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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Falk said “At this point, at this minute, we’ll savor this particular victory.” “It certainly is a historic week on this front,” Cockrum said. “What a delight ... “Happy Independence Day to the women of the state of Indiana,” WOW. So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)

  2. congratulations on such balanced journalism; I also love how fetus disposal affects women's health protection, as covered by Roe...

  3. It truly sickens me every time a case is compared to mine. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld my convictions based on a finding of “hidden threats.” The term “hidden threat” never appeared until the opinion in Brewington so I had no way of knowing I was on trial for making hidden threats because Dearborn County Prosecutor F Aaron Negangard argued the First Amendment didn't protect lies. Negangard convened a grand jury to investigate me for making “over the top” and “unsubstantiated” statements about court officials, not hidden threats of violence. My indictments and convictions were so vague, the Indiana Court of Appeals made no mention of hidden threats when they upheld my convictions. Despite my public defender’s closing arguments stating he was unsure of exactly what conduct the prosecution deemed to be unlawful, Rush found that my lawyer’s trial strategy waived my right to the fundamental error of being tried for criminal defamation because my lawyer employed a strategy that attempted to take advantage of Negangard's unconstitutional criminal defamation prosecution against me. Rush’s opinion stated the prosecution argued two grounds for conviction one constitutional and one not, however the constitutional true threat “argument” consistently of only a blanket reading of subsection 1 of the intimidation statute during closing arguments, making it impossible to build any kind of defense. Of course intent was impossible for my attorney to argue because my attorney, Rush County Chief Public Defender Bryan Barrett refused to meet with me prior to trial. The record is littered with examples of where I made my concerns known to the trial judge that I didn’t know the charges against me, I did not have access to evidence, all while my public defender refused to meet with me. Special Judge Brian Hill, from Rush Superior Court, refused to address the issue with my public defender and marched me to trial without access to evidence or an understanding of the indictments against me. Just recently the Indiana Public Access Counselor found that four over four years Judge Hill has erroneously denied access to the grand jury audio from my case, the most likely reason being the transcription of the grand jury proceedings omitted portions of the official audio record. The bottom line is any intimidation case involves an action or statement that is debatably a threat of physical violence. There were no such statements in my case. The Indiana Supreme Court took partial statements I made over a period of 41 months and literally connected them with dots… to give the appearance that the statements were made within the same timeframe and then claimed a person similarly situated would find the statements intimidating while intentionally leaving out surrounding contextual factors. Even holding the similarly situated test was to be used in my case, the prosecution argued that the only intent of my public writings was to subject the “victims” to ridicule and hatred so a similarly situated jury instruction wouldn't even have applied in my case. Chief Justice Rush wrote the opinion while Rush continued to sit on a committee with one of the alleged victims in my trial and one of the judges in my divorce, just as she'd done for the previous 7+ years. All of this information, including the recent PAC opinion against the Dearborn Superior Court II can be found on my blog www.danbrewington.blogspot.com.

  4. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  5. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

ADVERTISEMENT