The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Friday refused to correct the Government’s botched plea agreement with telecommunications mogul Walter Anderson, who pled guilty to hiding over $365 million in income and evading over $140 million in federal income taxes during the 1990s in the largest case of individual tax fraud in history. The Government’s plea agreement failed to order Anderson to make restitution, and District Judge Paul Friedman rejected the government’s request to "correct clear error" in the agreement:
By its citation to the incorrect statute, the government limited any authority the Court might otherwise have had to impose restitution. Because the Court is bound under 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a)(3) to order restitution only “to the extent agreed to” by the parties, its authority was limited to ordering restitution under a statute that does not authorize restitution. Because plea agreements are contracts, the Court cannot simply ignore the language of a plea agreement …. It is bound by the language of the agreement as drafted by the government and agreed to by the parties. … The Court is not free to read something into a contract that is not there or to interpret uncertain language in the government’s favor.
- Opinion and Order, United States v. Anderson, No. 2005-0066 (D.D.C. 6/15/07)
- Memorandum Opinion and Order, United States v. Anderson, No. 2005-0066 (D.D.C. 6/15/07)
For press coverage, see AP: Judge Says $100 million "Typo" Can’t Be Fixed, by Matt Apuzzo. For prior TaxProf Blog coverage, see:
