- 24 - in the Courtyard by Marriott Limited Partnership, a personal investment which indicates some business knowledge on her part. That same year, she received money from her Yorkton Securities, Inc. brokerage account and deposited it into her personal bank account. She also took title to, and paid for, a Rolls-Royce and $17,000 in Canadian furs, and she wrote a cashier’s check and a check to cash totaling over $600,000. These transactions establish that Ms. Ford personally benefited from the fraudulent scheme of which she now claims utter ignorance. She sent a handwritten letter to an international banker in Luxembourg less than a year after she signed the fraudulent return, instructing him in detail to open an overseas bank account in her name. Such evidence of actions subsequent to the act at issue is admissible where it shows knowledge, intent, or absence of mistake. Fed. R. Evid. 404(b); Huddleston v. United States, 485 U.S. 681 (1988) (the conditional relevancy of subsequent acts is determined by a preponderance of the evidence); United States v. Olivo, 69 F.3d 1057 (10th Cir. 1995) (conditionally relevant evidence that criminal defendant, charged with possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, still had some marijuana in his car over a year after the alleged crime, held admissible). The Court concludes that Ms. Ford was directly involved in the financial transactions of 1986 and finds her testimony to the contrary not credible.Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011