United States v. LiButti
United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
1994 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19916 (1994)
- Written by Brett Stavin, JD
Facts
Robert LiButti (defendant) was charged by the federal government (plaintiff) with tax evasion and bank fraud. Following his jury conviction, LiButti argued that his sentence should be adjusted downward from the sentencing guidelines due to his compulsive-gambling disorder. Specifically, LiButti pointed to the fact that he suffered millions of dollars of gambling losses during the time period that he committed tax evasion. LiButti never possessed an amount sufficient to pay the tax deficiencies in full, although he did have enough to make partial payments at times. LiButti argued that he always wanted to gamble more so that he could win enough to pay his tax debt in full. LiButti presented expert testimony to provide an opinion that his compulsive gambling amounted to a disorder that impaired his judgment and caused him to suffer a diminished capacity, making it impossible for him to conform his conduct to the law. Yet despite LiButti’s gambling habit, even though he neglected to pay his taxes, he did spend a lavish amount on luxury cars, furnishings, fine wines, and his business. At one point, LiButti urged the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to accept a trivial percentage of the tax debt as a settlement. Around this time, LiButti allegedly vowed that the IRS would never collect a penny.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Simandle, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 899,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 47,000 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
