AG files criminal UPL, tax evasion charges against ‘notario publico’

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Adding to what it has already done in targeting two “notario publicos” for illegally offering immigration services, the Indiana Attorney General’s Office has now filed a criminal Unauthorized Practice of Law charge and several tax evasion counts against one of those non-lawyers who was operating in Indianapolis.

The state attorney’s office announced the new criminal charges Thursday in the case against M. Esther Barber, also known as Maria Esther Tapia Cuevas, who was doing business as Asociacion Civica Mexicana De Indiana Inc. on Shelby Street in Indianapolis.

A civil action had been filed against her March 9 on allegations that she offered immigration-related services without being licensed or trained to do so, but criminal charges hadn’t immediately been attached to that. A search warrant of her business led to records being seized, and gave way to what’s materialized this week.

The civil suit alleges Barber advertised herself to the Spanish-speaking community as someone who can assist with immigration issues and since 2006 she’d allegedly done similar selection, preparation, and completion of immigration forms for a fee. The suit against her, similar to one filed against another non-lawyer in Fort Wayne, accused Barber of knowingly violating the Deceptive Consumer Sales Act by providing services without the required license and training.

As a result, she’s being charged now with a Class B misdemeanor for engaging in UPL – a count the state AG’s Office obtained permission from the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office to file. The count stems from Barber’s charging a client $1,200 to obtain legalization paperwork so that an immigrant could enter the country – something that a 2005 ruling by the Indiana Supreme Court specifically held could only be provided by a licensed attorney, not a notary public.

Since the AG’s office didn’t have any tax evasion counts relating to the Allen County notario case, any misdemeanor count of UPL there would have to stand on its own and that would be up to the Allen County Prosecutor’s Office to file rather than the state attorney’s office.

The UPL charge came on the same day the AG used the office’s limited criminal jurisdiction to charge Barber with 10 counts of state income tax evasion. A probable cause affidavit shows Barber advertised her business services in Spanish-language newspapers and over time received at least $56,768 for tasks such as preparing immigration forms, business formation, and liquor licensing applications, but she filed no state income tax returns between 2005 and 2009.

That tax-related legal maneuver is known as the “Al Capone approach,” as it brought down the infamous organized crime boss. The AG has used this approach three other times since late 2008 – on two commercial dog breeding operations and another cash-and-carry stereo business. Those three cases ended with guilty pleas and felony tax evasion convictions.

Barber appeared in court Thursday for an initial hearing, and the court set a $5,000 surety bond and required her to surrender her passport before being released. A pretrial conference is set for May 9 with a jury trial tentatively scheduled for Aug. 2. She faces up to six months in jail on the UPL misdemeanor charge and for each of the felonies, could see a sentence up to three years and fines up to $10,000.


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit