Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Inter-Ordnance Owners Face 100 years of Prison

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Cosmoline, Oct 1, 2004.

  1. Cosmoline

    Cosmoline Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    23,648
    Location:
    Los Anchorage
    Union Co. -- Two brothers from Union county now face additional charges for selling thousands of machine guns across the country.

    A federal grand jury charged Ulrich Wiegand and his brother Oliver with 84 counts ranging from illegally importing and selling machine guns to money laundering.


    The indictment says they hid the illegal weapons sales from the government by calling the guns "part kits."

    If convicted, the brothers face more than a hundred years in prison and millions of dollars in fines.


    http://www.wsoctv.com/news/3775732/detail.html

    Just saw this link posted by Parallax Bill over on his board. IO does a ton of import sales to C&R and other customers. I recently got a Nagant revolver from them! Of course the money laundering sounds bad, but I trust the BATFE as far as I can throw one of their cowboys. Hope they get a good lawyer!
     
  2. Chipperman

    Chipperman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    4,572
    Location:
    Essex Co, MA
    I bet ATF is carefull pawing over the records of who bought those kits, too. :cuss:
     
  3. Cosmoline

    Cosmoline Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    23,648
    Location:
    Los Anchorage
  4. Henry Bowman

    Henry Bowman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    6,717
    Location:
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    The receiver was cut up with a saw, not a torch. Therefore: big felony.

    Some on this board would say that that they broke the law and it is good to have these criminals off the street. :rolleyes: See for example this thread .
     
  5. Langenator

    Langenator Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2003
    Messages:
    2,689
    Location:
    Ft Belvoir, VA
    Now, I don't know how it works with AKs, but one some guns, such as the FNC, the semi version can be fitted with a Class III FCG (or in the FNC's case, the sear), turning it into a Class III weapon.

    Can a semi AK-klone be fitted with a select fire FCG and have it work?
     
  6. Cosmoline

    Cosmoline Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    23,648
    Location:
    Los Anchorage
    Sure, and I could rig my SAR-1 to fire out of battery and break federal law. But that's MY doing, not the doing of the guy who sold it to me. Parts kits are just parts kits. If you're planning on making them into a functoinal firearm, it's up to you to clear it with the feds. Unless they've passed a law banning the sale of torch-cut receivers, no law is being broken by selling them. You cannot be tried in criminal court for the actions of an end user of your product.
     
  7. mrapathy2000

    mrapathy2000 member

    Joined:
    Aug 4, 2003
    Messages:
    1,089
    Location:
    FrozenOver,Iowa
    actually the feds will go after you and the people that sold it to you. forget where its written but recall it being in their somewhere.

    bull???? they didnt torch cut per ATF's spec's so get this crap. who is going to weld up a sawed in half receiver.

    btw yes you could modify semi auto ak with full auto parts though requires a bit of work. new hole in receiver for new pin to house a part semi auto does not have. if caught with the hole in your receiver then supposedly the ATF will go after you.
     
  8. Wildalaska

    Wildalaska member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    5,296
    Location:
    Anchorage, Alaska
    It was cheaper to saw then to torch....they tried to save a $$ and now it will cost them....

    There is more to the whole deal than just technical violations of the NFA....there are IRS issues involved here...

    Im gonna get more Nagants bbefore they go under....

    WildlovethemlittlegunsAlaska
     
  9. Cosmoline

    Cosmoline Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    23,648
    Location:
    Los Anchorage
    Where are you seeing saw cut? All their parts kits specify TORCH CUT and to my knowledge they are torch cut.

    Besides, LOOK AT THE PRICES on the parts kits. Those prices are for collectors parts, not for illegal machine guns.

    Bah. I'm not buying it. This is more federal nonsense. More job preservation. Hope they try to convict me for my fully automatic Nagant revolver :D
     
  10. redhead

    redhead Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    278
    Location:
    Pleasant Hill, CA
    Yes, they did. The BATFE sent letters to purchasers of these parts kits over a year ago tell them that they were in possession of machine guns. They were requested to call the BATFE to arrange for an agent to pick up the parts. The FALFILEs had quite a few threads regarding this issue.
     
  11. Wildalaska

    Wildalaska member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    5,296
    Location:
    Anchorage, Alaska
    If you can full auto that Nagant revolver ya got a finger like the Hulk :)

    WildgassealAlaska
     
  12. Chipperman

    Chipperman Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    4,572
    Location:
    Essex Co, MA
    "Some on this board would say that that they broke the law and it is good to have these criminals off the street. See for example this thread ."

    Are you serious?? :scrutiny:

    There is absolutely no comparison between these cases.
     
  13. Chris Rhines

    Chris Rhines Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    3,773
    Location:
    Potomac, Maryland - Behind enemy lines!!
    When speaking of federal prosecutions, in general, the more charges the weaker the case. The tried-and-true technique is called "charge stacking" - bury the defense in paperwork, scare them by talking about a zillion years in the pen, and get them to cop to a plea on one or two charges.

    There are exceptions to this general rule, but the 84 counts makes be think that the feds have no case and are hoping for a plea.

    - Chris
     
  14. JohnBT

    JohnBT Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    13,231
    Location:
    Richmond, Virginia
    "Ulrich Wiegand is also accused of directing Inter Ordnance employees to structure cash deposits into various bank accounts in amounts less than $10,000 to avoid reporting requirements.

    The brothers used Inter Ordnance bank accounts to transfer funds to various international accounts to conceal and disguise the company's profits, the indictment said."

    www.atfabuse.com/atfabuse-10.html





    I'd say they're in deep trouble even if they beat the gun charges.

    JBT
     
  15. DMF

    DMF Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,247
    Location:
    Nomad
    That's the biggest load of crap I've heard around here lately.

    This idea that defendants, and their lawyers, are going to be more or less afraid of 80 counts vs. 1 or 2 counts is ridiculous. They either think they can beat it in court or they don't. In fact, I usually see the opposite, whether it's a plea or going to trial AUSAs will often charge just one count of certain crimes, rather than each individual count. That doesn't even take into account cases that get referred to the state because the state charges carry greater penalties.
     
  16. DMF

    DMF Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,247
    Location:
    Nomad
    http://www.atf.gov/press/fy04press/field/020504char_interordnance.htm

    JBT I would say you are right, even if they beat the gun charges the structuring and laundering charges are still big problems.
     
  17. Car Knocker

    Car Knocker Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    3,809
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    JohnBT,

    Think about it.

    If it was illegal to make small deposits so they don't hit the reporting threshold, isn't it just as illegal to drive below the posted speed limit so one can avoid speeding citations? Is it illegal for me to overreport my income slightly to avoid tax evasion charges? Some people make more than $10,000 a month - would it be illegal for them to insist on bi-weekly paychecks to avoid coming to the gov's attention for whatever privacy reasons they may have?

    I think the constitutionality of the phoney law needs to be challenged.
     
  18. Daedalus

    Daedalus Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2003
    Messages:
    520
    Location:
    Gainesville, Florida
    I beleive the parts kits in question were PPSH kits and FAL kits with saw cut recievers.

    If anything, I would recommend buying their MG42 parts kits before they go under. They have some of the better quality kits and they are all German parts.

    IO has honesty problems - throwing a new scope on a Yugo SKS and selling it as a "Sniper" model, throwing post war reproduction scopes and mounts on an MN91/30 and selling it as a WW2 Sniper Rifle. They consistently b.s. their customers, they b.s.ed the ATF demill regs, and they b.s.ed the IRS.
     
  19. DMF

    DMF Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,247
    Location:
    Nomad
    Car Knocker,

    What you're missing is it's not illegal to have multiple transactions under $10000 (in fact my bi-weekly pay check is MUCH less than $10000). What is illegal is doing it to avoid paying taxes. You know the whole issues of taxes is addressed in the Constitution, right?
     
  20. DMF

    DMF Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,247
    Location:
    Nomad
    BTW, if you're curious about where the structuring charge comes from it is in the US Code it's 31USC5324. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/ts_search.pl?title=31&sec=5324

    It is clear from the text of the statute, and to any of us that don't launder money yet make transactions less than $10000, that the law imposes penalties on those that are trying to avoid reporting of transactions to hide illegal income and/or evade taxes.
     
  21. Car Knocker

    Car Knocker Senior Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    3,809
    Location:
    Salt Lake City, UT
    DMF,

    Unless I totally missed it, the indictment does not say they structured the deposits to avoid paying taxes.
     
  22. 2nd Amendment

    2nd Amendment member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,929
    Location:
    Indiana
    They weren't, apparently, doing it to avoid taxes so far as the deposits go. They were breaking up deposits to avoid having to fill out the fed forms required for such large single deposits. Car lots(and many other large item businesses) do the same thing on large cash sales. A 3k deposit one day, another the next, a 4k one the next, drop whatever is left the next, etc.

    Also, "Charge Stacking"(there's another term for it I believe) is a very common tool of prosecutors. It's a very effective means of intimidation for exactly the reasons cited, though it doesn't necessarily mean the case is weak. I can't actually believe you aren't aware of this considering your claimed profession.
     
  23. DMF

    DMF Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,247
    Location:
    Nomad
    Since I doubt either of us got to see the entire indictment, I'll just say I ocassionally work cases that involve structuring charges. The essential element is that the transactions were structured to cause a financial institution to not make required reports of the financial transactions. It will be tied to laundering, tax evasion, or more likely both. Read the portion of the press release that I posted, the structuring is tied to money laundering according to that report. Now structuring schemes might result in the crooks paying taxes, but the usual purpose of evading reporting of transactions is to both hide the illegal source AND evade paying taxes.

    Crooks don't like paying taxes any more than you or I, but being crooks they are willing to do illegal things to evade taxation of their ill gotten gains. It's nothing new, the government has been chasing tax cheats since we first became our own country.
     
  24. DMF

    DMF Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    2,247
    Location:
    Nomad
    I am intimately aware of how charges get brought in a few different districts. I can tell you "stacking charges" doesn't intimidate a defense team. Any work created for the defense by additional charges is also created for the prosecution, because now the government has to meet it's burden of proof on each and every count. It makes trials (and the preparation) last much longer. Sometimes that may even work the advantage of the defense, as some jurors have a short attention span. :(

    More often than not prosecutors pick a handful of charges, and a few counts that they know are slam dunk in court. It's very rare to see prosecutors charge each and every count that they could. It would just take too long to present all of it in court. When you see 80 counts on the same type of crime, it's an egregious violation that warrants that kind of effort and attention.

    I find it ridiculous that people act as if charging multiple counts is somehow wrong. If you murder 18 people in 18 separate instances why shouldn't that be 18 counts of murder. If you sell illegal firearms and launder money in 83 separate incidents, that is not any different than the 18 murders. Yet the bleeding hearts, or the defense attorneys, call it "stacking" and say it's an intimidation tactic. BS, if the government can prove 83 different crimes then so be it, but they must actually prove it in court, beyond a reasonable doubt.
     
  25. hammer4nc

    hammer4nc Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2003
    Messages:
    977
    So, the pregnant question is: How is it that these thousands of illegal parts kits cleared customs? Were they initially approved by ATF, who then later changed the interpretation of the rules? Or, do these items just sail in without any import paperwork whatsoever?

    What were initially "parts kits" (OK to be sold without background checks, etc.) suddenly become "machine guns"? And only discovered years later? End result: upteen counts of NFA violations?

    Thousands of man-hours chasing down customer lists and confiscating the "kits" from customers, when they could have been blocked at the dock (i.e., the ultimate make-work project/budget buster?). Something doesn't smell right.

    Perhaps our resident ATF organ can explain the inconsistency?

    While you're at it, a similar high-profile raid took place at PW Arms, Redmond WA; in June 2003. Same MO>illegal kits. Since that raid, there's not been a single news story about arrests, trials...nothing. Could you ask agent Schmuckatelli to post an update on their website on this case? If possible, have him include a cost/benefit analysis of taxpayer funds. Thanx
    :cool:
     

Share This Page