United States v. Zvi
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
168 F.3d 49 (1999)
- Written by Steven Pacht, JD
Facts
Roz Ben Zvi (defendant) owned, and Luiz Ben Zvi (defendant) was employed by, a jewelry store. Roz and Luiz staged a robbery at the store, falsely claiming to have lost millions of dollars in gold chain. Before the alleged robbery, the Zvis allegedly secretly sold all the purportedly stolen gold chain. The Zvis received almost $4 million in insurance money due to the alleged robbery. Roz was indicted for, among other things, filing false tax returns in violation of Internal Revenue Code (code) § 7206(1). At trial, the district court read the indictment, which alleged that the returns contained material false statements, to the jury. The district court also read § 7206(1), which referred to materiality, to the jury. The district court instructed the jury that the United States had the burden of proving that Roz did not believe the tax returns reflected the store’s true and correct gross sales and receipts or his personal income. Roz did not object to this instruction, which did not mention materiality. The district court further instructed the jury that it could find Roz guilty only if it found the specific misrepresentations that were alleged in the indictment. The jury convicted Roz, who appealed, arguing that the district court erred by not instructing the jury that any false statements in the returns had to be material.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Walker, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 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.