Prosecutors Ask Judge For Order To Disqualify INetGlobal Attorney, Saying They May Wish To Cross-Examine Him As Witness In Ponzi Case

UPDATED 11:31 A.M. EDT (U.S.A.) Federal prosecutors have filed a motion to disqualify attorney Mark Kallenbach as counsel for INetGlobal and related companies, claiming that Kallenbach is attempting to be both a witness in the case and a lawyer for multiple clients involved in a Ponzi scheme, wire fraud and money-laundering probe.

Kallenbach, prosecutors said, has made himself a subject of cross-examination because of an affidavit he filed last month. They added that wearing two hats in the same case might create a conflict with the Minnesota Rules of Professional Responsibility, a local rule of U.S. District Court in Minnesota and the “Court’s inherent supervisory authority over its bar.”

“Should Mr. Kallenbach testify, he will be cross-examined,” prosecutors said. “The Court will have to decide whether Mr. Kallenbach’s voluntary assumption of the role of witness works as a waiver of the attorney-client privilege on cross-examination, or whether the government’s cross-examination of Mr. Kallenbach will be limited, in ways it might not be limited if the witness was not counsel to several parties, in order to preserve the privilege.”

On April 2 — a week ago yesterday — prosecutors said INetGlobal had no attorney of record in the autosurf Ponzi scheme litigation. Kallenbach filed a notice of appearance for the firm and several related companies on Monday, three days after the prosecution’s filing.

On Wednesday, Kallenbach filed a second affidavit (see subhead below) labeled a supplement to an affidavit he filed March 25.

Prosecutors responded by saying Kallenbach’s second affidavit “heightens the government’s concern about Mr. Kallenbach attempting to serve as both lawyer and witness” and that he should be disqualified as an attorney for “any of the individuals or companies involved” in the case.

“This motion is brought because Mr. Kallenbach has made himself a necessary witness in this case,” prosecutors argued. “This is a case in which Mr. Kallenbach conducted his own
investigation and then voluntarily drew up a lengthy affidavit setting forth his observations.”

Their claim is based on a 20-page affidavit and 12 additional pages of exhibits Kallenbach filed March 25 — before he entered his notice of appearance as INetGlobal’s attorney in court.

In his March 25 affidavit, Kallenbach said he conducted an “investigation” and concluded that “Inter-Mark and its subsidiary iNetGlobal and its other subsidiaries are clean, legitimate and profitable businesses.”

Kallenbach, in the March 25 affidavit, attacked an affidavit for a search warrant by the U.S. Secret Service and also challenged assertions the government made about V-Local, a company related to INetGlobal.

Prosecutors argued that the affidavit and conclusions Kallenbach described as “true facts” make him a witness. Some of the information was woven into a memorandum of law filed March 25 by Jon Hopeman on behalf of INetGlobal owner Steve Renner, prosecutors said.

The prosecution motion was filed by Assistant U.S. Attorney John Docherty, one of the prosecutors who handled the Ponzi case against Tom Petters. Petters was sentenced this week to 50 years in prison for operating a $3.65 billion fraud.

U.S. Attorney B. Todd Jones of the District of Minnesota approved the filing of the disqualification motion. The main page on Jones’ website lists three major Ponzi probes the office has undertaken in recent months, including the Petters’ case, the case involving Minnesota Ponzi scheme figures Trevor Cook and Pat Kiley, and the investigation into the business practices of Renner at INetGlobal.

Minnesota’s Ponzi Plague

Ponzi schemes have plagued Minnesota. The Cook/Kiley case involves at least $190 million and investor losses of at least $139 million, according to court filings.

Another big case in Minnesota involved Gerard Cellette Jr. Cellette was implicated in a $53 million Ponzi scheme last year by Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman.

Meanwhile, Charles “Chuck” E. Hays pleaded guilty last year to charges in a $20 million Ponzi-scheme case in which the government seized a $3 million yacht.

Separately, three members of a Minneapolis family were indicted last year on Ponzi and fraud charges. The case became known as the Kalin Thanh Dao case. Dao’s parents also were indicted.

Dao and her parents pleaded guilty. Prosecutors said money was siphoned from the scheme to pay for gambling in Las Vegas.

“Investors were promised that their money would be placed in investment programs targeted within specific markets and industries,” prosecutors said. “Investors were also told that Kalin Dao had a ‘partner’ who held a seat on the New York Stock Exchange, had contacts in the emerging Asian markets who had ‘inside’ information, and was associated with various Las Vegas casinos.”

The Kalin Thanh Dao probe uncovered a web of deceit in which Dao’s father claimed nearly $3 million in losses for businesses owned by his daughter to eliminate his personal tax liabilities, and Dao’s mother claimed to be “single,” the “head of [a] household” — and also claimed a tax exemption for Dao.

Kalin Thanh Dao was 32 years old and operated at least four companies, prosecutors said.

“Instead of investing the investors’ funds as promised, Kalin Dao diverted substantial amounts of the funds for her own purposes, including gambling, lulling payments and personal expenses,” prosecutors said. “She also admitted that the fraud was between $2.5 and $7 million.”

Also on the Ponzi front, AdSurfDaily, a Florida-based company implicated in a massive autosurf Ponzi scheme by the Secret Service in 2008, was popular in Minnesota. Some Minnesota members of ASD were among the staunchest defenders of ASD President Andy Bowdoin.

The Secret Service referenced the ASD case in filings in the INetGlobal case, saying an undercover agent was introduced to INetGlobal by an ASD member who described the operation as a wink-nod enterprise.

A federal judge in the District of Columbia has issued three orders of forfeiture totaling more than $80 million in the ASD case. Bowdoin is appealing. His appeal brief cites two other cases filed under seal and suggests that prosecutors subpoenaed at least two attorneys involved in the defense of ASD’s assets to appear at a grand-jury proceeding.

It is unclear if the attorneys attempted to invoke attorney-client privilege. What is clear is that a federal judge ordered the attorneys to appear and that the order is being challenged in a federal appeals court.

Kallenbach’s Second Affidavit

Kallenbach filed a second affidavit April 7. The affidavit asserts that a Renner entity known as V-Media Marketing LLC “borrowed” all of the money that was placed in a bank account at Premier Bank Minnesota in early March, about a week after the Secret Service raid at INetGlobal’s offices in Minneapolis.

Prosecutors, describing the INetGlobal case as a “major fraud and money laundering investigation,” said $47,400 was deposited into the account.

“IMC Desperately Needs Working Capital To Pay Its Creditors,” Kallenbach said.

He also described a webcast he attended April 5 that was “sponsored by one of IMC’s marketing consultants.”

“At the April 5th Meeting, I learned, amongst other things, that many of iNetGlobal’s new customers have demanded refunds,” Kallenbach said. “The number of customers seeking refunds and the amount of such refunds is unknown. What is known is that as each and every day passes, without iNetGlobal being in business as usual, more of iNetGlobal’s customers will seek refunds.”

He also asserted that “iNetGlobal’s marketing consultants are clamoring for commission payments that are legitimately due and owing to them,” according to the affidavit. “iNetGlobal has been unable to pay the commissions.”

Kallenbach’s filing also suggested that, through negotiations, a little more than $1 million has been returned to INetGlobal and that the sum was now considered “unrestricted” cash. The affidavit did not disclose specific details about the negotiations

In the March 25 affidavit,  Kallenbach argued that INetGlobal had no cash to operate.

“At the time I signed my March 25, 2010 Declaration, I believed it to be true that iNetGlobal had no unrestricted cash meaning cash available for working capital. I have since learned that as a result of negotiations in which I was involved, on March 22, 2010 iNetGlobal netted approximately $220,000 from the return of restricted cash. As of the time my March 25, 2010 Declaration was prepared, I was unaware that this money had been returned to iNetGlobal.

“After my Declaration was signed, approximately $795,000 of restricted cash was made available to iNetGlobel for working capital after close of business on March 25, 2010,” Kallenbach said. “As of today [April 7], iNetGlobal’s unrestricted cash is approximately $1,015,000. I arrive at this sum by adding $220,000 and $795,000 to reach $1,015,000.”

Prosecutors said that, because Kallenbach has become an “essential witness” subject to cross-examination by the prosecution and direct examination by the INetGlobal side, there is a question about “whether Mr. Kallenbach’s clients can be provided constitutionally effective assistance.”

“The government did not bring this situation about,” prosecutors contended. “[T]he government has not subpoenaed Mr. Kallenbach, or raised questions about whether he, and only he, can testify as to certain facts.

“This is a case in which Mr. Kallenbach conducted his own investigation and then voluntarily drew up a lengthy affidavit setting forth his observations. Nor may Mr. Kallenbach, at this juncture, announce that he will henceforth act only as an advocate, because the choice to be a witness was made when the affidavit was filed.”

About the Author

6 Responses to “Prosecutors Ask Judge For Order To Disqualify INetGlobal Attorney, Saying They May Wish To Cross-Examine Him As Witness In Ponzi Case”

  1. Kallenbach’s filing also suggested that, through negotiations, a little more than $1 million has been returned to INetGlobal and that the sum was now considered “unrestricted” cash. The affidavit did not disclose specific details about the negotiations

    sorry I don’t understand, Did the goverment give back $1,000,000?

      (Quote)

  2. just sick of it: Kallenbach’s filing also suggested that, through negotiations, a little more than $1 million has been returned to INetGlobal and that the sum was now considered “unrestricted” cash. The affidavit did not disclose specific details about the negotiations

    sorry I don’t understand, Did the goverment give back $1,000,000?

    Hi just sick of it,

    Eight days ago the prosecution said it was “attempting to work with the company” on the issue of payroll.

    At the same time, the prosecution said, “[T]here is concern that the company continues to have access to unseized funds with which to make payroll.”

    Mark Kallenbach said a little more than $1 million was returned to INetGlobal “as a result of negotiations in which I was involved.”

    I’d say it’s possible that the $1 million was returned after negotiations with the government, but it’s hard to say for certain based on the way the affidavit was worded. It seemed to be referring to a third party who related info to Kallenbach. Here is the wording (emphasis added):

    “I have SINCE LEARNED that as a result of negotiations in which I was
    involved, on March 22, 2010 iNetGlobal netted approximately $220,000 from
    the return of restricted cash. As of the time my March 25, 2010 Declaration
    was prepared, I was unaware that this money had been returned to iNetGlobal.
    After my Declaration was signed, approximately $795,000 of restricted cash
    was made available to iNetGlobel for working capital after close of business on March 25, 2010.”

    There might be some clarification on this next week.

    Patrick

      (Quote)

  3. Patrick, do you have links to the various court filings? I looked on google & couldn’t find them. Maybe I was looking in the wrong place.

      (Quote)

  4. Tony H: I looked on google & couldn’t find them. Maybe I was looking in the wrong place.

    You need to use Tazoodle….

      (Quote)

  5. Tony H: Patrick, do you have links to the various court filings? I looked on google & couldn’t find them. Maybe I was looking in the wrong place.

    Hi Tony,

    http://patrickpretty.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/55-main.pdf

    http://patrickpretty.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/57-main.pdf

    Patrick

      (Quote)

Leave a Reply