Ask Jeeves Co-Founder's Wife Charged In Alleged... Tax Scam

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

Ask Jeeves Co-Founder's Wife Charged In Alleged Prostitution Tax Scam


SAN JOSE, Calif. -- A Stanford law school graduate is facing tax evasion charges over thousands of dollars she was allegedly paid while working as a prostitute.

In court papers filed in San Jose federal court Tuesday, prosecutors allege that Cristina Warthen failed to pay taxes on more than $133,000 they say she earned as a prostitute in 2003.

Warthen -- then Cristina Schultz -- first came to the attention of the federal government several years ago when authorities seized more than $61,000 in cash from her home

Since then, the 34-year-old Schultz has married David Warthen, the co-founder of the online search engine Ask Jeeves, now known as Ask.com.

A lawyer for Christina Warthen declined to comment on the charges.

Warthen is scheduled to appear in court Oct. 16.

Sorry folks, I'm not smart enough to find a copy of the court papers.

[Bashful]

Try Ask.con.

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

Ooh, ooh, I'm not so stupid after all:

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog ... ctment.pdf

[wserra]

Folks - you're seeing the tip of the iceberg here.

First - this is an information, not an indictment. One can't be prosecuted for a felony - tax evasion - on an information without one's consent. Second - how in the wide, wide world of sports could the govt prove the income of an escort service without one of two things: written books (we all know they keep 'em, right?), or ... cooperation.

I would say that it's a bad time to be an important john in northern California. Or perhaps even an internet entrepreneur who was playing hanky-panky with his taxes.

[jcolvin2]

Folks - you're seeing the tip of the iceberg here.

First - this is an information, not an indictment. One can't be prosecuted for a felony - tax evasion - on an information without one's consent. Second - how in the wide, wide world of sports could the govt prove the income of an escort service without one of two things: written books (we all know they keep 'em, right?), or ... cooperation.

I would say that it's a bad time to be an important john in northern California. Or perhaps even an internet entrepreneur who was playing hanky-panky with his taxes.

Isn't there an absolute marital privilege (in addition to the marital communication privilege)? Could one avoid having one's escort rat on one by marrying the escort?

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

Folks - you're seeing the tip of the iceberg here.

First - this is an information, not an indictment. One can't be prosecuted for a felony - tax evasion - on an information without one's consent. Second - how in the wide, wide world of sports could the govt prove the income of an escort service without one of two things: written books (we all know they keep 'em, right?), or ... cooperation.

I would say that it's a bad time to be an important john in northern California. Or perhaps even an internet entrepreneur who was playing hanky-panky with his taxes.

But wait there's more! As the result of some undercover work (not be confused with the under-the-covers work in question), law enforcement officials filed the following: United States v. $36,260 in U.S. Currency (N.D. Cal. No. 04-cv-2862-SI)

I found the above citation in the following link. I meant to post the link earlier but work got it the way. http://abovethelaw.com/2006/09/the_stan ... and_sh.php

[wserra]

Isn't there an absolute marital privilege (in addition to the marital communication privilege)? Could one avoid having one's escort rat on one by marrying the escort?

If you mean what I think you mean - a spouse's blanket incompetence to testify against a spouse - not in federal criminal cases since FRE 601. Even with garden-variety marital privilege, it only applies (like any privilege) to private communications.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

[LOBO]

From her postings on escort's clients' review boards, bragging of paying off student loans with her new night job, the IRS deduced she must have a lot of unpaid taxes:

The investigator officially began when the agent made this statement:

"I swear honey, I'm doing research for work!"

At $1,300 per two-hour "modeling" appointment, $5,000 for "overnight," ... hey, do the math. After becoming her husband, Warthen was able to convince the Feds that the money was a gift from him, meant as "a benefit for the both of them".

Convincing. Sounds like my last relationship.

This reminds me of an incident in Austin when a CSR had a UNAX violation for looking up a local stripper's account to help her file her taxes. How did he get caught? The C letter he sent with her information return transcripts included a love note in the open paragraph. Of course, her address was not up to date and it was returned undeliverable.

[Nikki]

I take issue with the thread title.

She wasn't running or involved in a scam.

She was a plain vanilla greedy tax cheat.

[fortinbras]

She was a law school graduate who made more money by discarding her briefs.
Otherwise typical.

[Arthur Rubin]

She was a law school graduate who made more money by discarding her briefs.

Seems to happen a lot on Boston Legal.

[Mr. Mephistopheles]

I take issue with the thread title.

She wasn't running or involved in a scam.

She was a plain vanilla greedy tax cheat.

FWIW, as the originator of the thread, I must agree. I simply copied the title of the media article.

[jcolvin2]

Isn't there an absolute marital privilege (in addition to the marital communication privilege)? Could one avoid having one's escort rat on one by marrying the escort?

If you mean what I think you mean - a spouse's blanket incompetence to testify against a spouse - not in federal criminal cases since FRE 601. Even with garden-variety marital privilege, it only applies (like any privilege) to private communications.

Be afraid. Be very afraid.

I was not thinking of the marital communication privilege (or "incompetence" - which, as you correctly state, is irrelevant after the adoption of FRE 601), but an actual federally-recognized privilege against adverse spousal testimony. A relatively broad privilege was recognized in Hawkins v. United States, 358 U.S. 74 (1958), but this was subsequently narrowed in Trammel v. United States, 100 S.Ct. 906 (1980), where the court ruled that the privilege against adverse spousal testimonial belonged solely to the testifying spouse.

[wserra]

Right. I think we both understand the law: the Trammel privilege will do nothing to protect the person you postulate who "could ... avoid having one's escort rat on one by marrying the escort". The Trammel privilege belongs solely to the escort, who could thus make a deal with the govt and testify to her heart's (or whatever) content.

[jcolvin2]

Agreed. Technically, a culpable person could not avoid problems by marrying the escort. As a legal matter, the answer to the quesion posed is "no." As a practical matter, the government, rarely asks spouses to testify against one another.