Sorry, you're right about Maffie being convicted of tax evasion within the statute of limitations of the bank robbery. I misunderstood your request for a citation; I thought you merely wanted a case where the bank robber was convicted of tax evasion without having been convicted of the bank robbery itself. I don't know what the statute of limitations was in 1950 for Federal tax evasion, but assuming for the moment that it was more than 6 years, there doesn't seem to be reason why Maffie's case couldn't have been such a situation had events played out differently. But that's a gedanke experiment and not a citation...
Citation of "continuing conspiracy" premise used to prosecute bank robbers? No. But see United States v. Spero, 331 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 2003) (a RICO case), where the courts have held that where a conspiracy statute "does not require proof of an overt act," then "once the Government [meets] its burden of proof by establishing that the [alleged] conspiracy existed, it [is] entitled to a presumption that the conspiracy continued" into the statute of limitations period without further proof that an overt act was taken in furtherance of the conspiracy within the limitations period. [The preceeding quoted from an appeals document in another case.]
I'm not a lawyer so I could easily be off base, but it appears that the concept of "continuing conspiracy" does have legal legs in some crimes.
As for prosecuting tax evasion against bank robbers, the most famous case I can find is that of Adolph Maffie of the 1950 Brinks heist. He was convicted of tax evasion in June of 1954 and completed his sentence in January of 1955. Because one of the other bank robbers (O'Keefe) turned state's evidence, Maffie was indicted in January 1956 and convicted in October of 1956, but until O'Keefe turned, Maffie had only been nailed by the tax evasion violation.
While the clock can run out on the original crime, there often are crimes that are committed after the original crime. For example, some actions can be classified as "continuing the conspiracy", and thus as a continuing conspiracy the statute won't run out. Also, if the stolen funds generate income, and the criminal fails to declare that income (because doing so would expose the original crime), then there's a whole new tax evasion crime.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry, you're right about Maffie being convicted of tax evasion within the statute of limitations of the bank robbery. I misunderstood your request for a citation; I thought you merely wanted a case where the bank robber was convicted of tax evasion without having been convicted of the bank robbery itself. I don't know what the statute of limitations was in 1950 for Federal tax evasion, but assuming for the moment that it was more than 6 years, there doesn't seem to be reason why Maffie's case couldn't have been such a situation had events played out differently. But that's a gedanke experiment and not a citation...
Citation of "continuing conspiracy" premise used to prosecute bank robbers? No. But see United States v. Spero, 331 F.3d 57 (2d Cir. 2003) (a RICO case), where the courts have held that where a conspiracy statute "does not require proof of an overt act," then "once the Government [meets] its burden of proof by establishing that the [alleged] conspiracy existed, it [is] entitled to a presumption that the conspiracy continued" into the statute of limitations period without further proof that an overt act was taken in furtherance of the conspiracy within the limitations period. [The preceeding quoted from an appeals document in another case.] I'm not a lawyer so I could easily be off base, but it appears that the concept of "continuing conspiracy" does have legal legs in some crimes. As for prosecuting tax evasion against bank robbers, the most famous case I can find is that of Adolph Maffie of the 1950 Brinks heist. He was convicted of tax evasion in June of 1954 and completed his sentence in January of 1955. Because one of the other bank robbers (O'Keefe) turned state's evidence, Maffie was indicted in January 1956 and convicted in October of 1956, but until O'Keefe turned, Maffie had only been nailed by the tax evasion violation.
While the clock can run out on the original crime, there often are crimes that are committed after the original crime. For example, some actions can be classified as "continuing the conspiracy", and thus as a continuing conspiracy the statute won't run out. Also, if the stolen funds generate income, and the criminal fails to declare that income (because doing so would expose the original crime), then there's a whole new tax evasion crime.