Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealself-incrimination
appealtrustself-incrimination

Related Cases

Noske v. Friedberg, 670 N.W.2d 740
View Case »
Smith v. Ylst, 488 U.S. 829, 109 S.Ct. 83, 102 L.Ed.2d 59
View Case »
Carmel v. Lunney, 70 N.Y.2d 169, 511 N.E.2d 1126, 518 N.Y.S.2d 605
View Case »
Vasquez v. California School of Culinary Arts, Inc., 230 Cal.App.4th 35, 178 Cal.Rptr.3d 10, 14 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 11,341, 2014 Daily Journal D.A.R. 13,281
View Case »
Glenn v. Aiken, 409 Mass. 699, 569 N.E.2d 783, 4 A.L.R.5th 1060
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

United States v. Greenfield, 831 F.3d 106, 118 A.F.T.R.2d 2016-5275, 2016-2 USTC P 50,367

Facts

Steven Greenfield was implicated in tax evasion due to a document leak from a Liechtenstein financial institution, which revealed his connections to offshore accounts. The IRS issued a summons for a broad range of documents related to Greenfield's financial accounts and offshore entities. Greenfield opposed the summons, arguing that producing the documents would violate his Fifth Amendment rights. The District Court enforced the summons for a subset of documents, but Greenfield appealed the decision.

This case stems from a “global tax scandal” that came to light in February 2008 after an employee of Liechtenstein Global Trust (“LGT”), a private financial institution owned by the royal family of Liechtenstein, leaked thousands of documents from accounts held at LGT.

Issue

Did the compelled production of documents sought by the IRS summons violate Greenfield's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination?

Did the compelled production of documents sought by the IRS summons violate Greenfield's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination?

Rule

The Fifth Amendment protects individuals from being compelled to produce documents that may incriminate them, unless the government can establish that the existence, control, and authenticity of the documents are a foregone conclusion.

The Fifth Amendment protects individuals from being compelled to produce documents that may incriminate them, unless the government can establish that the existence, control, and authenticity of the documents are a foregone conclusion.

Analysis

The Court of Appeals analyzed whether the government had established with reasonable particularity that the documents existed, were in Greenfield's control, and were authentic. The court found that the government had not demonstrated this for most of the documents, particularly those related to offshore accounts, and thus the act of producing them would be testimonial and potentially incriminating.

The Court of Appeals analyzed whether the government had established with reasonable particularity that the documents existed, were in Greenfield's control, and were authentic.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals vacated the District Court's order enforcing the summons and remanded the case, concluding that the government did not meet its burden to show that the documents were a foregone conclusion.

The Court of Appeals vacated the District Court's order enforcing the summons and remanded the case, concluding that the government did not meet its burden to show that the documents were a foregone conclusion.

Who won?

Steven Greenfield prevailed in the appeal because the court found that the government failed to establish the necessary elements for the foregone conclusion exception to apply.

Steven Greenfield prevailed in the appeal because the court found that the government failed to establish the necessary elements for the foregone conclusion exception to apply.

You must be