.
Feedback

Six LI Men Charged in False Tax Return Scheme

Accused men used addresses in Lindenhurst, Patchogue and West Babylon among others.

Six men from Long Island were accused of using stolen Social Security numbers to file thousands of false income tax returns worth up to $73 million, according to the United States Attorney's Office.

Luis Aquino, also known as “The Doctor,” of Freeport; Johans Cabrera, also known as “Life,” of Copiague; Randy Fernandez, of Copiague; Michael Figat, of Shirley; Ancelmo Rodriguez, of Copiague; and Carlos Soto, of Massapequa were all charged in three separate indictments.

According to a release from the Attorney's Office, the accused exploited tax laws that excuse Puerto Rican citizens from having to file federal income tax returns as long as they make their income within the island's boundaries. The accused illegally obtained identification information for Puerto Rican citizens, including names, birthdays and Social Security numbers, and filed large claim refunds with the IRS.

After filing the claims, the accused allegedly bribed Postal Office workers to intercept the refund checks mailed and later cashed the checks at check-cashing services. The three cases combined included over 11,000 false income tax returns.

Currently, only Rodriguez and Cabrera remain at large.

“The integrity of a federal employee cannot be bought or sold," said United States Postal Service Inspector General Special Agent-in-Charge Rafael Medina. "Our office aggressively investigates allegations of public corruption, and any postal employee who misuse their position of trust for personal gain should understand that the they will be arrested.”

In one of the cases, United States v. Michael Figat, Figat allegedly filed over 3,700 false tax returns seeking refunds of nearly $26.5 million. Checks that were mailed in this scheme were sent to addresses in Shirley, Patchogue, Lindenhurst and West Babylon. According to the release, Figat bribed several USPS employees to remove the checks from the mailboxes they were originally sent to.

Figat faces up to 107 years in prison if convicted.

Another case, involving Fernandez, Rodriguez and Soto, also used addresses in Amityville, Brentwood, Central Islip, Copiague, Lindenhurst and Wyandanch to complete their scheme to seek refunds totaling nearly $12 million. The three are also charged with bribing an employee of a check-cashing service to cash several of the refund checks.

The three men could each face a maximum sentence of 25 years in prison if convicted.

Aquino, Fernandez and Soto were arraigned on Thursday afternoon at the U.S. Courthouse in Central Islip. Figat will be arraigned at the courthouse in Central Islip on December 27th.

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Babylon Village Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Loading comments ...
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Adam Crowley May 15, 2013 at 06:53 pm
As I explained, my post was made on behalf of another village resident. However, I did take theRead More time to read the statute and do have an independent viewpoint on this subject. While I do not feel that all dogs require a muzzle at all times, if you have a dog that you know to be a threat to other dogs or humans, you would have a duty to take measures to eliminate that threat before bring that dog into public. If that measure is a muzzle, then that's what must be done. As my post indicated, I believe strict enforcement would be exceedingly difficult and, perhaps, unnecessary (at least with respect to the muzzle requirement). However, a total lack of enforcement is dangerous and unacceptable. I think a little common sense goes a long way and I have confidence that those charged with enforcing the Village code could do so selectively. I understand that selective enforcement may be a concept that many feel uncomfortable with. However, just because the law requires a muzzle, that is hardly a reason to disregard it in its entirety and allow dogs with vicious propensities to roam around unleashed. I will leave it up to Village lawmakers to remove the muzzle requirement (and suggest that they do so) if that is what it would take to make people comfortable with the leash requirement.
Concerned Citizen May 15, 2013 at 05:37 pm
Did you read the law? unless it be properly muzzled and effectively restrained by a chain or leashRead More I'll bet neither dog was muzzled Do you really want them to enforce this law