ILNews

Northwest Indiana officials indicted on federal charges

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Six people in northwest Indiana, including three council members, were indicted Thursday on federal charges resulting from an investigation by the Northern District of Indiana’s Public Corruption Task Force.

Those indicted include five current or former public officials accused of tax fraud, tax evasion and charges related to alleged kickbacks schemes and theft of public money.

Those charged are:

  • Gary City Councilwoman Marilyn Krusas, 69, indicted on one count of tax evasion. According to a statement from David Capp, U.S. attorney for the Northern District, Krusas failed to file tax returns since 1991 and allegedly committed a number of acts of evasion in connection with an inheritance of $230,000 she received in 2009-2010. Krusas pleaded not guilty Thursday and was released on $20,000 bond while surrendering her passport.
  • East Chicago City Councilman and police officer Juda Parks, 40, was indicted on two counts of failure to file income tax returns for the tax years 2008 and 2009. Capp’s office said Parks signed an agreement in conjunction with the indictment, pleading guilty to all charges and agreeing to cooperate with the government.
  • Hammond Second District Councilman Alfonso Salinas, 52, was charged with receipt of a bribe by an agent of a local government receiving federal funds. Salinas, using his allotment of funds derived from casino revenue received by the city of Hammond, accepted at least $10,500 from Dave’s Tree Service owner Dave Johnson to hire the company to work in the district that Salinas represented. Johnson, 56, of Munster, was charged with payment of a bribe to an agent of a local government receiving federal funds. Salinas is also charged with four counts of willful failure to file tax returns for tax years 2006 through 2009.
  • Former Merillville Town Clerk Virlissa Crenshaw, 42, of East Chicago, was charged with theft from a local government entity and with filing a false tax return for the 2009 tax year. Crenshaw is accused of stealing cash bonds while working for the Merrillville Town Court. According to the Northern District attorney’s office, Crenshaw signed a plea agreement filed in conjunction with the indictment admitting her guilt to all charges.  The loss to Merrillville is $176,763 and the federal tax loss is $55,203, the office said.
  • Former East Chicago Public Library Director Manuel Montalvo, 38, was indicted on two counts of filing false tax returns for the tax years 2009 and 2010. Montalvo is accused of overstating unreimbursed business expenses and medical and dental expenses that he knew were substantially less than reported.  

Capp said the indictments were the result of an ongoing multi-agency effort whose primary participants are the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Indiana State Police and the Internal Revenue Service.
 
“The Internal Revenue Service was the key agency driving these investigations,” Capp said. “We will continue to aggressively investigate allegations of public corruption and, where warranted, seek appropriate federal charges, including tax offenses.”

“Failure to file tax returns and the filing of false tax returns by public officials will not be tolerated. Those who disobey the tax laws will be held accountable," IRS Criminal Investigation Chief Richard Weber said in a statement.
 

 

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's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT