gene francis haas, ) denis arthur dupuis, and ) robert...

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

October 2005 Grand Jury

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ))

Plaintiff, ))

v. ))

GENE FRANCIS HAAS, )DENIS ARTHUR DUPUIS, and )ROBERT GENE CABLE, )

)Defendants. )

______________________________)

CR No. 06-

I N D I C T M E N T

[18 U.S.C. § 371: Conspiracy;26 U.S.C. § 7206(1):Subscribing to a False TaxReturn; 18 U.S.C. § 1343: WireFraud; 18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(3):Intimidation of a Witness withIntent to PreventCommunication Relating to aPossible Federal Offense; 18U.S.C. § 2: Aiding andAbetting and Causing an Act toBe Done]

[UNDER SEAL]

The Grand Jury charges:

INTRODUCTORY ALLEGATIONS

The Defendants

1. During the years 2000 and 2001, defendant GENE FRANCIS

HAAS (“HAAS”), a resident of Camarillo, California, solely owned

and operated the following entities: HAAS Automation, Inc.,

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

(“Automation”), an S-Corporation, and CNC, Inc., (“CNC”), a C-

Corporation. Automation is a leading manufacturer of large

Computer Numeric Controlled machine tools. CNC is in the

business of financing and leasing Automation machine tools.

Automation and CNC are both located in Oxnard, California.

2. During the years 2000 and 2001, defendant DENIS ARTHUR

DUPUIS (“DUPUIS”), a resident of Newbury Park, California, was

employed as Automation’s general manager.

3. During the years 2000 and 2001, defendant ROBERT GENE

CABLE (“CABLE”), a resident of La Crescenta, California, and a

former salesman for Automation, owned and operated Enmark &

Associates, Inc., doing business as (“dba”) Enmark Aerospace

(“Enmark”), located in Valencia, California.

4. Unindicted co-conspirator J.P. was employed as

Automation’s controller from at least January, 2000 until

approximately March, 2001.

5. Unindicted co-conspirator K.G. was employed as

Automation’s accounting manager until approximately July, 2001,

when K.G. was then employed as Automation’s controller.

6. During 2000 and 2001, unindicted co-conspirator C.T., a

resident of Minden, Nevada, owned and operated Supermill, Inc.,

(“Supermill”), a company located in Carson City, Nevada.

Hurco, Inc., Patent-Infringement Lawsuit

7. In approximately August 2000, defendant HAAS paid

approximately $8.9 million, plus legal fees, to settle a long

fought, Federal patent-infringement lawsuit brought against

Automation and defendant HAAS by IMS Technology, Inc., (“Hurco,

Inc.”), in United States District Court.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

8. Defendant HAAS blamed the Federal Judge who presided

over the Hurco, Inc., lawsuit for the loss of the patent-

infringement case, and in approximately September 2000, defendant

HAAS directed defendant DUPUIS and unindicted co-conspirator J.P.

to get the $8.9 million, plus legal fees, paid to Hurco, Inc.,

back from the federal government. As a result, defendants HAAS

and DUPUIS, and unindicted co-conspirator J.P. created various

tax fraud schemes to enable defendant HAAS to recover from the

U.S. government the $8.9 million, plus legal fees, paid to Hurco,

Inc.

Bogus Invoices

9. One of the tax fraud schemes created by defendant DUPUIS

and unindicted co-conspirator J.P. at defendant HAAS’s direction

involved defendant HAAS’s’ payment of bogus invoices with

Automation checks for the fictitious purchases of equipment from

two conspiring companies, Enmark, owned by defendant CABLE, and

Supermill, owned by unindicted co-conspirator C.T. Defendant

HAAS arranged for defendant CABLE’s and unindicted co-conspirator

C.T.’s involvement in the bogus invoice tax fraud scheme.

10. Bogus invoices, purchase orders, and receiving

documents were created for the alleged purchases of “weldments”,

“gantry bases”, or other large steel equipment by Automation from

Enmark and Supermill, and defendant HAAS either signed, or caused

to be endorsed by his stamp signature, the Automation checks made

payable to Enmark and Supermill for payments on the bogus

invoices.

11. Although, as defendants HAAS, DUPUIS, and CABLE, and

unindicted co-conspirators J.P. and C.T. well knew, no

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

“weldments”, “gantry bases”, or other equipment were actually

being delivered or purchased, Automation paid the amounts on each

invoice, which ranged from $225,000 to $998,000, by issuing

checks to Enmark and Supermill, and claimed the payments of such

bogus invoices on Automation’s financial books as false expenses,

specifically, false “costs of goods sold”.

12. Enmark and Supermill returned checks for, in most

instances, approximately 98% of the amount paid by Automation on

each invoice. The Enmark and Supermill checks were made payable

to HAAS’s 100% owned, C-Corporation, CNC, and such return checks

were disguised as non-taxable transactions, i.e., either as

“paid-in-capital” or as “loans from shareholder.”

13. In 2000, defendant CABLE, on behalf of Enmark, received

and cashed at least $14,730,480 in Automation checks authorized

by defendant HAAS in furtherance of the bogus invoice scheme.

Defendant CABLE returned approximately 98% of the $14,730,480 to

defendant HAAS either personally or through CNC, defendant HAAS’s

100% owned C-Corporation, and defendant CABLE retained the 2%

difference.

14. In 2000, unindicted co-conspirator C.T., on behalf of

Supermill, received and cashed at least $8,925,000 in Automation

checks authorized by defendant HAAS in furtherance of the bogus

invoice scheme. Unindicted co-conspirator C.T. returned

approximately 98-99% of the $8,925,000 to defendant HAAS either

personally or through CNC, defendant HAAS’s 100% owned C-

Corporation, and unindicted co-conspirator C.T. retained the 1-2%

difference.

15. In 2001, after unindicted co-conspirator J.P. withdrew

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

5

from the conspiracy and left the employment of Automation,

defendant DUPUIS directed unindicted co-conspirator K.G., who

replaced J.P. as Automation’s controller, to continue with the

bogus invoice scheme with Enmark and Supermill.

16. In 2001, defendant CABLE, on behalf of Enmark, received

and cashed at least $10,978,000 in Automation checks authorized

by defendant HAAS in furtherance of the bogus invoice scheme.

Defendant CABLE returned approximately 98% of the $10,978,000 to

defendant HAAS either personally or through CNC, defendant HAAS’s

100% owned C-Corporation, and defendant CABLE retained the 2%

difference.

17. In 2001, unindicted co-conspirator C.T., on behalf of

Supermill, received and cashed at least $2,929,634 in Automation

checks authorized by defendant HAAS in furtherance of the bogus

invoice scheme. Unindicted co-conspirator C.T. returned

approximately 98-99% of the $2,929,634 to defendant HAAS either

personally or through CNC, defendant HAAS’s 100% owned C-

Corporation, and unindicted co-conspirator C.T. retained the 1-2%

difference.

False Expenses For Overpayments and Returned Payments

18. During 2000 and 2001, additional tax fraud schemes were

created as a consequence of defendant HAAS’s directions to

defendant DUPUIS and unindicted co-conspirator J.P. to create tax

fraud schemes. One such scheme involved defendant HAAS’s’

authorizing the overpayment of purchases of goods from non-

conspiring companies by Automation.

19. Defendants HAAS and DUPUIS, unindicted co-conspirator

J.P., and others known and unknown to the grand jury caused

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

6

checks or wire transfers to be issued from Automation to non-

conspiring companies in amounts significantly greater than the

true purchase prices of the goods being purchased. Defendants

HAAS and DUPUIS, and unindicted co-conspirator J.P., caused not

only the true purchase prices of the purchases to be paid, but

also the amounts overpaid to be fraudulently claimed on

Automation’s financial records as expenses, specifically, as

falsely inflated “costs of goods sold.”

20. For the most part, the non-conspiring companies were

directed by unindicted co-conspirator J.P. and others known and

unknown to the grand jury to return the overpayments by issuing

non-conspiring company checks or wire transfers which defendants

HAAS and DUPUIS and others known and unknown to the grand jury

caused to be deposited into bank accounts other than Automation’s

bank account, such as defendant HAAS’s personal bank accounts, or

to CNC’s bank account.

21. Another, similar tax fraud scheme involved claiming as

false expenses on Automation’s 2000 and 2001 financial records

payments made by Automation to C.C.M., a NASCAR race team, and

C.Title, a title company, (“100% returns”), even though

defendants HAAS and DUPUIS caused 100% of such payments to be

returned from C.C.M. and C.Title.


J.P., and others known and unknown to the grand jury caused the

returned payments from C.C.M. and C.Title to be deposited into

bank accounts other than Automation’s bank account.

23. In 2000, defendants HAAS and DUPUIS, and others both

known and unknown to the grand jury, created additional false

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

7

expenses for Automation by the overpayments and the “100%

returns” payments of at least $7,088,337.

24. In 2001, defendant HAAS and DUPUIS, and others both

known and unknown to the grand jury, created additional false

expenses for Automation by the overpayments and the “100%

returns” of at least $5,215,000.

Defendant HAAS’s Individual Tax Returns

25. Defendant HAAS claimed at least $30 million in false

expenses on Automation’s 2000 U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return

(Form 1120S), which falsely reduced Automation’s net profit by at

least $30 million, and the falsely reduced net profits then

flowed through to defendant HAAS’s U.S. Individual Income Tax

Return (1040) causing defendant HAAS’s personal income tax

liability for the 2000 tax year to be falsely reduced by at least

$12.5 million.

26. Defendant HAAS claimed at least $19 million in false

expenses on Automation’s 2001 U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return

(Form 1120S), which falsely reduced Automation’s net profit by at

least $19 million, and the falsely reduced net profits then

flowed through to defendant HAAS’s U.S. Individual Income Tax

Return (1040) causing defendant HAAS’s personal income tax

liabilities for the 2001 tax year to be falsely reduced by at

least $7.7 million.

Wire Fraud

27. In February 2001, defendant CABLE, on behalf of Enmark,

executed a Promissory Note (“Note”) for $300,000 with Pendragon

Staffing, Inc. (“Pendragon”), a Texas company owned and operated

by A.G. Pursuant to the Note, defendant CABLE, on behalf of

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

8

Enmark, agreed to repay the $300,000 loan by paying Pendragon

twenty (20) regular monthly payments of $15,000 plus interest,

commencing in April 2001.

28. In June 2000, defendant CABLE, on behalf of Enmark,

also entered into a Technical Services Agreement (“TSA”) with

Pendragon. Pursuant to the TSA, Pendragon agreed to provide

Enmark with professional, technical and craft personnel. In

exchange, Enmark agreed to pay weekly invoices for the

professional, technical and craft personnel provided by

Pendragon.

29. In order to induce A.G. and Pendragon to enter into the

loan agreement, defendant CABLE, on behalf of Enmark, provided

A.G. and Pendragon with financial statements which included as

revenue the $25,708,480 Enmark received from Automation in 2000

and 2001 pursuant to the bogus invoice scheme. In reality,

however, defendant CABLE well knew that approximately 98% of the

$25,708,480 was returned to defendant HAAS’s 100% owned C-

Corporation, CNC, pursuant to the bogus invoice scheme, that such

funds did not represent actual revenue of Enmark, and that Enmark

had little, if any, revenue.

30. In April 2001, defendant CABLE, on behalf of Enmark,

defaulted on the Note and TSA. As a result, Pendragon commenced

legal proceedings against defendant CABLE and Enmark in Los

Angeles Superior Court to recover approximately $836,298 Enmark

allegedly owed to Pendragon on the defaulted Note and TSA.

31. In June 2001, Pendragon obtained a temporary

restraining order (“TRO”) against defendant CABLE and Enmark.

Pursuant to the TRO, defendant CABLE and Enmark were restrained

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

9

from, among other things, disposing of any of Enmark’s accounts

receivable without the written approval of A.G.

32. In June 2001, defendant CABLE, on behalf of Enmark,

received an Automation check for $998,000 made payable to Enmark

pursuant to the bogus invoice scheme.

33. In June 2001, and subsequent to the issuance of

the TRO, defendant CABLE sent a copy of the Automation check for

$998,000 made payable to Enmark to A.G. via facsimile.

34. In June and July 2001, defendant CABLE sent A.G. a

series of e-mails requesting A.G.’s written approval for Enmark

to exchange an Enmark payment with defendant HAAS’s 100% owned C-

Corporation, CNC, for the Automation check for $998,000 made

payable to Enmark, which defendant CABLE sought to do in order to

continue Enmark’s participation in the bogus invoice scheme.

35. In reply e-mails, A.G. repeatedly refused to approve

defendant CABLE’s e-mail requests to allow Enmark to exchange an

Enmark payment with CNC for the Automation check for $998,000

made payable to Enmark. In addition, A.G. repeatedly told

defendant CABLE that Enmark was required to deposit the

Automation check for $998,000 made payable to Enmark into

Enmark’s business bank account pursuant to the TRO, and

repeatedly requested defendant CABLE to do so. However, despite

these requests, defendant CABLE failed to deposit the Automation

check for $998,000 made payable to Enmark into Enmark’s business

bank account.

36. In July 2001, defendant CABLE sent A.G. an e-mail

stating that if A.G. would allow Enmark to continue exchanging

Enmark checks with CNC for Automation checks made payable to

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

10

Enmark, pursuant to the bogus invoice scheme, through October

2001, defendant CABLE, on behalf of Enmark, would be able to

fully repay A.G. and Pendragon the amount owed to Pendragon on

the defaulted Note and TSA. However, when defendant CABLE made

such representation to A.G., defendant CABLE well knew that he

would not be able to repay such amounts to A.G. and Pendragon by

such time, even if A.G. allowed Enmark to exchange such payments

with CNC.

37. In August 2001, following a meeting involving defendant

HAAS and counsel for A.G. and Pendragon, Pendragon commenced

further legal proceedings in Los Angeles Superior Court against

defendant CABLE, Enmark, Automation, defendant HAAS and CNC,

seeking, among other things, to recover approximately $836,298

Enmark allegedly owed to PENDGRAGON on the defaulted Note and

TSA.

38. In August 2001, defendant HAAS, on behalf of himself,

his 100% owned C-Corporation, CNC, and Automation, signed a

settlement agreement with Pendragon in connection with the

lawsuit filed against Automation, defendant HAAS, and CNC.

Pursuant to the terms of that settlement agreement, defendant

HAAS, on behalf of himself, his 100% owned C-Corporation, CNC,

and Automation, agreed to pay PENDGRAGON $525,000 to settle the

case. In addition, in the settlement agreement PENDGRAGON agreed

to assign its claims against defendant CABLE and Enmark on the

defaulted Note and TSA to defendant HAAS.

39. In August 2001, in accordance with the settlement

agreement, defendant DUPUIS delivered to counsel for Pendragon a

$525,000 cashier’s check made payable to Pendragon.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

11

40. These introductory allegations are re-alleged in Counts

One through Eleven of this indictment.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

12

COUNT ONE

[18 U.S.C. § 371]

[DEFENDANTS GENE FRANCIS HAAS,

DENIS ARTHUR DUPUIS, ROBERT GENE CABLE;

The Enmark Conspiracy]

I. OBJECT OF THE CONSPIRACY

Beginning on a date unknown, but at least as early as

September 2000 and continuing to at least on or about October

2002, in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties, within the Central

District of California and elsewhere, defendants GENE FRANCIS

HAAS (“HAAS”), DENIS ARTHUR DUPUIS (“DUPUIS”), and ROBERT GENE

CABLE (“CABLE”), and other persons both known and unknown to the

grand jury, conspired and agreed with each other to knowingly and

with the intent to defraud the United States, for the purpose of

impeding, impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful

Government functions of the Internal Revenue Service of the

Treasury Department in the ascertainment, computation, assessment

and collection of the revenue, namely: income taxes, in violation

of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.

II. MEANS BY WHICH THE OBJECT OF THE CONSPIRACY WAS TO BE

ACCOMPLISHED

The object of the conspiracy was to be accomplished in

substance, as follows:

1. During the years 2000 and 2001, defendants HAAS and

DUPUIS, and others known and unknown to the grand jury, devised a

scheme to issue payments by Automation, a company solely owned by

defendant HAAS, for bogus purchases to create false business

expenses for Automation for the purpose of evading defendant

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

13

HAAS’s personal federal income tax liabilities.

2. To facilitate this tax fraud scheme, defendant HAAS

recruited defendants CABLE, DUPUIS, and unindicted co-conspirator

J.P. to participate in the tax fraud conspiracy.

3. To facilitate the continuation of this tax fraud scheme,

defendant DUPUIS recruited unindicted co-conspirator K.G. to

participate in the tax fraud conspiracy after unindicted co-

conspirator J.P. withdrew from the tax fraud conspiracy.

4. Defendants HAAS, DUPUIS, and CABLE, and others known and

unknown to the grand jury, caused false purchase orders and

receiving documents to be created to provide the appearance that

Automation was purchasing goods, identified in large part as

weldments, from Enmark, a company solely owned by defendant

CABLE.


unknown to the grand jury, caused false invoices and false

packing slips to be prepared from Enmark to Automation to further

provide the appearance that Automation was purchasing goods,

identified in large part as weldments, from Enmark.


unknown to the grand jury, agreed to cause Automation checks to

be issued to Enmark in exchange for checks from Enmark returning

98% of the amounts of the Automation checks.

7. Defendants HAAS and DUPUIS, and others known and unknown

to the grand jury, caused the Automation checks which were issued

to Enmark to be fraudulently booked on Automation’s 2000 and 2001

financial records as cost of goods expenses.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

14

unknown to the grand jury, agreed that defendant CABLE would

retain 2% of the Automation checks in exchange for returning the

remaining 98% with Enmark checks issued to CNC, another company

solely owned by defendant HAAS.


to the grand jury, caused the Enmark checks made payable to CNC

to be deposited into CNC’s bank account or into defendant HAAS’s

personal trust bank account.

10. Defendants HAAS and DUPUIS, and others known and

unknown to the grand jury, caused the falsely inflated cost of

goods expenses from the Automation checks to Enmark to be

fraudulently claimed as cost of goods expenses on Automation’s

2000 and 2001 U.S. Corporation Income Tax Returns, thereby

decreasing Automation’s reportable net income, as well as

decreasing defendant HAAS’s individual income tax liabilities on

defendant HAAS’s 2000 and 2001 U.S. Individual Income Tax

Returns.

11. The exchange of Automation and Enmark checks by

defendants HAAS, DUPUIS, and CABLE, and others known and unknown

to the grand jury, caused Automation’s 2000 and 2001 U.S.

Corporation Income tax returns to claim falsely inflated cost of

goods expenses from the false Enmark transactions in the amounts

of at least $14,730,480 in 2000 and $10,978,000 in 2001.

12. The falsely inflated cost of goods expenses claimed by

defendant HAAS on Automation’s 2000 and 2001 U.S. Corporation

Income Tax Returns with regard to the false Enmark transactions

fraudulently reduced the reportable net income of Automation,

which flowed through to defendant HAAS’s 2000 and 2001 U.S.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

15

Individual Income Tax Returns so as to fraudulently reduce

defendant HAAS’s personal income tax liabilities for the years

2000 and 2001 in the amounts of at least $6,008,269 in 2000 and

$4,421,170 in 2001.

13. Defendant HAAS signed the U.S. Federal Income Tax

Returns for Automation and for defendant HAAS for the years 2000

and 2001 and caused them to be filed with the Internal Revenue

Service.

III. OVERT ACTS

In furtherance of the conspiracy and to accomplish the

object of the conspiracy, defendants HAAS, DUPUIS, and CABLE, and

others known and unknown to the grand jury, committed the

following overt acts, among others, in Los Angeles and Ventura

Counties, within the Central District of California and

elsewhere, on or about the following dates:

Automation CHECK NUMBER 162814 ($998,000)

1. On or about October 18, 2000, defendant CABLE caused the

preparation of Enmark Invoice #2001018 to Automation in the

amount of $998,000.


preparation of Enmark Packing List relating to Invoice #2001018.

3. On a date unknown but on or before October 19, 2000,

defendants HAAS and DUPUIS caused the preparation of Automation

Purchase Order 840226 for an alleged purchase of 200 weldments

for $998,000 from Enmark.

4. On or about October 19, 2000, defendants HAAS and DUPUIS

caused the creation of an Automation Receiving Document for 200

weldments from Enmark.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

16


caused the preparation of Automation check #162814, in the amount

of $998,000, made payable to Enmark.

6. On or about October 19, 2000, defendant HAAS caused his

name to be stamped as an endorsement on Automation check #162814.


caused the amount of $998,000 to be booked as cost of goods

expense on Automation’s 2000 financial records.


preparation of Enmark check #2064, in the amount of $978,040,

made payable to CNC.

9. On or about October 19, 2000, defendant CABLE signed

Enmark check #2064.

10. On or about October 19, 2000, defendants HAAS and

DUPUIS caused Automation check #162814 to be provided to

defendant CABLE.

11. On or about October 20, 2000, defendant CABLE caused

Automation check #162814 to be deposited into Enmark’s bank

account.

12. On a date unknown but on or between October 19, 2000,

and November 2, 2000, defendant CABLE provided defendants HAAS

and DUPUIS, and others known and unknown to the grand jury, with

Enmark check #2064.

13. On or about November 2, 2000, defendants HAAS and

DUPUIS caused Enmark check #2064 to be deposited into CNC’s bank

account.


14. On or about November 1, 2000, defendant CABLE caused

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

17

the preparation of Enmark Invoice #2001102 to Automation in the

amount of $978,040.

15. On a date unknown but on or before November 2, 2000,

defendants HAAS and DUPUIS caused Automation Purchase Order

840226 to reflect an alleged purchase of 196 weldments for

$978,040 from Enmark.

16. On or about November 2, 2000, in Oxnard, California,

defendants HAAS and DUPUIS caused the amount of $978,040 to be

booked as cost of goods expense on Automation’s 2000 financial

records.


the preparation of Enmark check #2087, in the amount of $958,480,


18. On or about November 3, 2000, defendant CABLE signed

Enmark check #2087.


DUPUIS caused the preparation of Automation check #158791 in the

amount of $978,040, made payable to Enmark.

20. On or about November 3, 2000, defendant HAAS signed his

name as an endorsement on Automation check #158791.



defendant CABLE.



account.

23. On a date unknown but sometime between November 3, 2000

and November 16, 2000, defendant CABLE provided defendants HAAS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

18

and DUPUIS, and others known and unknown to the grand jury, with

Enmark check #2087, in the amount of $958,480, made payable to

CNC.



account.


25. On or about December 5, 2000, defendant CABLE caused

the preparation of Enmark invoice #2001118 to Automation in the

amount of $998,000.




27. On or about December 5, 2000, defendant CABLE signed

Enmark check #3004.

28. On a date unknown but on or before December 5, 2000,

defendants HAAS and DUPUIS caused the preparation of Automation

Purchase Order 840226-2 to Enmark for the alleged purchase of

weldments.

29. On or about December 5, 2000, defendants HAAS and



30. On or about December 5, 2000, defendant HAAS signed his




defendant CABLE.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

19

DUPUIS caused the amount of $998,000 to be booked as cost of

goods expense on Automation’s 2000 financial records.



account.

34. On or about December 5, 2000 defendant CABLE provided

defendants HAAS and DUPUIS, and others known and unknown to the

grand jury, with Enmark check # 3004.



account.




amount of $998,000.


defendants HAAS and DUPUIS caused the preparation of an

Automation Purchase Order to Enmark for the alleged purchase of

200 weldments.




39. On or about December 8, 2000, defendant HAAS signed his




defendant CABLE.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

20





account.





Enmark check #3034.

45. On or about December 11, 2000, defendant CABLE provided


grand jury, with Enmark check #3034.



account.






Enmark check #3058.



amount of $958,080.




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

21




52. On or about December 26, 2000, defendant HAAS caused

his name to be stamped as an endorsement on Automation check

#158735.



defendant CABLE.



account.


defendant CABLE provided defendants HAAS and DUPUIS, and others

known and unknown to the grand jury, with Enmark check #3058, in

the amount of $939,918, made payable to CNC.



account.


57. On or about March 21, 2001, defendant DUPUIS brought

unindicted co-conspirator K.G. into the scheme by informing

unindicted co-conspirator K.G. that defendant CABLE would present

Automation with an invoice and also deliver a check, and

instructing unindicted co-conspirator K.G. that the difference

between the invoice and the check was to be 2%.

58. On or about May 12, 2001, defendant CABLE caused the

preparation of Enmark check #002, in the amount of $978,040, made

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

22

payable to CNC.

59. On or about May 12, 2001, defendant CABLE signed Enmark

check #002.

60. On or about May 14, 2001, defendant CABLE caused the

preparation of Enmark invoice #01/000242 to Automation for 200

weldments in the amount of $998,000.

61. On or about May 22, 2001, defendants HAAS and DUPUIS



62. On or about May 25, 2001, defendants HAAS and DUPUIS

caused the preparation of Automation check #175866 in the amount


63. On or about May 25, 2001, defendant HAAS caused his


64. On a date unknown but on or between May 25, 2001 and

May 30, 2001, defendants HAAS and DUPUIS caused Automation check

#175866 to be provided to defendant CABLE.

65. On or about May 30, 2001, defendant CABLE caused


account.

66. On a date unknown but on or between May 12, 2001, and

June 4, 2001, defendant CABLE provided defendants HAAS and

DUPUIS, and others known and unknown to the grand jury with

Enmark check #002.

67. On or about June 4, 2001, defendants HAAS and DUPUIS

caused Enmark check #002 to be deposited into CNC’s bank account.


68. On or about June 1, 2001, defendant CABLE caused the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

23

preparation of Enmark check #059, in the amount of $978,040, made

payable to CNC.

69. On or about June 1, 2001, defendant CABLE signed Enmark

check #059.

70. On or about June 1, 2001, defendant CABLE caused the

preparation of Enmark invoice #01/000271 to Automation in the

amount of $998,000.





caused the preparation of Automation check #176679 in the amount


73. On or about June 8, 2001, defendant HAAS caused his


74. On a date unknown but on or between June 8, 2001 and

June 12, 2001, defendants HAAS and DUPUIS caused Automation check

#176679 to be provided to defendant CABLE.

75. On or about June 12, 2001, defendant CABLE caused


account.

76. On a date unknown but on or between June 1, 2001, and

June 14, 2001, defendant CABLE provided defendants HAAS and

DUPUIS, and others known and unknown to the grand jury with

Enmark check #059.


caused Enmark check #059 to be deposited into CNC’s bank account.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

24

HAAS’s Individual Federal Tax Returns

78. On or about October 15, 2001, defendant HAAS signed and

caused to be filed HAAS’s 2000 U.S. Individual Income Tax Return.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

25

COUNT TWO

[18 U.S.C. § 371]


DENIS ARTHUR DUPUIS;

The Supermill Conspiracy]






HAAS (“HAAS”) and DENIS ARTHUR DUPUIS (“DUPUIS”), and unindicted

co-conspirator C.T. (“C.T.”) and other persons both known and

unknown to the grand jury, conspired and agreed with each other

to knowingly and with the intent to defraud the United States,

for the purpose of impeding, impairing, obstructing, and

defeating the lawful Government functions of the Internal Revenue

Service of the Treasury Department in the ascertainment,

computation, assessment and collection of the revenue, namely:

income taxes, in violation of Title 18, United States Code,

Section 371.


ACCOMPLISHED






defendant HAAS, for bogus purchases to create false business

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

26

expenses for Automation for the purpose of evading defendant

HAAS’s personal federal income tax liabilities.


recruited defendant DUPUIS, and unindicted co-conspirators C.T.

and J.P. to participate in the tax fraud conspiracy.

3. To facilitate the continuation of this tax evasion

scheme, defendant DUPUIS recruited unindicted co-conspirator K.G.

to participate in the tax fraud conspiracy after unindicted co-

conspirator J.P. withdrew from the tax fraud conspiracy.


to the grand jury, caused false purchase orders to be created to

provide the appearance that Automation was purchasing goods,

identified in large part as gantry mill bases, from Supermill, a

company solely owned by unindicted co-conspirator C.T.


to the grand jury, caused false invoices and false packing slips

and packing lists to be prepared from Supermill to Automation to

further provide the appearance that Automation was purchasing

goods, identified in large part as gantry mill bases, from

Supermill.


to the grand jury, agreed to cause Automation checks to be issued

to Supermill in exchange for checks from Supermill returning 98-

99% of the amounts of the Automation checks.


to the grand jury, caused the Automation checks which were issued

to Supermill to be fraudulently booked on Automation’s 2000 and

2001 financial records as cost of goods expenses.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

27


to the grand jury, agreed that unindicted co-conspirator C.T.

would retain 1-2% of the Automation checks in exchange for

returning the remaining 98-99% with Supermill checks issued to

CNC, another company solely owned by defendant HAAS.


to the grand jury, caused the Supermill checks made payable to

CNC to be deposited into CNC’s bank account and defendant HAAS’s

personal bank account.

10. Defendants HAAS and DUPUIS, and others known and

unknown to the grand jury caused the falsely inflated cost of

goods expenses from the Automation checks to Supermill to be


2000 and 2001 U.S. Corporation Income Tax Returns, thereby



defendant HAAS’s 2000 and 2001 U.S. Individual Income Tax

Returns.

11. The exchange of Automation and Supermill checks by

defendants HAAS and DUPUIS, unindicted co-conspirator C.T., and

others known and unknown to the grand jury, caused Automation’s

2000 and 2001 U.S. Corporation Income Tax Returns to claim

falsely inflated cost of goods expenses from the false Supermill

transactions in the amounts of at least $8,925,000 in 2000 and

$2,929,634 in 2001.

12. The falsely inflated cost of goods expenses claimed by

defendant HAAS on Automation’s 2000 and 2001 U.S. Corporation

Income Tax Returns with regard to the false Supermill

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

28

transactions fraudulently reduced the reportable net income of

Automation, which flowed through to defendant HAAS’s 2000 and

2001 U.S. Individual Income Tax Returns so as to fraudulently

reduce defendant HAAS’s personal income tax liabilities for the

years 2000 and 2001 in the amounts of at least $3,640,329 in 2000

and $1,179,851 in 2001.

13. Defendant HAAS signed the U.S. Federal Income Tax



Service.

III. OVERT ACTS


object of the conspiracy, defendants HAAS and DUPUIS, and others

known and unknown to the grand jury, committed the following

overt acts, among others, in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties,

within the Central District of California and elsewhere, on or

about the following dates:


1. On or about November 22, 2000, unindicted co-conspirator

C.T. caused the preparation of Supermill Invoice #20-7380 to

Automation in the amount of $510,000.


C.T. caused the preparation of Supermill Packing Slip relating to

Supermill Invoice #20-7380.


DUPUIS caused the preparation of Automation check #158797, in the

amount of $510,000, made payable to Supermill.

4. On or about November 22, 2000, defendant HAAS signed his

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29


5. On a date unknown but on or between November 22, 2000,

and November 27, 2000, defendants HAAS and DUPUIS caused

Automation check #158797 to be provided to unindicted co-

conspirator C.T.


C.T. caused Automation check #158797 to be deposited into

Supermill’s bank account.


C.T. caused the preparation of Supermill check #3071, in the

amount of $504,900, made payable to CNC.

8. On or about November 28 2000, unindicted co-conspirator

C.T. signed Supermill check #3071.


and November 29, 2000, unindicted co-conspirator C.T. provided


grand jury, with Supermill check #3071.


DUPUIS caused Supermill check #3071 to be deposited into CNC’s

bank account.






unindicted co-conspirator C.T. caused the preparation of

Supermill check #3110, in the amount of $930,334, made payable to

CNC.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

30


unindicted co-conspirator C.T. signed Supermill check #3110.


unindicted co-conspirator C.T. provided defendants HAAS and

DUPUIS, and others known and unknown to the grand jury, with

Supermill check #3110.



bank account.




17. On or about December 28, 2000, defendant HAAS signed

his name as an endorsement on Automation check #158752.




19. On a date unknown but on or between December 28, 2000,

and December 29, 2000, defendants HAAS and DUPUIS caused


conspirator C.T.

20. On or about December 29, 2000, unindicted co-

conspirator C.T. caused Automation check #158752 to be deposited

into Supermill’s bank account.


21. On or about October 6, 2000, unindicted co-conspirator

C.T. caused the preparation of Supermill Invoice #00-1015 to

Automation in the amount of $935,000.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

31




25. On or about December 28, 2000, defendant HAAS signed

his name as an endorsement on Automation check #158753.




27. On a date unknown but on or between December 28, 2000,

and December 29, 2000, defendants HAAS and DUPUIS caused


conspirator C.T.

28. On or about December 29, 2000, unindicted co-



29. On or before December 29, 2000, unindicted co-

conspirator C.T. caused the preparation of Supermill check #3140,

in the amount of $749,700, made payable to CNC.

30. On or before December 29, 2000, unindicted co-

conspirator C.T. signed Supermill check #3140.






DUPUIS, caused Supermill check #3140 to be deposited into CNC’s

bank account.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

32

Automation CHECK NUMBER 158766 ($1,846,634)




CNC.






CNC.













bank account.



bank account.

41. On or about January 4, 2001, defendants HAAS and DUPUIS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

33

caused the preparation of Automation check #158766, in the amount

of $1,846,634, made payable to Supermill.

42. On or about January 4, 2001, defendant HAAS signed

Automation check #158766.

43. On a date unknown but on or between January 4, 2001,

and January 5, 2001, defendants HAAS and DUPUIS caused Automation

check #158766 to be provided to unindicted co-conspirator C.T.

44. On or about January 5, 2001, unindicted co-conspirator



45. On or about January 17, 2001, defendants HAAS and

DUPUIS caused the amount of $1,846,634 to be booked as cost of









48. On or about November 2, 2001, defendant HAAS caused his





conspirator C.T.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

34


51. On or about November 12, 2001, unindicted co-

conspirator C.T. caused the preparation of Supermill check #4015,

in the amount of $223,440, made payable to CNC.


conspirator C.T. signed Supermill check #4015.






defendants HAAS and DUPUIS caused Supermill check #4105 to be

deposited into CNC’s bank account.





56. On or about November 21, 2001, defendant HAAS caused


#185899.







conspirator C.T.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

35



60. On or about December 4, 2001, unindicted co-conspirator

C.T. caused the preparation of Supermill check #4040, in the

amount of $279,300, made payable to CNC.

61. On or about December 4, 2001, unindicted co-conspirator

C.T. signed Supermill check #4040.






defendants HAAS and DUPUIS caused Supermill check #4040 to be

deposited into CNC’s bank account.

HAAS’s Individual Tax Returns





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

36

COUNT THREE

[18 U.S.C. § 371]


DENIS ARTHUR DUPUIS

The Overpayment Conspiracy]






HAAS (“HAAS”) and DENIS ARTHUR DUPUIS (“DUPUIS”), and other

persons both known and unknown to the grand jury, conspired and

agreed with each other to knowingly and with the intent to

defraud the United States, for the purpose of impeding,

impairing, obstructing, and defeating the lawful Government

functions of the Internal Revenue Service of the Treasury

Department in the ascertainment, computation, assessment and

collection of the revenue, namely: income taxes, in violation of

Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.


ACCOMPLISHED






defendant HAAS, for false expense overpayments for Automation for

the purpose of evading defendant HAAS’s personal federal income

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

37

tax liabilities.


recruited unindicted co-conspirator J.P. to participate in the

tax fraud conspiracy.


J.P. and others known and unknown to the grand jury, at defendant

HAAS’s direction authorized Automation to overpay on purchases of

goods from non-conspiring companies.

4. Defendant HAAS caused to be signed multiple Automation

checks or wire transfers to be made to non-conspiring companies

in amounts significantly greater than the true purchase prices of

the goods actually purchased by Automation.


to the grand jury, caused checks and wire transfers (“100%

returns”) to be made to non-conspiring companies, while causing

100% of such checks and wire transfers to be returned

immediately, if not simultaneously.


to the grand jury, caused the amounts of the overpaid expenses

and amounts of the “100% returns” to be fraudulently claimed on

Automation’s financial records as expenses, specifically, falsely

inflated “costs of goods sold”.

7. For the most part, the non-conspiring companies were

directed by unindicted co-conspirator J.P. and others known and

unknown to the grand jury, to return the overpayments and the

amounts of the “100% returns” by issuing non-conspiring company

checks or by making wire transfers, which defendants HAAS and

DUPUIS, and others known and unknown to the grand jury, caused to

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

38

be deposited into bank accounts other than Automation’s bank

accounts, such as defendant HAAS’s personal bank accounts, or to

CNC’s bank account.


to the grand jury, caused the falsely inflated costs of goods

expenses from the Automation checks and wires to non-conspiring

companies for the overpayments and the “100% returns” to be


2000 and 2001 U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return, thereby



defendant HAAS’s 2000 and 2001 U.S. Individual Income Tax Return.

9. The creation of additional false expenses for Automation

by defendants HAAS and DUPUIS, and others known and unknown to

the grand jury, caused Automation’s 2000 U.S. Corporation Income

Tax Return to claim falsely inflated cost of goods expenses from

the overpayments and “100% returns” transactions in the amount of

at least $7,088,337.

10. The falsely inflated cost of goods expenses claimed on

Automation’s 2000 U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return reduced the

reportable net income of Automation, which flowed through to

defendant HAAS’s 2000 Individual Income Tax Return so as to

fraudulently reduce defendant HAAS’s personal income tax

liability for the year 2000 in the amount of at least $2,891,190.

11. The creation of additional false expenses for

Automation by defendants HAAS and DUPUIS, and others known and

unknown to the grand jury, caused Automation’s 2001 U.S.

Corporation Income Tax Return to claim falsely inflated cost of

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

39

goods expenses from the “100% return” transactions in the amount

of at least $5,215,000.

12. The falsely inflated cost of goods expenses claimed on

Automation’s 2001 U.S. Corporation Income Tax Return reduced the

reportable net income of Automation, which flowed through to

defendant HAAS’s 2001 Individual Income Tax Return so as to

fraudulently reduce defendant HAAS’s personal income tax

liability for the year 2001 in the amount of at least $2,114,332.

13. Defendant HAAS signed the false U.S. Federal Income Tax



Service.

III. OVERT ACTS


object of the conspiracy, defendants HAAS and DUPUIS, and others

known and unknown to the grand jury, committed the following

overt acts, among others, in Los Angeles and Ventura Counties,

within the Central District of California and elsewhere, on the

following dates:

Automation WIRE TRANSFER ($817,876)

1. On or about September 7, 2000, defendants HAAS and

DUPUIS caused an $817,876 wire transfer from Automation’s bank to

C. Aviation’s bank, which included an overpayment of $400,000 for

the purchase of an airplane.


DUPUIS caused C. Aviation to return the overpayment of $400,000

by issuing check #031165 to Automation.


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

40

DUPUIS caused C. Aviation check #031165 to be deposited into a

bank account owned by defendant HAAS personally.






DUPUIS caused Automation check #126740 to be prepared in the

amount of $2,790,000 to C.C.M., of which $290,000 was the yearly

sponsorship for C.C.M.’s Nascar race team.

6. On or about September 12, 2000, defendant HAAS caused


#126740.


DUPUIS caused C.C.M. to to return $2,500,000 by issuing C.C.M.

check #501 to Automation.


DUPUIS caused C.C.M. check #501 to be deposited into a bank

account owned by defendant HAAS personally.


caused the amount of $2,790,000 to be booked as cost of goods


Automation WIRE TRANSFER ($2,750,000)


DUPUIS caused a $2,750,000 wire transfer from Automation’s bank

account to a bank account of C.T.C.


DUPUIS caused C.T.C. to wire $2,750,000 into CNC’s bank account.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

41






caused Automation check #159587 to be prepared in the amount of

$1,000,837 to Reis.Corp.

14. On or about October 6, 2000, defendant HAAS caused his



DUPUIS caused Mellon Bank to issue check #136245 to Reis.Corp. in

the amount of $1,686,160.00 in Swiss Francs ($963,520 in U.S.

dollars), for the purchase of a Grinding Machine.


DUPUIS caused the overpayment amount of $1,000,837 to be booked

as cost of goods expense on Automation’s 2000 financial records.


DUPUIS caused Reis.Corp. to return the overpayment amount of

$1,000,837 by issuing Reis.Corp. check #022705 to CNC.


DUPUIS caused Reis.Corp. check #022705 to be deposited into CNC’s

bank account.



caused Automation check #163602 to be prepared in the amount of

$875,000 to T.Machinery which included an overpayment of

$437,500, for the purchase of a horizontal machining center.

20. On or about October 6, 2000, defendant HAAS signed

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

42

Automation check #163602.




22. On or about December 20, 2000, defendant HAAS and

DUPUIS caused T.Machinery to return the overpayment amount of

$437,500 by issuing T.Machinery check #085952 to Automation.


DUPUIS caused T.Machinery check #085952 to be deposited into

defendant HAAS’s personal trust bank account.



DUPUIS caused Automation check #187502 to be prepared in the

amount of $5,215,000 to C.C.M.

25. On or about December 28, 2001, defendant HAAS caused


#187502.




27. On or about January 2, 2002, defendant HAAS and DUPUIS

caused C.C.M. to return $5,215,000 by issuing C.C.M. check #1209

to Haas CNC Racing, Inc.

28. On or about January 10, 2002, defendants HAAS and

DUPUIS caused C.C.M. check #1209 to be deposited into Haas CNC

RACING Inc.’s bank account.

Defendant HAAS’s Individual Tax Returns


1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

43




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

44

COUNT FOUR

[26 U.S.C. § 7206(1)]

[DEFENDANT GENE FRANCIS HAAS]

On or about October 15, 2001, in Ventura County, within the

Central District of California, defendant GENE FRANCIS HAAS

(“HAAS”), did willfully make and subscribe to a U.S. Individual

Income Tax Return, Form 1040, for the taxable year 2000, which

was verified by written declaration that it was made under the

penalties of perjury, and caused such tax return to be filed with

the Internal Revenue Service, which defendant HAAS did not

believe to be true and correct as to every material matter

contained therein, in that the tax return reported Schedule E

Income (line item 17) of $10,859,306, whereas, as defendant HAAS

then well knew and believed, that the amount of Schedule E income

required to be reported on such return was substantially greater,

and that the amount reported on line item 17 had been

substantially reduced by bogus cost of goods expenses that

defendant HAAS had caused to be falsely claimed on the 2000 U.S.

Corporation Income Tax Return, Form 1120S, of Haas Automation,

Inc.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

45

COUNT FIVE

[26 U.S.C. § 7206(1)]


On or about October 14, 2002, in Ventura County, within the

Central District of California, defendant GENE FRANCIS HAAS, did

willfully make and subscribe to a U.S. Individual Income Tax

Return, Form 1040, for the taxable year 2001, which was verified

by written declaration that it was made under the penalties of

perjury, and caused such tax return to be filed with the Internal

Revenue Service, which defendant HAAS did not believe to be true

and correct as to every material matter contained therein, in

that the tax return reported Schedule E income (line item 17) of

$7,718,584, whereas, as defendant HAAS then well knew and

believed, that the amount of reported Schedule E income required

to be reported on such return was substantially greater, and that

the amount reported on line item 17 had been substantially

reduced by bogus cost of goods expenses that defendant HAAS had

caused to be falsely claimed on the 2001 U.S. Corporation Income

Tax Return, Form 1120S, of Haas Automation, Inc.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

46

COUNTS SIX THROUGH NINE

[18 U.S.C. §§ 1343; 2]

[DEFENDANT ROBERT GENE CABLE]

I. THE SCHEME TO DEFRAUD BY WIRE COMMUNICATION

1. Beginning on or about February 21, 2001, and continuing

until approximately August 29, 2001, in Los Angeles County,

within the Central District of California and elsewhere,

defendant ROBERT GENE CABLE (“CABLE”) knowingly devised,

participated in, and executed a scheme to defraud Pendragon and

A.G., the owner and operator of Pendragon, as set forth in

paragraphs 2 through 13 below, by means of false and fraudulent

pretenses, representations, and promises, and the concealment of

material facts, knowingly caused to be transmitted certain

writings, signs, signals, pictures and sounds by means of wire

communication in interstate commerce, as described in paragraph

13 below.

2. The fraudulent scheme was carried out by defendant

CABLE in the following manner:

(a) Defendant CABLE, on behalf of Enmark, induced

Pendragon and A.G. to execute a Promissory Note (“Note”) for a

$300,000 loan by providing Pendragon and A.G. with financial

statements reflecting as revenue $25,708,480 Enmark received from

Automation in 2000 and 2001. In reality, however, defendant

CABLE well knew that approximately 98% of the $25,708,480 was

returned to defendant HAAS’s 100% owned C-corporation, CNC,

pursuant to the bogus invoice scheme, that such funds did not

represent actual revenues of Enmark, and that Enmark had little,

if any, actual revenue to repay the loan.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

47

3. To execute the above-described scheme, defendant CABLE

knowingly participated in and aided and abetted the following

materially false and misleading acts, among others, in the

Central District of California and elsewhere:

a. On or about an unknown date but on or about

February 21, 2001, defendant CABLE provided Pendragon and A.G.

with financial statements reflecting as revenue $25,708,480

Enmark received from Automation in 2000 and 2001 pursuant to the

bogus invoice scheme in order to induce Pendragon and A.G. to

enter into the loan agreement.

b. On or about February 21, 2001, defendant CABLE, on

behalf of Enmark, executed the Note for $300,000 with A.G., on

behalf of Pendragon. Pursuant to the Note, CABLE, on behalf of

Enmark, agreed to pay A.G., on behalf of Pendragon, twenty (20)

monthly payments of $15,000 plus interest, commencing on April

15, 2001.

c. On or about June 1, 2000, defendant CABLE, on

behalf of Enmark, entered into a Technical Services Agreement

(“TSA”) with A.G., on behalf of Pendragon. Pursuant to the TSA,

Pendragon agreed to provide Enmark with professional, technical

and craft personnel. In exchange, CABLE, on behalf of Enmark,

agreed to pay weekly invoices for the professional, technical and

craft personnel provided by Pendragon.

4. On or about April 15, 2001, defendant CABLE defaulted

on the Note and TSA.

5. On or about June 21, 2001, Pendragon filed a Complaint

in Los Angeles Superior Court, Case # PC 027810, against

defendant CABLE and Enmark to recover approximately $836,298 due

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

48

and owing from CABLE and Enmark on the defaulted Note and TSA.

6. On or about June 22, 2001, Pendragon obtained a

temporary restraining order (“TRO”) against defendant CABLE and

Enmark. Pursuant to the TRO, defendant CABLE and Enmark were

restrained from, among other things, disposing of any of Enmark’s

accounts receivable without the written approval of A.G.

7. On or about June 26, 2001, defendant CABLE received

Automation check # 177456 for $998,000 made payable to Enmark

pursuant to the bogus invoice scheme.

8. On or about June 26, 2001, defendant CABLE sent a copy

of Automation check # 177456 for $998,000 made payable to Enmark

to A.G. via facsimile.

9. In June and July 2001, defendant CABLE sent

A.G. a series of e-mails requesting A.G.’s written approval for

Enmark to exchange an Enmark payment with defendant HAAS’s 100%

owned C-Corporation, CNC, for Automation check # 177456 for

$998,000 made payable to Enmark, which defendant CABLE sought to

do in order to continue Enmark’s participation in the bogus

invoice scheme. In one e-mail, defendant CABLE stated that if

A.G. would allow Enmark to continue exchanging Enmark checks with

CNC for Automation checks made payable to Enmark, pursuant to the

bogus invoice scheme through October 2001, defendant CABLE, on

behalf of Enmark, would be able to fully repay A.G. and Pendragon

the amounts owed to Pendragon on the defaulted Note and TSA.

However, when defendant CABLE made that representation to A.G.,

defendant CABLE well knew that he would not be able to repay such

amounts to A.G. and Pendragon by such time, even if A.G. allowed

Enmark to exchange such payments with CNC.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

49

10. In June and July 2001, A.G. sent a series of

reply e-mails to defendant CABLE repeatedly refusing defendant

CABLE’s e-mail requests to allow Enmark to exchange and Enmark

payment with CNC for Automation check # 177456 for $998,000 made

payable to Enmark. In addition, A.G. repeatedly told defendant

CABLE that Enmark was required to deposit Automation check

# 177456 into Enmark’s business bank account pursuant to the TRO,

and repeatedly requested defendant CABLE to do so. However,

despite these requests, defendant CABLE failed to deposit

Automation check #177456 into Enmark’s business bank account.

11. On or about August 24, 2001, Pendragon filed a

Complaint in Los Angeles Superior Court, Case # PC 28206, against

defendant CABLE, Enmark, Automation, defendant HAAS and CNC,

seeking, among other things, to recover approximately $836,298 on

the defaulted Note and TSA.

12. On or about August 29, 2001, defendant HAAS, on behalf

of himself, Automation, and CNC, signed a settlement agreement

with Pendragon in connection with the Complaint filed by

Pendragon in Los Angeles Superior Court, Case # PC 28206, against

Automation, defendant HAAS and CNC. Pursuant to that settlement

agreement, defendant HAAS, on behalf of himself, Automation, and

CNC, agreed to pay Pendragon $525,000 to settle the case. In

addition, in the settlement agreement Pendragon agreed to assign

its claims against defendant CABLE and Enmark on the defaulted

Note and TSA to defendant HAAS.

II. USE OF THE WIRES

13. On or about the dates set forth below, in the Central

District of California and elsewhere, defendant CABLE, for the

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

50

purpose of executing the above described scheme to defraud and

attempting to do so, caused, and aided and abetted the

transmission of the following writings by means of wire

communications in interstate commerce, as described below:

COUNT DATE DESCRIPTION OF ITEM WIRED

SIX 6/25/01 E-mail from defendant CABLE to A.G.requesting A.G.’s approval to exchangean Enmark payment with defendant HAAS’s100% owned C-Corporation, CNC, forAutomation check #177456 for $998,000made payable to Enmark.

SEVEN 6/26/01 Facsimile of Automation check #177456for $998,000 made payable to Enmark sentto A.G.

EIGHT 6/29/01 E-mail from defendant CABLE to A.G. andMichael Perry, A.G.’s attorney,requesting approval to exchange anEnmark payment with CNC for Automationcheck # 177456 for $998,000 made payableto Enmark.

NINE 7/03/01 E-mail from defendant CABLE to A.G.requesting A.G.’s approval to allowdefendant CABLE to continue exchangingEnmark checks with CNC for Automationchecks made payable to Enmark throughOctober 2001 pursuant to the bogusinvoice scheme.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

51

COUNTS TEN AND ELEVEN

[18 U.S.C. § 1512(b)(3); 18 U.S.C. § 2]


On or the dates set forth below, in Ventura County, within

the Central District of California and elsewhere, defendant GENE

FRANCIS HAAS (“HAAS”), with the intent to hinder, delay, and

prevent communication to a law enforcement officer of information

relating to the commission and possible commission of a federal

offense, knowingly used, attempted to use, and caused the use of

intimidation, threats, and corrupt persuasion, and engaged in,

and caused others to engage in, misleading conduct.

Specifically, both before and after the Internal Revenue Service

(“IRS”) executed court-ordered search warrants at defendant

HAAS’s businesses on April 10, 2003, defendant HAAS engaged in

the following acts of intimidation, corrupt persuasion, and

misleading conduct directed toward persons who had information

relevant to the IRS’s criminal investigation.

COUNT DATE ACT OF INTIMIDATION AND MISLEADING CONDUCT

TEN 5/10/01 Defendant HAAS stated to J.P. “don’t make mehurt you” after being informed that J.P. hadprovided information to federal authorities,and had been asked to provide furtherinformation relating to defendant HAAS’scommission and possible commission of afederal offense to federal authorities.

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

52

COUNT DATE ACT OF INTIMIDATION AND MISLEADING CONDUCT

ELEVEN June 2003 Defendant HAAS directed C.T. to provide falsetestimony to the federal authorities relatingto the commission and possible commission ofa federal offense, while informing C.T. thatdefendant HAAS was letting J.P.’s “biker”friends know that J.P. was a governmentinformant while defendant HAAS stated to C.T.“I wish someone would kill him” in referenceto J.P.

A TRUE BILL

__________________________Foreperson

DEBRA WONG YANGUnited States Attorney

THOMAS P. O’BRIENAssistant United States AttorneyChief, Criminal Division

SANDRA R. BROWNAssistant United States AttorneyChief, Tax DivisionDARWIN THOMASAssistant United States AttorneyFRANK JERICHAssistant United States AttorneyTax Division

gene francis haas, ) denis arthur dupuis, and ) robert...

Documents