government has indicated that it will prosecute this action on the bank deposits-expenditures corroborated by net worth and specific items theory of proof; that defendant is charged with failing to report income approximating $ 20,000 in his tax return for 1949 and $ 30,000 in his return for 1950; that these amounts were arrived at principally through a reconstruction of defendant's income by means of the bank deposits-expenditures method, more particularly, by which is meant that defendant created certain fictitious accounts, as an example, one of said accounts being at the Mellon National Bank and Trust Company, East Liberty Branch, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and other accounts with banks and other places well known to defendant; that defendant realized income not only from business sources but also from wagering activities in connection with which the aforementioned fictitious accounts were created, and that deposits and business arrangements were made with persons who were connected with defendant in furtherance of his activities commonly designated as the wagering business, the names of said persons and records relative thereto being well known to defendant. That the government does not intend to establish that defendant had a bank account in his own name.
A motion for a bill of particulars in a criminal proceeding is addressed to the trial court's discretion. Wong Tai v. United States, 273 U.S. 77, 47 S. Ct. 300, 71 L. Ed. 545; United States v. Caserta, 3 Cir., 199 F.2d 905; United States v. Kafes, 3 Cir., 214 F.2d 887.
Subsequent to the indictment, the written statement submitted to the court by the United States Attorney, which statement the court has ordered made a part of the record of this proceeding, sufficiently informs the defendant of the nature and extent of the government's theory of prosecution. The government's written statement apprises the accused of the charge against him in sufficient manner to enable him to prepare his defense without being taken by surprise. The defendant knows where bank accounts were maintained in which he had ownership or a substantial interest, and with proper application should be able to analyze said accounts. The accused also knows the sources of his income from normal business channels or any other business activities in which he was interested directly or indirectly, and should be aware of expenditures in connection with his activities regardless of their nature which are a subject for proper deduction in determining income for tax purposes.
It has always been the unswerving policy of this member of the court to meticulously safeguard the rights of an accused by requiring the government to present its allegations with sufficient particularity and definiteness to unequivocally inform him of the specific nature of the charges upon which the indictment is laid.
The government should not be required to spell out its evidence in detail and satisfy every objection which the ingenuity of the accused or his counsel might present, and I do not believe that the best interests of justice would be subserved in requiring the government to produce evidentiary material of which the accused has knowledge.
I must conclude, therefore, that the indictment and the written statement submitted by counsel for the government conform to the requirements of law.
The motion for bill of particulars will be refused.
An appropriate order is entered.