Total Pageviews

Thursday, October 29, 2020

RUNNING OUT THE CLOCK?: Is The U. S. Probation Office Ignoring Credible Evidence Of Steven Ingersoll's Violation Of His Federal Supervised Release; "Failure To Report Assets"; $3.5 Million July 2020 IRS Payment While Failing To Pay $11,920 Restitution

In a September 16, 2020, post on this blog, I exclusively revealed that, on July 22, 2020, Steven Ingersoll paid nearly $3.5 million to the IRS, satisfying a federal tax lien for the years 2009, 2010 and 2011.

However, a much smaller obligation (Ingersoll's $11,920.87 federal restitution) remains unpaid. Among the conditions of Ingersoll's release were the requirement to make monthly payments on any remaining balance of the restitution, fine and special assessment and provide the probation officer access to any requested financial information. 

On December 15, 2016, Steven Ingersoll was sentenced after having been found guilty on March 10, 2015 of three counts: conspiracy to defraud the United States, and two counts of tax evasion. But here's the thing: while the government estimated his total at least $2.0 million washed in and out of his pockets between 2012-2015, years when he did not file tax returns (years when he did not file tax returns, let alone actually pay taxes), Ingersoll's actual "criminal monetary penalties" were shockingly small.

According to a December 21, 2016 judgement, Judge Thomas L. Ludington waived "the imposition of a fine, the cost of incarceration and the costs of supervision, due to the defendant's lack of financial resources". Ingersoll was ordered to pay just $10,145 in "restitution" to the IRS, and only $11,762 for the cost of his prosecution.

The government estimated the amount to be well north of $2.0 million.

On September 25, 2020, I spoke directly with the U.S. Probation Officer overseeing Ingersoll's one-year term of Supervised Release, scheduled to lapse in late December 2020, and briefly discussed what were, in my opinion, three violations of the conditions of his release.

Shortly afterward, I followed up with the Probation Officer by email, forwarding the following five-page document, outlining and supporting my allegations, which I agreed to keep confidential during the investigation.

Due to the lack of forward movement, I am revealing my complaint while maintaining the confidentiality of my email exchanges with the Probation Officer.


As of this morning, nearly five weeks after submitting my information to Ingersoll's U. S. Probation Officer, there is no sign of any forward activity in the case. My attempts (via email) to determine the status of my complaint have been ignored. 

And having been directly involved in referring several other probation/supervised release cases that were ultimately adjudicated, including three with fraudster David Damante, I understand the process and its confidential nature.

However, Ingersoll's roughly $3.5 million payment to the IRS is nearly identical to the amount he admitted in May 2013 owing to the Grand Traverse Academy--an amount characterized by Academy Board attorney, Thrun Law Firm's Meg Hackett, during her testimony at Ingersoll's federal trial as a "substantial unauthorized transfer of funds". The debt was never repaid to the Traverse City charter school by Ingersoll, who admitted under oath on December 9, 2015 during questioning by AUSA Janet Parker testimony that he had fabricated an "accounts receivable" scheme as financial cover for his illegal diversion of funds from the Grand Traverse Academy.

Grand Traverse Academy Board member, Brad Habermehl, later admitted under oath during Ingersoll's sentencing hearing that the so-called "prepaid" amount drained from the school was actually closer to $5.0 million.

You'd think a $3.5 million payment to the IRS in July 2020 by Steven Ingersoll (who claimed a lack of financial resources before he went to prison in 2017, only to suspiciously round up millions roughly six months after he was released in December 2019) would result in swift action from the U. S. Probation Office.

But it looks like you'd be wrong.