While this is an interesting move for Ray & team, I'm not sure it will produce anything of value except maybe Marty's income stream.
First, I see these motions all the time and unless Ray & team are going to spend money trying to verify each document's content (time consuming and expensive, you'd have to subpoena the IRS and/or any other income source provided), there's nothing stopping Ratty bun from providing intentionally vague or even falsified documents. Most of what I see is never authenticated by the issuing source due to the expense in fighting motions to compel and sending out subpoenas and/or getting depos. If Ray does all of this work and gets the judge to agree (and lets hope Ray has some strong case law on his side), then we will see fireworks.
Second, my speculation is that Ratty bun was provided a retro qualified pension, which is protected from liens or jgmts. The problem here is that if they paid him off in a pension, then they would have to have to do the same for all 'employees' of the same class. So that would mean that Rinder or anyone high up that received a salary is eligible too. The cult runs the risk of getting a nice Dept of Labor audit with hefty fines, but they could pay those without a blink if they had to.
So while this is an exciting move of Ray's part, I doubt it will provide the smoking gun. Ratty is already in the hole to them for likely millions of dollars, so it's a matter of ROI for Ray on how he's going to pursue this.
From a lawyer's perspective, gathering and verifying docs is expensive and time-consuming. From an accounting perspective, not so much, since the work itself is all about the details. I hope they hire accountants for this.
It starts with organizing and listing the income sources and grouping expenses. From there, a person can see the most prevalent source(s) of income or spending. When oddball sources become large as a group, those sources also become questionable, as well as unreasonable expenditures against income. People also have habits, they prefer a certain credit card or bank, or do their transfers at certain times of the week or month. Certain dates then correspond with other dates. Payment is received, then it's transferred or spent, is the usual way. When a purchase is made that does not correspond with payment received, it's another red flag. Where did the money come from?
Do the receipts match the expenses? Receipts have to be originals or an acceptable facsimile in an audit. Copies aren't allowed. If they are fresh, they can often be verified by telephone. Businesses don't like when someone makes up bogus receipts with their name, it means problems of their own with the IRS later, so if they can verify a receipt, they usually will, and they don't need a subpeona, they do it gladly, if you provide the information and all they have to say is valid or not. The US cash limit is a big help here, too.
Marty's credit card and bank records would need to match up with his income and expenses. Those records also provide partial credit card vendor authorization numbers. Again, vendors are pretty cooperative with yes or no verifications when others claim they made a sale they didn't. It's fraud to them, too, and hurts them.
Then there are all Marty's former financial supporters who he turned against, who will probably cooperate.
But an audit is about seeing and recognizing patterns and excesses. Using a variety of credit cards is a pattern, too, that points to something being hidden. A regular worker is a pattern, but add up his annual pay. Is it reasonable, not just by itself, but combined with other expenditures and with average pay or work to complete that sort of job on that size property? A gardener with a pattern of payments that continues who should be seasonal but then receives a payment in freezing temps in February is a red flag. 'Oh, he has a snow plow, too.' Hmm. But he isn't certified for any of the work, doesn't own a snow plow and doesn't have a listed business or any other clients. Would he like to cooperate and provide the information or rather be reported to the IRS for tax evasion? Then the auditor might find out that he only received 1/2 that amount, or was only paid in cash and those transfers didn't even go to his account, but somewhere else. It wan't even his vendor number.
That's the sort of things good auditors do. You'd be surprised how cooperative most people and business can be. By the time a good auditor finishes with the original records, fraud has already been proven for some fair-sized tuna, and there are only a few places to subpoena to catch the whale.
Auditing is an art form. I used to love it.
:wink2:
