     
          Confessions of Judgment, and checks.  They compared the checks              
          deposited in the Republic Bank accounts with loan information in            
          the computer records.  They compared loan repayment checks,                 
          receipts, and deposit slips with information in the computer                
          records.  The computer records for the lending activity include             
          the name of the client, principal amount of the loan, the                   
          interest rate charged, and the dates payments were due and made.            
          Seth Wapnick worked for petitioner and maintained the computer              
          records.  We conclude that Gold and Rosenblatt properly provided            
          foundation testimony related to the admissibility of the computer           
          records.  See United States v. Franco, supra; United States v.              
          Hathaway, supra; United States v. Veytia-Bravo, supra.                      








Page:  Previous  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011