Close this search box.
Home High profile A judge rejected Hunter Biden’s attempt to dismiss his tax case, saying there is little proof of unfair prosecution and that comparing his case to Roger Stone’s doesn’t hold up

A judge rejected Hunter Biden’s attempt to dismiss his tax case, saying there is little proof of unfair prosecution and that comparing his case to Roger Stone’s doesn’t hold up

Hunter Biden made eight motions to dismiss his federal tax prosecution, but none of them were successful.

Share Article:

Hunter Biden, Roger Stone

(Left) Hunter Biden (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite), (right) Roger Stone (Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

The son of President Joe Biden Hunter Biden made eight attempts to dismiss his federal tax case, but none of them were successful, especially his claims of selective and vindictive prosecution.

A federal judge on the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California denied Biden’s various motions to dismiss, starting with his complaint about special counsel David Weiss and the plea agreement that fell apart last year..

U.S. District Judge Mark Scarsi rejected the theory that the canceled diversion agreement granted Biden immunity from prosecution. He also dismissed defense arguments that Weiss was unlawfully appointed as special counsel and unlawfully funded. The judge then spent a lot of time dismantling the defendant’s claims that he’s being treated differently because other tax cases have been resolved civilly rather than criminally.

One civil tax case highlighted by the defense involved Donald Trump confidant Roger Stone, but the judge said it was not a fair comparison based on Biden’s alleged “criminal intent” or willful failure to pay “at least $1.4 million in self-assessed federal taxes he owed for tax years 2016 through 2019.”

“In essence, Defendant argues that because most people do not suffer criminal charges for failing to pay taxes on time, he should not either,” Scarsi wrote. “But adopting Defendant’s position would ignore the numerous meaningful allegations about Defendant’s criminal intent that are not necessarily shared by other taxpayers who do not timely pay income tax, including the Shaughnessys and Stones.”

The judge said that Biden’s attempt to show he and Stone were “similarly situated” is clearly undercut by the differences in the allegations involved.

“Nothing in the record of the civil cases, let alone in the circumstances of the ‘countless others’ the Government declines to prosecute, provides an inference that these individuals are similarly situated to Defendant with regard to indicia of criminal intent,” Scarsi wrote. “Obviously, Stone and Shaughnessy were civil cases; intent was not a material element of the nonpayment counts at issue.”

Hunter Biden’s “rhetorical” appeal to former Obama administration U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s CNN appearance last December did not help advance his selective prosecution claims.

“If anything, Mr. Holder’s statements suggest he holds an opinion in tension with Defendant’s: Mr. Holder expressly declined to state that Mr. Weiss was ‘doing anything inappropriate,’ and he noted that Defendant’s actions went beyond ‘some kind of ordinary run-of-the-mill tax case,'” the judge said. “None of this amounts to the kind of clear evidence necessary to support Defendant’s claim of selective prosecution.”

The judge also said the defense had only conjecture to support their “thin” circumstantial claims that “animus” — i.e., vindictiveness — played a role in the indictment, no matter what House Oversight Committee Chairman Rep. James Comer, R-Ky., has said to take credit for the prosecution.

The judge dismissed Defendant's emphasis on Messrs. Comer and Smith's public statements influencing the prosecution, stating that politicians often take credit for things they didn't actually affect. Even if someone claims to have influenced a prosecutorial decision, it doesn't mean they actually did.

Biden's compilation of news articles and statements from congressional proceedings to create a timeline of events didn't meet the requirements to dismiss the indictment on these grounds. The judge referenced a Ninth Circuit case that rejected a claim of 'appearance-of-vindictiveness' based on the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy.

Scarsi stated that he wouldn't approve a motion with 'virtually no evidence' to permit discovery on this issue.

The judge also rejected Hunter Biden's claims that the case should be dismissed based on IRS whistleblowers Gary Shapley and Joseph Ziegler disclosing his tax return information publicly. Despite Biden's assertion that these actions were 'outrageous government conduct,' Scarsi disagreed.

The judge stated that Shapley and Ziegler's alleged public disclosures of confidential information, even if assumed to be 'deeply troubling,' do not reach the level of other recognized bases for dismissal.

The judge, appointed by Trump, also dismissed Biden's challenge of the case venue and a challenge of the indictment for failing to state a claim.

Read the order here.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Criminal Time is a media organization, we provide regular reports, crime bulletins, crime scene photos, analysis, data, investigations and crime related news.

Our work is costly and high risk. Please support our mission investigating organized crime.

By topic

By country

By person

Criminal Time

© 2024 Criminal Time.

Powered by WordPress VIP