Skip to main content

Arkansas Private Banking System Barred from Operating by Federal Court

WASHINGTON - A federal judge in Fayetteville, Ark., has barred Wayne Hicks and his company, My Icis Inc., from operating a private banking system that allegedly helped customers avoid taxes by shielding their identities and other financial transactions from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Justice Department announced today. Hicks and My Icis agreed to the injunction order. Hicks is serving a five-year prison sentence after pleading guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States.

According to the government complaint in the civil injunction case, Hicks owned and operated My Icis, Inc., a Berryville, Ark., company that helped customers set up purportedly anonymous bank accounts to hide their identities, income and other financial transactions, including deposits, wire transfers and bill payments. According to the complaint, Hicks admitted in his criminal case that My Icis helped customers "get out of the traditional banking system and successfully shield their financial transactions from the government, more specifically the IRS, and thereby avoid paying federal income taxes." Hicks also admitted that, from 2003 through 2006, his customers deposited approximately $100 million in his banking system. Hicks promoted his scheme through Web sites, seminars and online newsletters.

According to the complaint, Hicks also promoted his banking system at Pinnacle Quest International (PQI) seminars in 2005 in the Mexican resorts of Cancun and Ixtapa. On March 31, 2010, eight people associated with PQI were convicted of tax, wire fraud and money laundering charges by a federal jury following a month-long trial in Pensacola, Fla. The United States also obtained a civil injunctionagainst PQI and its principals on May 16, 2008.

John A. DiCicco, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Tax Division, thanked Grayson Hoffman, the Justice Department trial attorney who handled the case, and Sean Flannery, the IRS revenue agent who conducted the investigation.

In the past decade, the Justice Department’s Tax Division has obtained more than 465 injunctions against tax fraud promoters and dishonest tax return preparers. Information about these cases is available on the Justice Department’s Web Site.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

15 Gang Members Convicted on Conspiracy, Weapons Possession, Firearms Trafficking Charges Case Follows Recent Convictions of 137th Street Crew and East Harlem Narcotics Trafficking Organization

Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., announced the results of the investigation and prosecution of one of Central Harlem’s most destructive criminal street gangs, referred to as “ONE TWENTY-NINE” or “GOODFELLAS/THE NEW DONS,” which terrorized the neighborhood surrounding West 129th Street between Lenox and Fifth Avenues. Thirteen members of the gang have previously pleaded guilty to importing, possessing, and using firearms over the course of the conspiracy.

The Myth, The Matrix, and The Malpractice: Unpacking the Sophia Stewart Saga

The internet loves a good underdog story, especially one where a lone creator battles Hollywood giants. Few tales have captivated online forums and social media quite like that of Sophia Stewart, the woman who famously sued the creators of The Matrix and The Terminator, claiming they stole her work, "The Third Eye." Her story is a complex tapestry woven with claims of stolen genius, judicial conflicts, and attorney negligence. Let's untangle the legal facts from the compelling narrative and examine the heart of her claims. The Core Allegation: "The Third Eye" and the Blockbusters Sophia Stewart alleged that her copyrighted manuscript, "The Third Eye," conceived in 1981 and finalized in 1983, was the blueprint for two of the most iconic sci-fi franchises: The Terminator (first film 1984) and The Matrix (first film 1999). From her perspective, the similarities were undeniable. Stewart’s supporters often point to broad, impactful themes and ev...

Charlie Kirk Was Right, and Charlie Kirk Was Wrong: The Enduring Legacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative commentator, has argued that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was unnecessary, contending that the 14th Amendment should have been sufficient to guarantee equal rights. There's a compelling argument to be made for both sides of this statement. Let's break down where Kirk was right and, more importantly, where historical context reveals he was profoundly wrong. Where Charlie Kirk Was "Right" (In Theory) Kirk's theoretical point hinges on the idea that fundamental constitutional principles, if interpreted and enforced correctly, should have negated the need for additional legislation. And, in a perfect world, he would be correct. The 14th Amendment, ratified in 1868, explicitly states that "no State shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The intent was to ensure all citizens, particularly newly freed African Americans, were treated equally under the law. If this ...