Convictions for March 2008

Referring Agency: Internal Revenue Service

Number Latest Month 121
Percent Change from previous month 49.4
Percent Change from 1 year ago 12.1
Percent Change from 5 years ago (Including Magistrate Court) 21.9
Percent Change from 5 years ago (Excluding Magistrate Court) 21.6

Table 1: Criminal Convictions

The latest available data from the Justice Department show that during March 2008 the government reported 121 new convictions for these matters. Those cases were referred by the Internal Revenue Service. According to the case-by-case information analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), this number is up 49.4% over the previous month.

The comparisons of the number of defendants convicted are based on case-by-case information obtained by TRAC under the Freedom of Information Act from the Executive Office for United States Attorneys. (See Table 1)

When monthly 2008 convictions of this type are compared with those of the same period in the previous year, the number of convictions was up (12.1 percent). Convictions over the past year are still much higher than they were five years ago. Overall, the data show that convictions of this type are up 21.9 percent from levels reported in 2003.

FYMONDT: Jan2001
_FREQ_: 116 FYMONDT: Feb2001
_FREQ_: 67 FYMONDT: Mar2001
_FREQ_: 123 FYMONDT: Apr2001
_FREQ_: 95 FYMONDT: May2001
_FREQ_: 104 FYMONDT: Jun2001
_FREQ_: 95 FYMONDT: Jul2001
_FREQ_: 68 FYMONDT: Aug2001
_FREQ_: 81 FYMONDT: Sep2001
_FREQ_: 81 FYMONDT: Oct2001
_FREQ_: 83 FYMONDT: Nov2001
_FREQ_: 87 FYMONDT: Dec2001
_FREQ_: 61 FYMONDT: Jan2002
_FREQ_: 92 FYMONDT: Feb2002
_FREQ_: 79 FYMONDT: Mar2002
_FREQ_: 82 FYMONDT: Apr2002
_FREQ_: 78 FYMONDT: May2002
_FREQ_: 105 FYMONDT: Jun2002
_FREQ_: 99 FYMONDT: Jul2002
_FREQ_: 74 FYMONDT: Aug2002
_FREQ_: 90 FYMONDT: Sep2002
_FREQ_: 87 FYMONDT: Oct2002
_FREQ_: 100 FYMONDT: Nov2002
_FREQ_: 71 FYMONDT: Dec2002
_FREQ_: 67 FYMONDT: Jan2003
_FREQ_: 67 FYMONDT: Feb2003
_FREQ_: 94 FYMONDT: Mar2003
_FREQ_: 71 FYMONDT: Apr2003
_FREQ_: 95 FYMONDT: May2003
_FREQ_: 75 FYMONDT: Jun2003
_FREQ_: 81 FYMONDT: Jul2003
_FREQ_: 67 FYMONDT: Aug2003
_FREQ_: 95 FYMONDT: Sep2003
_FREQ_: 72 FYMONDT: Oct2003
_FREQ_: 92 FYMONDT: Nov2003
_FREQ_: 50 FYMONDT: Dec2003
_FREQ_: 63 FYMONDT: Jan2004
_FREQ_: 82 FYMONDT: Feb2004
_FREQ_: 89 FYMONDT: Mar2004
_FREQ_: 102 FYMONDT: Apr2004
_FREQ_: 100 FYMONDT: May2004
_FREQ_: 73 FYMONDT: Jun2004
_FREQ_: 88 FYMONDT: Jul2004
_FREQ_: 88 FYMONDT: Aug2004
_FREQ_: 99 FYMONDT: Sep2004
_FREQ_: 93 FYMONDT: Oct2004
_FREQ_: 72 FYMONDT: Nov2004
_FREQ_: 74 FYMONDT: Dec2004
_FREQ_: 48 FYMONDT: Jan2005
_FREQ_: 73 FYMONDT: Feb2005
_FREQ_: 83 FYMONDT: Mar2005
_FREQ_: 123 FYMONDT: Apr2005
_FREQ_: 121 FYMONDT: May2005
_FREQ_: 104 FYMONDT: Jun2005
_FREQ_: 89 FYMONDT: Jul2005
_FREQ_: 91 FYMONDT: Aug2005
_FREQ_: 104 FYMONDT: Sep2005
_FREQ_: 104 FYMONDT: Oct2005
_FREQ_: 101 FYMONDT: Nov2005
_FREQ_: 55 FYMONDT: Dec2005
_FREQ_: 83 FYMONDT: Jan2006
_FREQ_: 96 FYMONDT: Feb2006
_FREQ_: 103 FYMONDT: Mar2006
_FREQ_: 141 FYMONDT: Apr2006
_FREQ_: 74 FYMONDT: May2006
_FREQ_: 74 FYMONDT: Jun2006
_FREQ_: 78 FYMONDT: Jul2006
_FREQ_: 76 FYMONDT: Aug2006
_FREQ_: 111 FYMONDT: Sep2006
_FREQ_: 100 FYMONDT: Oct2006
_FREQ_: 101 FYMONDT: Nov2006
_FREQ_: 57 FYMONDT: Dec2006
_FREQ_: 79 FYMONDT: Jan2007
_FREQ_: 75 FYMONDT: Feb2007
_FREQ_: 93 FYMONDT: Mar2007
_FREQ_: 106 FYMONDT: Apr2007
_FREQ_: 63 FYMONDT: May2007
_FREQ_: 94 FYMONDT: Jun2007
_FREQ_: 92 FYMONDT: Jul2007
_FREQ_: 84 FYMONDT: Aug2007
_FREQ_: 112 FYMONDT: Sep2007
_FREQ_: 125 FYMONDT: Oct2007
_FREQ_: 104 FYMONDT: Nov2007
_FREQ_: 91 FYMONDT: Dec2007
_FREQ_: 85 FYMONDT: Jan2008
_FREQ_: 91 FYMONDT: Feb2008
_FREQ_: 81 FYMONDT: Mar2008
_FREQ_: 121 FYMONDT: Jun2001
moveave: 100 FYMONDT: Jul2001
moveave: 92 FYMONDT: Aug2001
moveave: 94.333333333 FYMONDT: Sep2001
moveave: 87.333333333 FYMONDT: Oct2001
moveave: 85.333333333 FYMONDT: Nov2001
moveave: 82.5 FYMONDT: Dec2001
moveave: 76.833333333 FYMONDT: Jan2002
moveave: 80.833333333 FYMONDT: Feb2002
moveave: 80.5 FYMONDT: Mar2002
moveave: 80.666666667 FYMONDT: Apr2002
moveave: 79.833333333 FYMONDT: May2002
moveave: 82.833333333 FYMONDT: Jun2002
moveave: 89.166666667 FYMONDT: Jul2002
moveave: 86.166666667 FYMONDT: Aug2002
moveave: 88 FYMONDT: Sep2002
moveave: 88.833333333 FYMONDT: Oct2002
moveave: 92.5 FYMONDT: Nov2002
moveave: 86.833333333 FYMONDT: Dec2002
moveave: 81.5 FYMONDT: Jan2003
moveave: 80.333333333 FYMONDT: Feb2003
moveave: 81 FYMONDT: Mar2003
moveave: 78.333333333 FYMONDT: Apr2003
moveave: 77.5 FYMONDT: May2003
moveave: 78.166666667 FYMONDT: Jun2003
moveave: 80.5 FYMONDT: Jul2003
moveave: 80.5 FYMONDT: Aug2003
moveave: 80.666666667 FYMONDT: Sep2003
moveave: 80.833333333 FYMONDT: Oct2003
moveave: 80.333333333 FYMONDT: Nov2003
moveave: 76.166666667 FYMONDT: Dec2003
moveave: 73.166666667 FYMONDT: Jan2004
moveave: 75.666666667 FYMONDT: Feb2004
moveave: 74.666666667 FYMONDT: Mar2004
moveave: 79.666666667 FYMONDT: Apr2004
moveave: 81 FYMONDT: May2004
moveave: 84.833333333 FYMONDT: Jun2004
moveave: 89 FYMONDT: Jul2004
moveave: 90 FYMONDT: Aug2004
moveave: 91.666666667 FYMONDT: Sep2004
moveave: 90.166666667 FYMONDT: Oct2004
moveave: 85.5 FYMONDT: Nov2004
moveave: 85.666666667 FYMONDT: Dec2004
moveave: 79 FYMONDT: Jan2005
moveave: 76.5 FYMONDT: Feb2005
moveave: 73.833333333 FYMONDT: Mar2005
moveave: 78.833333333 FYMONDT: Apr2005
moveave: 87 FYMONDT: May2005
moveave: 92 FYMONDT: Jun2005
moveave: 98.833333333 FYMONDT: Jul2005
moveave: 101.83333333 FYMONDT: Aug2005
moveave: 105.33333333 FYMONDT: Sep2005
moveave: 102.16666667 FYMONDT: Oct2005
moveave: 98.833333333 FYMONDT: Nov2005
moveave: 90.666666667 FYMONDT: Dec2005
moveave: 89.666666667 FYMONDT: Jan2006
moveave: 90.5 FYMONDT: Feb2006
moveave: 90.333333333 FYMONDT: Mar2006
moveave: 96.5 FYMONDT: Apr2006
moveave: 92 FYMONDT: May2006
moveave: 95.166666667 FYMONDT: Jun2006
moveave: 94.333333333 FYMONDT: Jul2006
moveave: 91 FYMONDT: Aug2006
moveave: 92.333333333 FYMONDT: Sep2006
moveave: 85.5 FYMONDT: Oct2006
moveave: 90 FYMONDT: Nov2006
moveave: 87.166666667 FYMONDT: Dec2006
moveave: 87.333333333 FYMONDT: Jan2007
moveave: 87.166666667 FYMONDT: Feb2007
moveave: 84.166666667 FYMONDT: Mar2007
moveave: 85.166666667 FYMONDT: Apr2007
moveave: 78.833333333 FYMONDT: May2007
moveave: 85 FYMONDT: Jun2007
moveave: 87.166666667 FYMONDT: Jul2007
moveave: 88.666666667 FYMONDT: Aug2007
moveave: 91.833333333 FYMONDT: Sep2007
moveave: 95 FYMONDT: Oct2007
moveave: 101.83333333 FYMONDT: Nov2007
moveave: 101.33333333 FYMONDT: Dec2007
moveave: 100.16666667 FYMONDT: Jan2008
moveave: 101.33333333 FYMONDT: Feb2008
moveave: 96.166666667 FYMONDT: Mar2008
moveave: 95.5
Plot of moveave * FYMONDT

Figure 1: Criminal Convictions over the last five years

The increase from the levels five years ago in convictions for these matters is shown more clearly in Figure 1. The vertical bars in Figure 1 represent the number of convictions of this type recorded on a month-to-month basis. The superimposed line on the bars plots the six-month moving average so that natural fluctuations are smoothed out. The one and five-year rates of change in Table 1 and in the sections that follow are all based upon this six-month moving average. To view trends year-by-year rather than month-by-month, see TRAC's annual report series for a broader picture.

Cases were classified by prosecutors into more specific types.

The largest number of convictions of these matters in March 2008 was for "Fraud-Tax", accounting for 49.6 percent of convictions. Convictions were also filed for "Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FOIA challen" (10.7%), " Drugs-Organized Crime Task Force" (9.9%), "Money Laundering-Other" (7.4%), "Fraud-Other" (6.6%), "Fraud-Corporate" (2.5%). See Figure 2.

progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 11%  (10.74%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 11%  (10.74%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 11%  (10.74%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 11%  (10.74%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 11%  (10.74%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 11%  (10.74%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 11%  (10.74%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 11%  (10.74%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 11%  (10.74%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 11%  (10.74%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 11%  (10.74%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 11%  (10.74%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 11%  (10.74%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 11%  (10.74%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 11%  (10.74%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 11%  (10.74%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 11%  (10.74%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 11%  (10.74%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 11%  (10.74%) progcatlabel: Withheld by Govt from TRAC (FO
percentage: 11%  (10.74%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Other
percentage: 40%  (39.67%) progcatlabel: Fraud-Tax
percentage: 50%  (49.59%) progcatlabel: Fraud-Tax
percentage: 50%  (49.59%) progcatlabel: Fraud-Tax
percentage: 50%  (49.59%) progcatlabel: Fraud-Tax
percentage: 50%  (49.59%) progcatlabel: Fraud-Tax
percentage: 50%  (49.59%)
PIE3D chart of progcatlabel

Figure 2: Specific types of convictions

Convictions in U.S. Magistrate Courts

Top Ranked Lead Charges

In March 2008, 1 percent of cases for these matters took place in U.S. Magistrate Courts which handle less serious misdemeanor cases, including what are called "petty offenses." In the magistrate courts in March the most frequently cited lead charge was Title 26 U.S.C Section 7213 involving the "Unauthorized disclosure of information". This was the lead charge for 100 percent of all magistrate convictions in March.

Convictions in U.S. District Courts

Top Ranked Lead Charges

Table 2 shows the top lead charges recorded in the convictions of matters filed in U.S. District Court during March 2008referred by the Internal Revenue Service.

Lead Charge Count Rank 1yr ago 5yrs ago  
26 USC 7201 - Attempt to evade or defeat tax 21 1 2 2 More
26 USC 7206 - Fraud and False statements 16 2 1 1 More
18 USC 287 - False, fictitious or fraudulent claims 9 3 5 6 More
18 USC 371 - Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud US 9 3 4 5 More
31 USC 5324 - Structuring transactions to evade reporting requir 8 5 11 13 More
18 USC 1956 - Laundering of monetary instruments 7 6 3 3 More
18 USC 1341 - Mail Fraud - Frauds and swindles 5 7 9 10 More
26 USC 7203 - Willful failure to file return, supply information 5 7 6 7 More
18 USC 1343 - Fraud by wire, radio, or television 4 9 14 10 More
18 USC 1955 - Prohibition of illegal gambling businesses 4 9 13 12 More

Table 2: Top charges for convictions

  • "Attempt to evade or defeat tax" (Title 26 U.S.C Section 7201) was the most frequent recorded lead charge. "Attempt to evade or defeat tax" (Title 26 U.S.C Section 7201) was ranked 2 a year ago, while it was the 2 most frequently invoked 5 years ago..

  • Ranked 2nd in frequency was the lead charge "Fraud and False statements" under Title 26 U.S.C Section 7206. "Fraud and False statements" under Title 26 U.S.C Section 7206 was ranked 1 a year ago, while it was the 1 most frequently invoked 5 years ago..

  • Ranked 3rd were "False, fictitious or fraudulent claims" under Title 18 U.S.C Section 287 and "Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud US" under Title 18 U.S.C Section 371. "False, fictitious or fraudulent claims" under Title 18 U.S.C Section 287 was ranked 5 a year ago, while it was the 6 most frequently invoked 5 years ago.."Conspiracy to commit offense or to defraud US" under Title 18 U.S.C Section 371 was ranked 4 a year ago, while it was the 5 most frequently invoked 5 years ago..

Among these top ten lead charges, the one showing the greatest increase in convictions—up 177.8 percent—compared to one year ago was Title 31 U.S.C Section 5324 that involves " Structuring transactions to evade reporting requir ". This was the same statute that had the largest increase—257.1 %—when compared with five years ago.

Again among the top ten lead charges, the one showing the sharpest decline in convictions compared to one year ago—down 37.5 percent—was Prohibition of illegal gambling businesses (Title 18 U.S.C Section 1955 ). This was the same statute that had the largest decrease— 37.5 %—when compared with five years ago.

Top Ranked Judicial Districts

In March 2008 the Justice Department said the government obtained 48.1 convictions for every ten million people in the United States.

Understandably, there is great variation in the number of convictions in each of the nation's ninety-four federal judicial districts.

The districts registering the largest number of convictions of this type last month are shown in Table 3.


Judicial District Count Rank  
Fla, S 8 1 More
Mass 8 1 More
Maryland 6 3 More
N Car, E 6 3 More
Cal, C 5 5 More
Ill, N 5 5 More
Mich, W 5 5 More
N. Y., S 5 5 More
Penn, W 5 5 More
S Car 5 5 More

Table 3: Top 10 districts

  • The Southern District of Florida (Miami) and District of Massachusetts—with 8 convictions—were the most active during March 2008.

  • District of Maryland and Eastern District of North Carolina (Raleigh) are now ranking 3rd.

Top Ranked District Judges

At any one time, there are about 680 federal District Court judges working in the United States. The judges recorded with the largest number of new crime cases resulting in convictions of this type during March 2008 are shown in Table 4.

Judge Count Rank  
Boyle, Terrence William N Car, E 6 1 More
Herlong, Henry Michael Jr. S Car 5 2 More
Zloch, William J. Fla, S 4 3 More
Selna, James V. Cal, C 3 4 More
Lawson, Hugh Ga, M 3 4 More
Tauro, Joseph Louis Mass 3 4 More
Woodlock, Douglas Preston Mass 3 4 More
Dorsey, Peter Collins Conn 2 8 More
Thrash, Thomas W. Jr. Ga, N 2 8 More
Moran, James Byron Ill, N 2 8 More
Nickerson, William M. Maryland 2 8 More
Enslen, Richard Alan Mich, W 2 8 More
Montgomery, Ann D. Minnesota 2 8 More
Wingate, Henry Travillion Miss, S 2 8 More
Irenas, Joseph Eron N. J. 2 8 More
Feuerstein, Sandra J. N. Y., E 2 8 More
Schwab, Arthur J. Penn, W 2 8 More
Solis, Jorge Antonio Texas, N 2 8 More
Rodriguez, Xavier Texas, W 2 8 More
Chambers, Robert Charles W Virg, S 2 8 More

Table 4: Top 10 judges

A total of 10 out of the "top ten" judges were in districts which were in the top ten with the largest number of convictions , while the remaining 10 judges were from other districts. (Because of ties, there were a total of 20 judges in the "top ten" rankings.)

  • Judge Terrence William Boyle in the Eastern District of North Carolina (Raleigh) ranked 1st with 6 convicted in convictions.

  • Judge Henry Michael Herlong Jr. in the District of South Carolina ranked 2nd with 5 convicted in convictions.

  • Judge William J. Zloch in the Southern District of Florida (Miami) ranked 3rd with 4 convicted in convictions.

TRAC Copyright
Copyright 2008, TRAC Reports, Inc.

TRAC RSS Feed for this page Email Feed for this page Email this page