The man: Nope.
The wife's counsel: And if I tell you that in the same form Fbar In 2007, you count this account as an account that you declare to the tax authorities that you have control, rights, or interest in?
The man: I am once again.
The wife's counsel: Is this true first of all?
The man: Right, first of all, what?
The wife's counsel: It is true that within the framework of the Fbar Yours.
The man: I filled out a form Fbar?
The wife's counsel: [The man], with the number of Social security number You choose to list the number of bank accounts of your company Alabama In which you don't, you claim, you don't have control, is that true?
The man: Yes. Because I am. Again, what is a form FbarIt's a very complex and complicated thing. I filled out forms Fbar In accordance with the law.
The wife's counsel: Why did you fulfill Alabama And let's say you didn't fulfill any other company in the world?
The man: Because I am the founder of loyalty.
The wife's counsel: Yes.
The man: of Alaska, which owns a company Alabama And according to American tax laws, I'm obligated to be the tax officer of this trust, they call it Tax ownership" (See the minutes of the hearing of November 18, 2020, pp. 685, 4-26, pp. 686, 1-6, 677, 11-26, and 688 questions; 1-14; emphasis added).
- Once again, the man becomes entangled in lies that he himself has woven and it is evident that he is not afraid to underestimate the intelligence of the listeners.
- During his interrogation, the laconic man denied that he had acted on the Alabama company's bank accounts, without any attempt to initiate this line of inquiry. In view of his knowledge of Alabama's bank accounts on the one hand, and his insistence on answering with vague and defiant answers on the other, I found that the man's following answer could not be given the slightest confidence:
"The wife's counsel: Is it true that you occasionally send requests for different functions and ask for them in the context of Alabama Open to Alabama Bank Accounts, Close to Alabama Bank accounts?