## Facts

- Frank Mangan, an IRS agent in Mineola, Long Island, obtained names and Social Security numbers of seven taxpayers (six “John McCarthy” and one “Scott Murphy”).
- In early 1972, Frank prepared and caused to be filed 1971 federal income tax returns for those individuals using false employer W-2s and large withholding amounts.
- The returns claimed partnership losses generating refunds of about $9,000 each and listed false Manhattan addresses at rooming houses and transient hotels.
- Kevin Mangan, Frank’s brother, rented rooms under the taxpayers’ names, allowing refund checks to be mailed to addresses under Kevin’s control.
- Refund checks were mailed for six of the seven filings; several were retrieved and deposited into bank accounts Kevin opened in the taxpayers’ names at multiple locations, then withdrawn in cash.
- Cooperating witness John Bertsch testified about Kevin’s role in renting rooms, retrieving checks, opening/closing accounts, and distributing proceeds; he received $20,000–$25,000 and returned part to Kevin.
- Evidence suggested the W-2 employers were fictitious; an IRS examiner could not locate telephone listings for the listed corporations.
- One “McCarthy” refund was not issued because the return used an internal temporary Social Security number, and another refund check was never negotiated.
- A federal grand jury indicted Frank and Kevin for conspiracy to file false claims, mail fraud, and willfully filing false income tax returns; both were convicted after trial.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove that Frank and Kevin knowingly participated in the fraudulent refund scheme and the charged offenses.
2. Whether the district court erred in admitting and relying on handwriting evidence comparing the false returns to documents associated with Frank used as exemplars.
3. Whether the accomplice testimony connecting Kevin to the scheme was adequately supported to sustain the verdict and avoid reversible error.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed the convictions.
- The court held the evidence, viewed as a whole, permitted a rational jury to find knowing participation by both defendants in a coordinated refund-fraud operation.
- The court found no reversible error in admitting handwriting comparison evidence based on exemplars sufficiently linked to Frank by circumstantial proof.
- The court upheld reliance on accomplice testimony where the jury could assess credibility and where objective records corroborated key parts of the account.

## Legal Principles

- A conviction may rest on circumstantial evidence and reasonable inferences showing knowing participation in a fraudulent scheme.
- Accomplice testimony can support a conviction even if the witness expects leniency, particularly when corroborated by independent evidence and evaluated by properly instructed jurors.
- Handwriting authentication and comparison evidence may be admitted when the proposed exemplars are shown, including by circumstantial proof, to be writings attributable to the defendant; disputes about authorship often go to weight rather than admissibility.
- Appellate review of evidentiary rulings focuses on whether the trial court’s foundation and admission decisions resulted in reversible error, not whether the evidence was perfect.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit upheld the Mangans’ convictions for a coordinated fraudulent tax-refund scheme, finding the proof sufficient as to both defendants and concluding that corroborated accomplice testimony and handwriting comparison evidence were properly used to link each defendant to the charged conduct.


United States v. Mangan, 575 F.2d 32 (2d Cir. 1978)