ILNews

Andrews: Couple accused of tax fraud turning the tables

Greg Andrews
February 29, 2012
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

BTN-andrewsA high-profile Carmel couple accused of tax fraud has won a dismissal of those charges and now is going after state investigators with guns blazing.

Real estate investor Chris Marten and his wife, — a longtime Carmel jeweler — charge in a new federal lawsuit that investigators trampled on their constitutional rights during the inquiry, which resulted in 28 criminal charges, including tax evasion and maintaining false tax records. They’re seeking millions of dollars in damages.

Some of their concerns received a sympathetic ear from Hamilton Superior Judge William Hughes, who dismissed the criminal case in October 2010, saying the government abused the discovery process. He expressed exasperation that prosecutors failed to provide hundreds of documents to the other side — despite repeated orders to do so.

In his eight-page order, Hughes wrote: “The court has repeatedly and pointedly expressed its disapproval with the state’s conduct on discovery issues in this case — and still, even after two orders compelling discovery, the state persists in dragging its feet.”

The Martens had defended themselves in the criminal case in part by alleging the state had illegally masqueraded their criminal prosecution as a less-threatening civil matter.

Because Hughes concluded the discovery problems alone were sufficient to justify dismissal, he didn’t try those abuse-of-process allegations — which now are at the heart of the 11-page suit the Martens filed Feb. 15.

In his dismissal order, Hughes did note that Andrew Swain, chief counsel in the tax-litigation division of the Office of the Indiana Attorney General, knew the Martens were targets of a criminal inquiry when he deposed them in a civil inquiry in June 2008.

According to Hughes’ order, Swain denied during a January 2010 court hearing that he knew about the criminal investigation when he deposed them. But the judge pointed out that, in an email three days before the deposition, Swain had written that “the Hamilton County prosecutor is going to pursue criminal tax charges against these guys.”

In their lawsuit, the Martens said Swain had said nothing to suggest their testimony was being used in a criminal investigation. In fact, when they asked him whether they should hire attorneys to represent them, Swain said no, according to the suit.

“The defendants deliberately used their civil powers to gain a tactical advantage in the state’s criminal prosecution,” the lawsuit alleges. The Indiana Department of Revenue “had committed to prosecute the Martens criminally, as evidenced by its preliminary drafting of a probable cause affidavit prior to the Martens’ deposition.”

Added Robert Garelick, an attorney with Cohen Garelick & Glazier representing the Martens: “We thought that was potential double jeopardy and contrary to their rights. It certainly was underhanded.”

The Martens also claim that when Swain and others executed a search in July 2008, they went far beyond what was permitted in the warrant, engaging in “an hours-long, free-for-all looting of the Martens’ home and business,” J.S. Marten Inc., 301 E. Carmel Drive.

Defendants in the suit include the attorney general’s office, the Department of Revenue, Swain and Department of Revenue auditor Rick Albrecht.

Bryan Corbin, a spokesman for the attorney general’s office, said in an email that “we will diligently defend our state agency clients and employees.”

Garelick said the arrest of the Martens in June 2008 triggered a technical default on the line of credit Janice Marten used to finance her jewelry store, which closed a short time later. (Janice Marten now operates JEM Jewellers in Clay Terrace.)

“As a direct and proximate result of the wrongful conduct of the defendants, the Martens have suffered extreme humiliation, embarrassment and loss of reputation, have lost a multimillion-dollar business, and have lost past, present and future income and net profits,” the lawsuit says.

Tax issues

Judge Hughes’ dismissal left unlitigated the merits of the tax charges themselves. Prosecutors had alleged the Martens had failed to remit nearly $900,000 in retail sales taxes from 2004 through 2007. Garelick said the Martens’ position is they’ve paid all the taxes required.

Hughes dismissed the charges with prejudice, which prevents prosecutors from refiling the case.

All of Chris and Janice Marten’s legal problems are not necessarily behind them, however. They remain defendants in a civil securities fraud lawsuit filed three years ago by Indiana Securities Commissioner Chris Naylor.

The suit says the couple participated in a $2 million investment fraud orchestrated by Geist investment dealer Dorothy Geisler-Tragardh. Geisler-Tragardh settled that case and reached a plea agreement in a separate criminal inquiry. She was sentenced in 2011 to one year of home detention and four years on probation.•

This column was originally published in the February 27 issue of Indianapolis Business Journal.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT