OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO PRECLUDE Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion to Strike Allegations From the Indictment and to Preclude Evidence Related to Those Allegations and Motion to Suppress Evidence Obtained Pursuant to a Search Warrant (ECF No. 64). Specifically, the Defendant seeks to preclude two categories of evidence: first, her invocation of her Fifth Amendment privilege on her 2010-2015 tax returns; and, second, her alleged withholding of documents in response to a grand jury subpoena from approximately 2014 to 2017. For separate, but related reasons discussed in further detail below, the first category of evidence at issue is easily subject to preclusion, while the second category, though more analytically rigorous, ultimately must be precluded as well. Thus, Defendant’s motion to preclude is GRANTED. For reasons also set forth below, Defendant’s motion to strike is rendered academic, and is thus DENIED as moot. In addition, for the reasons set forth on the record at the February 9, 2018 status conference and in subsequent written orders, the Court reserves ruling on the suppression portion of Defendant’s motion.BACKGROUNDOn July 26, 2016, the Government filed a two-count indictment charging the Defendant with obstructing and impeding the due administration of the Internal Revenue Laws (26 U.S.C. §7212(a)) and subscribing to a false and fraudulent U.S. Individual Income Tax Return (26 U.S.C. §7206(1)). Indictment (ECF No. 1). On September 14, 2017, a three-count superseding indictment was filed, adding some facts and one count of conspiracy to, among other things, defraud the United States (18 U.S.C. §371). Superseding Indictment (ECF No. 59-1). These charges allege that Defendant and others unlawfully hid Defendant’s foreign bank accounts from the IRS from approximately 2003 to 2017. The following factual summary is, in large part, derived from the brief filed by the Government in opposition to this motion, duplicating significant portions verbatim.I. The Primary AllegationsIn 2003, Defendant’s father died and left her an inheritance of over $4 million. Id.
23-25, 29, 34. The Defendant, who was also executor of her father’s estate, made court filings falsely stating under penalty of perjury that the total value of her father’s estate was under $1 million when, in fact, it was more than four times that amount. Id. In 2006, the Defendant sought the help of Beda Singenberger, a Swiss citizen who ran a financial advisory firm, to open a Swiss bank account into which the inheritance was deposited. Id.34. To conceal the existence of the account, the Defendant and Singenberger established a trust in Lichtenstein named Gestino Stiftung (“Gestino” or “Gestino Foundation”) to hold the Swiss bank account in its name. Id. As of December 31, 2008, the account held currency and financial instruments valued at approximately $3,548,380. Id.41. In 2010, Gestino re-domiciled from Lichtenstein to Panama. Id.
