Month: January 2025

Source: United States Department of Justice Criminal Division

A Florida man was sentenced today to 21 months in prison for obstructing the IRS in connection with his use of the “Note Program,” a tax fraud scheme.

According to court documents and statements made in court, from 2015 to 2018, Arthur Grimes, of Ocoee and Orlando, was a client of a tax fraud scheme promoted by Jasen Harvey and Christopher Johnson. The scheme involved Harvey and Johnson filing false tax returns for clients that claimed that large nonexistent income tax withholdings had been paid to the IRS and sought substantial refunds based on those purported withholdings. 

Grimes participated in the scheme by causing four false income tax returns prepared by Harvey to be filed that sought refunds totaling $627,587 of which the IRS paid approximately $270,000. When the IRS attempted to recover a refund issued to Grimes based on one of those returns, Grimes made false statements and submitted false documents to an IRS revenue officer and transferred funds to a nominee bank account.

Harvey and Johnson previously pleaded guilty to conspiring to defraud the IRS and were respectively sentenced to 48 months in prison and 37 months in prison.

In addition to his prison sentence, U.S. District Judge Roy B. Dalton Jr. for the Middle District of Florida ordered Grimes to serve one year of supervised release and to pay approximately $238,973 in restitution to the United States.

Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Stuart M. Goldberg of the Justice Department’s Tax Division and U.S. Attorney Roger B. Handberg for the Middle District of Florida made the announcement.

IRS Criminal Investigation investigated the case.

Trial Attorneys Melissa Siskind, Jeffrey McLellan and Caroline Pearson of the Tax Division and Assistant U.S. Attorney Diane Hu for the Middle District of Florida prosecuted the case.

Source: United States Department of Justice Criminal Division

A Virginia man pleaded guilty today to filing false tax returns underreporting the income he received through his construction company.

According to court documents and statements made in court, Timothy Agnew owned and operated Red Hill Construction (RHC), which was located in Hillsville, Virginia. RHC repaired and installed roofs, remodeled homes and built home additions. Between 2017 and 2021, Agnew filed false personal tax returns that substantially underreported his gross receipts, and thus his income, from RHC. Specifically, Agnew omitted over $2,000,000 in gross receipts earned from construction projects for which the customers did not directly report those payments to the IRS, through IRS Form 1099. In all, Agnew caused a tax loss to the IRS of over $375,000.

Agnew is scheduled to be sentenced on April 3. He faces a maximum penalty of three years in prison as well as a period of supervised release, restitution and monetary penalties. A federal district court judge will determine any sentence after considering the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.

Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General Stuart M. Goldberg of the Justice Department’s Tax Division and Acting U.S. Attorney Zachary T. Lee for the Western District of Virginia made the announcement.

IRS Criminal Investigation is investigating the case.

Trial Attorney Brian Flanagan of the Tax Division and Assistant U.S. Attorney Lee Brett for the District of Western District of Virginia are prosecuting the case.

Source: United States Department of Justice Criminal Division

Remarks as Prepared for Delivery

It is an honor to be with you all here today in Greenwood. This community has been strong and resilient despite the lingering effects of a civil rights crime that stands out in its magnitude, barbarity and ruthless brutality. As you know, on May 31, 1921, a group of white Tulsans, far too organized to be called a mob, invaded Greenwood and engaged in theft, arson, assault and murder. They killed hundreds of Black people in Greenwood and wounded hundreds more. They put houses to the torch and unleashed chaos and violence that separated families. It took days, sometimes weeks, before people knew whether their loved ones survived. After the pillaging was done, authorities confined the now-homeless Black residents to internment camps, allowing them to leave only if a white person vouched for them.

Black Tulsans suffered a further indignity when an all-white grand jury blamed the massacre not on the white people who ravaged Greenwood, but on the Black men who dared to try to prevent a lynching at the courthouse.

Promises of aid for rebuilding were broken. Attempts to seek redress through the courts failed, both in the 1920s and in this century.

The Work We Did

Despite the scale and impact of this crime, the Justice Department has never publicly addressed it. And so, on Sept. 30, the department launched a review and evaluation of the Tulsa Race Massacre. A team from the Criminal Section’s Cold Case Unit, including Barbara Bosserman, the unit’s deputy chief, and Walt Henry, a retired FBI agent who is one of two cold case investigators, began the review at once. They are here today.

The team immediately began reviewing books, articles and primary sources on the massacre. Two weeks after the launch, the team visited Tulsa to conduct interviews. They talked to survivors and descendants. Justice for Greenwood arranged many of these interviews and provided our team with relevant documents. Justice for Greenwood likewise arranged for a descendant of a massacre survivor to give the team a tour of Greenwood.

Other descendants, including those in the wider Greenwood diaspora, reached out to us or were referred by friends or family. We met with them either here in Tulsa, by phone or over virtual platforms. The team also viewed first-hand accounts of the massacre, available at the Helmerich Center in Tulsa. The late Eddie Faye Gates deserves credit for recording so many first-hand accounts of Black massacre survivors. In addition, the team reviewed documents in the special collection at Tulsa University’s McFarlin Library and material in the Ruth Sigler Avery Collection at the Oklahoma State University in Tulsa. Tulsa University’s College of Law provided us access to pleadings from some of the original lawsuits filed by noted attorney B.C. Franklin. And the team found and reviewed a previously undiscovered 1921 investigative report written by an agent of the Bureau of Investigation, a precursor to today’s FBI.

The team met with members of Greenwood Rising Black Wall Street History Center, Deep Greenwood, and with representatives of community organizations. The review also included meetings with historians, journalists and scholars who have written about the massacre. Further, the team met with Tulsa Police Department officials and others in city government. Historic Vernon AME Church, where we are now, allowed the team to view its basement, the only part of the church that survived the massacre. One expert provided a tour of the Tulsa exhibit in the National Museum of African American History and Culture. The team told me that almost everyone they met was open, warm and eager to help. We thank the people of Greenwood for their generosity, for their endurance and for their remarkable kindness in the wake of such hateful acts.

Now, a little over three months since we started, we have produced a 123-page, meticulously sourced report.

Factual Findings

Let’s turn to what we found. On the night of May 31, 1921, a violent attack by some 10,000 white Tulsans destroyed the thriving Black community in Greenwood. The attack was systematic and coordinated, transcending mere mob violence. The trigger for the massacre — as for many lynchings and other acts of violence in that era — was an alleged assault by a Black man on a white woman, here, a supposed assault by a 19-year-old shoe shiner named Dick Rowland against a young white elevator operator. A local newspaper sensationalized the story and soon, a lynch mob of white Tulsans massed outside the courthouse.

Black men from Greenwood, including ex-soldiers who had returned from World War I, came to the courthouse to protect Rowland. But to the white mob, this was an unacceptable challenge to the social order. The mob grew. A confrontation broke out. Although there are conflicting accounts, the Bureau of Investigation report credits the statement of a white witness that a white man deliberately fired the first shots into a group of Black men because they were cursing at white people.

However it began, violence escalated quickly. Tulsa police deputized hundreds of white residents with virtually no screening. Many of them had just been drinking and agitating for a lynching. Law enforcement officers helped organize these special deputies — as well as other white Tulsans — into the forces that decimated Greenwood. A Tulsa police officer went to a nearby town to recruit more people for the attack.

Violence was initially disorganized. But at daybreak on June 1, 1921, a whistle blew, and the violence and arson became systematic. White Tulsans, many of whom had recently drilled together as the “Home Guard,” formed to replace members of the National Guard who had gone overseas during the Great War, became coordinated and efficient in their destruction. They murdered, looted, burned and destroyed 35 city blocks while Greenwood’s residents tried desperately to defend their homes. As the fires consumed Greenwood, many Black families fled. White residents chased them across and beyond the city, taking men, women, children, the elderly and the infirm into custody. The destruction was total. The survivors were left with nothing.

Law enforcement officers from both the Tulsa Police and the National Guard disarmed Black residents, confiscated their weapons and detained many in makeshift camps under armed guard. In addition, credible reports asserted that at least some law enforcement officers participated in the murders, arson, and looting. At, the very least, they turned a blind eye to the mayhem.

City officials initially promised to help Greenwood rebuild. But the white-led government of Tulsa not only broke that promise; it obstructed efforts to rebuild. White local leaders rejected outside aid, claiming they could handle the recovery, but then didn’t. Instead, claiming the area was best suited for industrial use, they imposed harsh new fire codes that priced residents out of the area.

Legal Findings

Our report concludes that, had today’s more robust civil rights laws been in effect in 1921, federal prosecutors could have pursued federal hate crime charges against the perpetrators of the massacre, including both public officials and private citizens. In addition, if modern interpretations of federal civil rights laws had applied in 1921, police officers, public officials and anyone acting in concert with them could have faced prosecution for willfully violating the civil rights of massacre victims. But few of these legal avenues were available in 1921, and any that existed were not pursued. Now, the statute of limitations has expired for all federal civil rights offenses that the government could have pursued. Moreover, as best we can determine, no perpetrator is still alive, and federal prosecution would almost certainly be foreclosed by the Constitution’s Confrontation Clause, which requires the government to provide live witnesses who can be cross examined by the accused. Such witnesses would need sufficient knowledge to prove a particular defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Moving Forward

We recognize that some may find it painful or dissatisfying that the department cannot now prosecute anyone for these heinous crimes. I certainly feel that way. But I believe that this review is nonetheless important. It corrects the historical narrative; it recognizes and documents the traumatic loss suffered by the residents of Greenwood; and it puts the Justice Department on record. While legal and practical limitations prevent us from prosecuting the perpetrators of crimes in 1921, the historical reckoning is far from over. If legal limits have stymied the pursuit of justice, work in the community continues so that future generations understand the scale and significance of this atrocity.

For the descendants of that lost Greenwood community, the fight for justice, while hindered by time and legal constraints, continues to seek truth and recognition.

Source: United States Department of Justice 2

Remarks as Prepared for Delivery

It is an honor to be with you all here today in Greenwood. This community has been strong and resilient despite the lingering effects of a civil rights crime that stands out in its magnitude, barbarity and ruthless brutality. As you know, on May 31, 1921, a group of white Tulsans, far too organized to be called a mob, invaded Greenwood and engaged in theft, arson, assault and murder. They killed hundreds of Black people in Greenwood and wounded hundreds more. They put houses to the torch and unleashed chaos and violence that separated families. It took days, sometimes weeks, before people knew whether their loved ones survived. After the pillaging was done, authorities confined the now-homeless Black residents to internment camps, allowing them to leave only if a white person vouched for them.

Black Tulsans suffered a further indignity when an all-white grand jury blamed the massacre not on the white people who ravaged Greenwood, but on the Black men who dared to try to prevent a lynching at the courthouse.

Promises of aid for rebuilding were broken. Attempts to seek redress through the courts failed, both in the 1920s and in this century.

The Work We Did

Despite the scale and impact of this crime, the Justice Department has never publicly addressed it. And so, on Sept. 30, the department launched a review and evaluation of the Tulsa Race Massacre. A team from the Criminal Section’s Cold Case Unit, including Barbara Bosserman, the unit’s deputy chief, and Walt Henry, a retired FBI agent who is one of two cold case investigators, began the review at once. They are here today.

The team immediately began reviewing books, articles and primary sources on the massacre. Two weeks after the launch, the team visited Tulsa to conduct interviews. They talked to survivors and descendants. Justice for Greenwood arranged many of these interviews and provided our team with relevant documents. Justice for Greenwood likewise arranged for a descendant of a massacre survivor to give the team a tour of Greenwood.

Other descendants, including those in the wider Greenwood diaspora, reached out to us or were referred by friends or family. We met with them either here in Tulsa, by phone or over virtual platforms. The team also viewed first-hand accounts of the massacre, available at the Helmerich Center in Tulsa. The late Eddie Faye Gates deserves credit for recording so many first-hand accounts of Black massacre survivors. In addition, the team reviewed documents in the special collection at Tulsa University’s McFarlin Library and material in the Ruth Sigler Avery Collection at the Oklahoma State University in Tulsa. Tulsa University’s College of Law provided us access to pleadings from some of the original lawsuits filed by noted attorney B.C. Franklin. And the team found and reviewed a previously undiscovered 1921 investigative report written by an agent of the Bureau of Investigation, a precursor to today’s FBI.

The team met with members of Greenwood Rising Black Wall Street History Center, Deep Greenwood, and with representatives of community organizations. The review also included meetings with historians, journalists and scholars who have written about the massacre. Further, the team met with Tulsa Police Department officials and others in city government. Historic Vernon AME Church, where we are now, allowed the team to view its basement, the only part of the church that survived the massacre. One expert provided a tour of the Tulsa exhibit in the National Museum of African American History and Culture. The team told me that almost everyone they met was open, warm and eager to help. We thank the people of Greenwood for their generosity, for their endurance and for their remarkable kindness in the wake of such hateful acts.

Now, a little over three months since we started, we have produced a 123-page, meticulously sourced report.

Factual Findings

Let’s turn to what we found. On the night of May 31, 1921, a violent attack by some 10,000 white Tulsans destroyed the thriving Black community in Greenwood. The attack was systematic and coordinated, transcending mere mob violence. The trigger for the massacre — as for many lynchings and other acts of violence in that era — was an alleged assault by a Black man on a white woman, here, a supposed assault by a 19-year-old shoe shiner named Dick Rowland against a young white elevator operator. A local newspaper sensationalized the story and soon, a lynch mob of white Tulsans massed outside the courthouse.

Black men from Greenwood, including ex-soldiers who had returned from World War I, came to the courthouse to protect Rowland. But to the white mob, this was an unacceptable challenge to the social order. The mob grew. A confrontation broke out. Although there are conflicting accounts, the Bureau of Investigation report credits the statement of a white witness that a white man deliberately fired the first shots into a group of Black men because they were cursing at white people.

However it began, violence escalated quickly. Tulsa police deputized hundreds of white residents with virtually no screening. Many of them had just been drinking and agitating for a lynching. Law enforcement officers helped organize these special deputies — as well as other white Tulsans — into the forces that decimated Greenwood. A Tulsa police officer went to a nearby town to recruit more people for the attack.

Violence was initially disorganized. But at daybreak on June 1, 1921, a whistle blew, and the violence and arson became systematic. White Tulsans, many of whom had recently drilled together as the “Home Guard,” formed to replace members of the National Guard who had gone overseas during the Great War, became coordinated and efficient in their destruction. They murdered, looted, burned and destroyed 35 city blocks while Greenwood’s residents tried desperately to defend their homes. As the fires consumed Greenwood, many Black families fled. White residents chased them across and beyond the city, taking men, women, children, the elderly and the infirm into custody. The destruction was total. The survivors were left with nothing.

Law enforcement officers from both the Tulsa Police and the National Guard disarmed Black residents, confiscated their weapons and detained many in makeshift camps under armed guard. In addition, credible reports asserted that at least some law enforcement officers participated in the murders, arson, and looting. At, the very least, they turned a blind eye to the mayhem.

City officials initially promised to help Greenwood rebuild. But the white-led government of Tulsa not only broke that promise; it obstructed efforts to rebuild. White local leaders rejected outside aid, claiming they could handle the recovery, but then didn’t. Instead, claiming the area was best suited for industrial use, they imposed harsh new fire codes that priced residents out of the area.

Legal Findings

Our report concludes that, had today’s more robust civil rights laws been in effect in 1921, federal prosecutors could have pursued federal hate crime charges against the perpetrators of the massacre, including both public officials and private citizens. In addition, if modern interpretations of federal civil rights laws had applied in 1921, police officers, public officials and anyone acting in concert with them could have faced prosecution for willfully violating the civil rights of massacre victims. But few of these legal avenues were available in 1921, and any that existed were not pursued. Now, the statute of limitations has expired for all federal civil rights offenses that the government could have pursued. Moreover, as best we can determine, no perpetrator is still alive, and federal prosecution would almost certainly be foreclosed by the Constitution’s Confrontation Clause, which requires the government to provide live witnesses who can be cross examined by the accused. Such witnesses would need sufficient knowledge to prove a particular defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Moving Forward

We recognize that some may find it painful or dissatisfying that the department cannot now prosecute anyone for these heinous crimes. I certainly feel that way. But I believe that this review is nonetheless important. It corrects the historical narrative; it recognizes and documents the traumatic loss suffered by the residents of Greenwood; and it puts the Justice Department on record. While legal and practical limitations prevent us from prosecuting the perpetrators of crimes in 1921, the historical reckoning is far from over. If legal limits have stymied the pursuit of justice, work in the community continues so that future generations understand the scale and significance of this atrocity.

For the descendants of that lost Greenwood community, the fight for justice, while hindered by time and legal constraints, continues to seek truth and recognition.

Source: United States Department of Justice Criminal Division

Remarks as Prepared for Delivery

Good afternoon.

It is my honor to join you in recognizing Director Wray’s outstanding public service.

As all of you know, before joining the FBI, the Director had already had a distinguished career in public service.

He clerked for an eminent federal judge, served as a career Assistant U.S. Attorney in Atlanta, headed the Justice Department’s Criminal Division and — my personal favorite because it is on my resume as well — served as the Department’s Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General.

After that already extraordinary career, he returned to his home in Georgia. He had certainly earned the right to stay there and never come back.

His life could have been a relaxing stream of practicing Big Law, tailgating at Bulldogs games, watching his beloved New York Giants on television, and — most important — walking his dog without a protection detail.

But Chris Wray is public spirited to the core. So, no one was surprised when, in 2017, he once again answered the call – this time, to fill one of the most critical and difficult roles in all of government.

I often say it is no coincidence that so many of the people in leadership positions across the Justice Department are here on their second, third, fourth, or fifth tour of duty.

All of us recognize what a privilege it is to have a job in which doing the right thing is your only purpose.

All of us have something within us that draws us to this work.

For the extraordinary public servants of the FBI — that “something” is fidelity, bravery, and integrity.

Over the course of my career, I have worked side by side with scores of FBI agents and analysts who exhibited those sacred qualities.

For the last four years, I have been privileged to work with Director Wray. And to see him exhibit those same qualities.

Indeed, for the last four years, I have begun most of my mornings in an All Threats Briefing with the Director, other senior FBI and DOJ officials, and a representative of the Intelligence Community.

As morning rituals go, it is not the most relaxing. The foreign and domestic threats that are the subject of those meetings are the stuff of nightmares.

Nonetheless, that meeting has been the best part of my day. Our only purpose, and the only purpose of the Director and his FBI team, is to assess the threats, determine how best to disrupt them, and then allocate the resources necessary to do so.

No turf fighting, no politics, no agenda other than to protect the American people. If the American people could witness those meetings, they would be so proud of what they saw.

I have also seen Chris Wray stand up for, and champion, the FBI’s 38,000 employees.

I have seen him have the backs of special agents who routinely risk their lives in the line of duty, but who have been singled out and threatened for simply doing their jobs.

I have seen his leadership in the White House Situation Room and within the United States Intelligence Community, where he is renowned for his honesty, integrity, and dedication to the FBI’s mission.

I have seen him earn the respect of foreign leaders and strengthen our relationships with law enforcement partners around the world.

I saw his leadership on January 1st when the country woke up to a horrific terrorist attack in New Orleans, and when FBI agents rushed to the scene to support local law enforcement and begin their investigation.

And I saw his leadership again, hours later, when the FBI responded to a truck explosion in Las Vegas.

That was just one day — but it represents the work that the Director Wray and the courageous public servants of the FBI do every day to protect the safety of the American people.

And as I have traveled the country, visiting law enforcement in almost every state, I have seen that Director Wray’s leadership speaks for itself.

Everywhere I have gone, I have heard state and local law enforcement leaders praise their respective FBI field offices for their partnership.

Those partnerships matter. They matter for driving down violent crime. They matter for disrupting foreign and domestic threats. They matter for keeping our country safe.

That kind of collaboration does not just happen on its own.

It happens because the FBI has a leader like Chris Wray who, everywhere he goes, emphasizes the importance of partnership and cooperation for the advancement of the FBI’s mission.

There are few leadership positions more central to keeping the American people safe than the Director of the FBI.

The Director is responsible for advancing the FBI’s mission to protect the American people and uphold the Constitution of the United States.

The Director is responsible for leading the Bureau’s 38,000 employees, across the country and around the world, as they disrupt complex plots and prevent crises before they occur.

The Director is responsible for ensuring that the Bureau fills its essential purpose as the connective tissue between the intelligence community, state and local law enforcement agencies, and our international law enforcement partners.

And the FBI Director is responsible for protecting the independence of the FBI from inappropriate influence in its investigations.

That independence is central to preserving the rule of law and to protecting the freedoms we as Americans hold dear.

Through every high-profile investigation, every risky operation, and every difficult decision, Director Wray has fulfilled those responsibilities with integrity and skill.

Director Wray, throughout your long and distinguished career in public service, you have advanced the Justice Department’s central responsibility to uphold the rule of law.

You have made certain that we treat like cases alike.

You have ensured there is not one rule for the powerful and another rule for the powerless, one rule for friends and another for foes.

You have ensured that we have only one rule: to follow the facts and apply the law in a way that respects the Constitution and protects civil liberties.

Our country owes you a debt of gratitude.

We also owe a debt of gratitude to Director Wray’s family.

You were a constant source of strength and support. When our country needed Director Wray, you made it possible for him to answer the call. Thank you so much.

Director Wray, thank you on behalf of the FBI agents and employees whose respect and admiration you have more than earned.

Thank you on behalf of the entire Department of Justice, whose mission to uphold the rule of law, to keep our country safe, and to protect civil rights you have so greatly advanced.

And thank you on behalf of the American people, whom you have served so honorably.

Director Wray, in recognition of your outstanding service to the Justice Department, I am pleased to give you highest award I can bestow — the Edmund J. Randolph Award, named for the first Attorney General of the United States.

The inscription reads:

Edmund J. Randolph Award 
Presented to 
The Honorable Christopher Wray 
FBI Director
U.S. Department of Justice
In recognition of your outstanding service to the U.S. Department of Justice and the Nation 
January 2025, Washington, D.C. Merrick Garland, Attorney General.

Thank you.