United States v. Prelogar, No. 19-3405 (8th Cir. 2021)
Annotate this Case
The Eighth Circuit affirmed defendant's conviction under 26 U.S.C. 7212(a) for corruptly endeavoring to obstruct and impede the due administration of the tax laws. Defendant was the owner and CEO of Winntech Digital Systems, and his conviction stemmed from his failure to pay employment taxes.
The court concluded that the indictment was sufficient under Marinello v. United States, 584 U.S. ___,138 S.Ct. 1101 (2018), in charging defendant with corruptly endeavored to obstruct and impede the due administration of the tax laws in violation of 26 U.S.C. 7212(a) (Count Two). The court explained that Marinello clarifies what must be proven to sustain a conviction under section 7212(a) but does not require that nexus and knowledge be charged in the indictment. The court rejected defendant's contention that the district court constructively amended Count Two, and concluded that the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction. Finally, the court concluded that the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss or for disqualification of the prosecution team on the basis of an alleged violation of the attorney-client privilege.
Court Description: [Erickson, Author, with Smith, Chief Judge, and Kelly, Circuit Judge] Criminal case - Criminal law. The indictment alleging defendant corruptly endeavored to obstruct and impede the due administration of the tax laws in violation of 26 U.S.C. sec. 7212(a) was sufficient under Marinello v. U.S., 548 U.S.___ (2018); Marinello does not require that nexus and knowledge be charged in the indictment; claim that the district court constructively amended the indictment when it failed to instruct the jury on structuring denied; the evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction; the district court did not err in denying defendant's motion to dismiss or for disqualification of the prosecution based on defendant's claim that the prosecution allegedly violated the attorney-client privilege when it interviewed his former attorney; no privileged information was provided and defendant cannot show any prejudice from the information which was provided.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.