The Domino Falls: How a New Jersey CPA’s Guilty Plea Exposed His Role in a $1.3 Billion Tax Fraud Conspiracy

The Latest Crack in the Dam: CPA Ofer Gabbay Pleads Guilty

In a federal courtroom, the latest domino fell in one of the largest tax fraud schemes in recent U.S. history. Ofer Gabbay, a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) from Paramus, New Jersey, pleaded guilty to conspiring to defraud the United States, a quiet admission that pulled back the curtain on his role as a key facilitator in a sprawling, billion-dollar criminal enterprise. His plea marks a significant development in the government’s relentless campaign against fraudulent Syndicated Conservation Easement (SCE) tax shelters, connecting a local professional to a national conspiracy that has already sent its masterminds to prison for decades.

 Gabbay’s Role in the Conspiracy

According to court documents and statements made during his plea, Gabbay’s involvement between 2018 and 2019 was far from passive. He was an active and essential cog in a machine designed to generate massive, illegal tax deductions for his high-income clientele. His criminal actions were twofold, demonstrating a deliberate and calculated effort to subvert the tax system.  

First, Gabbay promoted the fraudulent SCE tax shelters, selling them as legitimate investment opportunities. Second, and more critically, he actively manufactured the evidence needed to support the fraud. Court records show that Gabbay instructed his clients to provide backdated checks, agreements, and other supporting documents. This act of backdating was a cornerstone of the conspiracy, allowing the promoters to sell their fraudulent tax deductions to clients even after the close of the tax year, a clear violation of tax law. Gabbay then took the final step: he personally prepared and filed the false tax returns for his clients, returns that claimed millions in unwarranted charitable contribution deductions based on the fabricated paperwork and grossly inflated property values at the heart of the scheme.  

The Professional Betrayal

The case of Ofer Gabbay is a chilling study in the weaponization of professional credibility. Before his guilty plea, Gabbay’s public profile was that of a seasoned and trusted expert. With over 30 years of experience in accounting and tax, he was a partner at The Green Group, a firm where his practice focused on the very type of clients he would later defraud: high-net-worth individuals and those involved in complex real estate transactions. His company biography lauded his ability to provide “integrated tax strategies optimizing financial goals” and assist entrepreneurs from the “startup and development stage.  

This carefully cultivated image of expertise and dedication stands in stark, ironic contrast to his criminal conduct. The very skills that made him a sought-after advisor were the tools he used to perpetrate the fraud. He did not stumble into this scheme through incompetence; he leveraged his professional standing and the trust of his clients to lure them into a conspiracy that prosecutors have labeled one of the “worst of the worst tax scams”. This betrayal of professional ethics underscores a critical lesson: the reputation of an advisor, even one with decades of experience, is not an infallible shield against fraud, especially when the promised returns seem too good to be true.  

Connecting to the Masterminds

Gabbay was not a lone wolf. His plea agreement explicitly names him as a co-conspirator in a much larger plot orchestrated by Jack Fisher, a fellow CPA and a pioneer of the abusive SCE industry; James Sinnott, an attorney who helped the scheme achieve its massive scale; and their primary assistant, Yekaterina Lopuhina, also known as Kate Joy, who currently remains an international fugitive. By admitting his role, Gabbay became a crucial link, officially connecting the scheme’s architects to the end-user taxpayers who claimed the fraudulent deductions. His guilty plea serves as a powerful validation of the government’s narrative, providing prosecutors with an insider’s confession about how the fraud was marketed, sold, and executed at the client level.  

The Legal Jeopardy

Gabbay pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States under 18 U.S.C. § 371. This statute makes it a felony for two or more persons to conspire to “defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose”. The law is intentionally broad, designed to protect the integrity of governmental functions from being impaired by “deceit, craft or trickery”. It does not require the government to prove a direct monetary loss, only that its legitimate function—in this case, the lawful assessment and collection of taxes by the IRS—was obstructed or defeated.  

For his crime, Gabbay faces a statutory maximum penalty of five years in prison. In addition, he faces a period of supervised release, an order to pay restitution for the tax losses he caused, and other monetary penalties. The final sentence will be determined by a federal district court judge, who will consider the detailed calculations and factors laid out in the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, a complex framework that weighs the severity of the crime against the defendant’s history and role in the offense.  

The Architects of a Billion-Dollar Fraud: The Case of Fisher and Sinnott

While Ofer Gabbay’s guilty plea represents a significant victory for prosecutors, he was merely a downstream distributor in a criminal enterprise of breathtaking scale. The architects of this massive fraud were Jack Fisher and James Sinnott, two professionals who transformed a legitimate tax incentive for land conservation into a criminal machine that generated over $1.3 billion in fraudulent tax deductions. Their actions resulted in a staggering tax loss to the U.S. Treasury of more than $450 million, making it one of the largest tax fraud prosecutions in American history.  

The Kingpins and Their Roles

The conspiracy was a partnership of illicit skills, with each leader playing a distinct and critical role.

• Jack Fisher: A Certified Public Accountant from Georgia, Fisher was described by the government as a “pioneer” and one of the country’s biggest promoters of abusive syndicated conservation easement tax shelters. He began his scheme as early as 2008, laying the groundwork for the fraudulent model that would later explode in popularity. As the primary architect, he designed the transactions, recruited other professionals, and marketed the shelters to wealthy investors across the nation.  
• James Sinnott: An attorney, Sinnott joined forces with Fisher in 2013, bringing his legal expertise to the operation. His involvement marked a turning point, coinciding with a “massive expansion” of the scheme. Sinnott was instrumental in structuring the complex partnerships and providing the legal scaffolding that gave the fraudulent transactions a veneer of legitimacy, helping to sell over $1.3 billion in bogus deductions.  
• Kate Joy (Yekaterina Lopuhina): Identified as Fisher’s primary assistant, Joy was a CPA and a central figure in the conspiracy’s execution. Indicted alongside Fisher and Sinnott, she was deeply involved in marketing the shelters and, crucially, in communicating with the scheme’s appraisers. According to the indictment, she provided appraisers with spreadsheets containing the predetermined, inflated valuation targets necessary to deliver the promised tax deductions to investors. Despite being charged with multiple felonies, including conspiracy and wire fraud, Kate Joy remains an international fugitive, a loose thread in a case that has otherwise seen overwhelming success for the prosecution. Her fugitive status highlights the global nature of modern financial crime and the challenges law enforcement faces in bringing every conspirator to justice.  

The Fruits of the Crime

The motivation behind this colossal fraud was simple: greed. Fisher and Sinnott personally reaped millions of dollars from the fees and commissions generated by selling units in their tax shelters. Fisher, in particular, used his ill-gotten gains to fund a life of extreme luxury. The government proved at trial that he spent the proceeds on a Mercedes-Benz, a recreational vehicle and trailer, a private jet, and lavish homes and condos in the United States and on the Caribbean island of Bonaire. As part of his sentence, the jury found these assets to be forfeitable, allowing the government to seize them as proceeds of his criminal conduct.  

The Web of Complicity

The Fisher-Sinnott enterprise was not a simple partnership; it was a vertically integrated criminal organization that required the corruption of an entire professional services supply chain. To succeed, the scheme needed a network of complicit professionals to perform specialized roles, turning the system of checks and balances designed to prevent fraud into a fraudulent assembly line.

• CPAs as Feeders: Accountants like Ofer Gabbay, Victor Smith, William Tomasello, Stein and Corey Agee, Ralph Anderson, James Benkoil, and Herbert Lewis were the primary sales force. They leveraged their trusted relationships with high-income clients to market and sell units in the fraudulent shelters, earning substantial commissions in the process.  
• Attorneys as Structurers: Lawyers like Randall Lenz and Vi Bui assisted Sinnott in creating the legal architecture for the deals, drafting the partnership agreements and other documents needed to execute the transactions.  
• Appraisers as Engines: Appraisers were the “engines” of the fraud, as a Senate Finance Committee report described them. Individuals like Walter “Terry” Roberts were essential, as they were responsible for producing the “grossly inflated” appraisals that created the bogus tax deductions. Roberts pleaded guilty, admitting he inflated the values of at least 18 conservation easements, in some cases by over 70%, to reach targeted values provided by the promoters.  

The breadth of this network demonstrates a systemic failure. The very professionals tasked with upholding financial integrity—accountants, lawyers, and appraisers—were instead co-opted, transforming their expertise into a tool for massive fraud. The case also showed the nuances of a jury trial, as another appraiser, Clayton Weibel, was acquitted of all charges, indicating that the jury carefully distinguished between the evidence presented against each individual defendant.  

Table 1: Key Players in the Fisher-Sinnott Conspiracy

Deconstructing the “Dollar Machine”: How Syndicated Conservation Easement Fraud Works

To fully grasp the magnitude of the Fisher-Sinnott conspiracy, it is essential to understand the mechanics of the fraud. The scheme’s brilliance lay in its perversion of a legitimate and socially beneficial tax incentive. By cloaking a crude tax shelter in the complex and noble-sounding language of land conservation, the promoters created a product that was both highly profitable and difficult for investors and regulators to immediately identify as fraudulent.

The Legitimate Purpose of Conservation Easements

A legitimate conservation easement is a powerful tool for protecting America’s natural landscapes for future generations. The process is straightforward and driven by a desire for conservation, not profit.  

A landowner who loves their land and wants to protect its natural character—be it a pristine forest, a family farm, or a scenic vista—can voluntarily partner with a qualified organization, typically a non-profit land trust or a government agency. Together, they create a legal agreement, the conservation easement, which is recorded with the property’s deed and is binding on all future owners in perpetuity.  

This agreement permanently restricts certain uses of the land, such as commercial or residential development, subdivision, and surface mining, to protect the property’s specific “conservation values”. The landowner continues to own the property and can carry on with activities that are compatible with the easement’s terms, such as farming, ranching, or sustainable forestry.  

In recognition of their generosity, a landowner who donates a conservation easement may be eligible for a significant federal tax deduction. This deduction is based on the fair market value of the development rights they have given up. This value must be determined by a qualified, independent appraiser in a comprehensive report that meets strict IRS standards. The primary beneficiary is the public, which gains the permanent protection of open space, wildlife habitat, or agricultural land.  

The Abusive Scheme—A Step-by-Step Breakdown

The fraudulent syndicated conservation easement turns this legitimate process on its head. It is not about conservation; it is about manufacturing and selling tax deductions for a profit. ProPublica aptly described the scheme as a “dollar machine” for wealthy taxpayers. Here is how it worked:  

1. Acquisition: The process began with promoters, through entities controlled by figures like Fisher and Sinnott, acquiring a large parcel of land. This land was often of low value, such as an abandoned golf course or remote, undeveloped scrubland.  
2. Appraisal Fraud: The promoters then hired a complicit appraiser—the “engine” of the scheme—to produce a fraudulent and grossly inflated appraisal of the property’s value. Instead of valuing the land based on its recent purchase price or comparable sales, the appraiser would invent a wildly unrealistic “highest and best use” scenario. For example, they might claim the remote scrubland was perfectly suited for a luxury resort or a massive sand and gravel mine, thereby justifying a valuation that was often more than 10 times the price the promoters had just paid for the land. In one instance, a property was appraised at $223 million less than six months after being purchased for approximately $12 million.  
3. Syndication and Sale: With the bogus appraisal in hand, the promoters would form a partnership or LLC to hold the land. They would then “syndicate” the deal, selling ownership units or shares to high-income taxpayers looking for a large, year-end tax write-off. The key selling point was the promise of a massive tax deduction that far exceeded the investor’s cash outlay. The marketing materials guaranteed specific ratios, such as 4-to-1 or 4.5-to-1, meaning a $100,000 investment would yield a $400,000 or $450,000 tax deduction.  
4. Backdating: A crucial element of the business model was accommodating last-minute investors. High-income taxpayers often don’t know their full tax liability until late in the year, creating a “just-in-time” demand for tax shelters. To meet this demand and maximize their pool of investors, the conspirators, including professionals like Ofer Gabbay, systematically backdated documents. Subscription agreements, checks, and engagement letters were falsified to make it appear that clients had invested in the partnership before the conservation easement was donated and before the tax year had officially closed, a fundamental violation of tax law.  
5. The Sham Donation: Finally, the partnership, now populated with its investors, would donate a conservation easement over the land to a charitable organization, which was sometimes a complicit or less-than-diligent land trust. The partnership would then claim a massive charitable contribution deduction based on the fraudulent, inflated appraisal. This bogus deduction was then passed through proportionally to the investors, who used it to illegally slash their own tax bills, often saving more in taxes than their initial investment.  

Table 2: Legitimate vs. Fraudulent Conservation Easements

Export to Sheets

The Government Strikes Back: A Multi-Pronged Assault on SCE Fraud

The rise of the abusive syndicated conservation easement industry did not go unnoticed. Over the course of a decade, the U.S. government mounted a slow but deliberate and ultimately overwhelming counter-offensive. This was not a single battle but a multi-front war, waged by the IRS, the Department of Justice, and Congress. The comprehensive nature of this response was necessary to dismantle a scheme so entrenched, profitable, and resistant to initial enforcement efforts.

IRS Administrative & Civil Enforcement

The IRS was the first to sound the alarm and has been on the front lines of the fight for years. Its approach evolved from warnings to a full-scale enforcement campaign.

• Early Warnings and the “Dirty Dozen”: As early as 2014, the IRS began signaling its increased scrutiny of conservation easement appraisals. For many years, it has included abusive SCEs on its annual “Dirty Dozen” list of the nation’s worst tax scams, a public awareness campaign designed to warn taxpayers and preparers away from such schemes.  
• The “Nuclear Option” – Notice 2017-10: The most significant early step came in December 2016, when the IRS issued Notice 2017-10. This notice officially designated abusive SCE transactions as “listed transactions,” a classification the IRS reserves for what it considers the most egregious tax avoidance schemes. This was a critical move, as it imposed stringent reporting requirements on any taxpayer who participated in such a deal and any “material advisor” (like a CPA or attorney) who promoted it. Failure to report carries severe penalties, giving the IRS a powerful tool to track and penalize involvement.  
• Mass Audits and Tax Court Victories: Following the notice, the IRS launched a massive enforcement initiative, challenging billions of dollars in claimed deductions and opening audits on tens of thousands of investors who participated in syndicated deals. This led to a flood of litigation in the U.S. Tax Court. The results have been a resounding success for the government. In case after case, the Tax Court has sided with the IRS, consistently finding that the true value of the donated easements was only a tiny fraction of the amount claimed by the promoters and imposing stiff penalties on the investors.  
• Strategic Settlements: Armed with this string of legal victories, the IRS began offering time-limited settlement initiatives to taxpayers with SCE cases under audit or in court. These offers require the taxpayer to concede the vast majority of the claimed tax deduction and pay a significant penalty, but often on terms more favorable than they would face after losing at trial. This strategy serves two purposes: it allows the IRS to clear its massive backlog of cases more efficiently and it provides a way for investors to achieve tax certainty and put the matter behind them, albeit at a high cost.  

Legislative Action—Closing the Loophole

Despite the IRS’s aggressive enforcement, the schemes continued to proliferate. The potential profits were so high that promoters and investors were willing to risk an audit. It became clear that enforcement alone was not enough; the law itself had to be changed.

• The Charitable Conservation Easement Program Integrity Act: For years, legitimate conservation groups, led by the Land Trust Alliance, worked with a bipartisan group of lawmakers in Congress to pass legislation to shut down the abuse. They argued that the fraudulent schemes were giving a “black eye” to the entire land conservation community and jeopardized the future of the legitimate tax incentive.  
• The SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022: The legislative fix finally came in December 2022, when the key provisions of the Integrity Act were included in the must-pass SECURE 2.0 Act. The new law did not ban conservation easements but instead surgically removed the profitability of the abusive model. For contributions made after December 29, 2022, the law generally limits the charitable deduction for a conservation easement donated by a partnership to no more than   2.5 times the partner’s original investment or “relevant basis”. This 2.5x cap made it impossible for promoters to offer the 4:1 or higher returns that were the entire basis of their fraudulent business model, effectively killing the abusive scheme for all future transactions. This was a tacit admission by the government that for some types of tax fraud rooted in legal gray areas, the most effective solution is not just enforcement but targeted legislative reform that removes the financial incentive.  

Criminal Prosecution—Raising the Stakes

The final prong of the government’s attack was to treat the promotion of these schemes not just as a matter of civil tax non-compliance, but as a felony. The Department of Justice’s Tax Division, working with IRS Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI), began to build criminal cases against the most prolific promoters.

The indictment of Jack Fisher, James Sinnott, Kate Joy, and their network of accomplices in 2022 was a watershed moment. It marked the first major criminal trial targeting the architects of the syndicated conservation easement industry. The subsequent convictions and the historically long prison sentences sent a shockwave through the tax professional community, demonstrating that the consequences for promoting these shelters had escalated from financial penalties to decades behind bars. This “pincer movement” strategy—attacking the fraud with administrative, legislative, and criminal tools simultaneously—proved to be the only way to dismantle such a deeply rooted and profitable criminal enterprise.  

Table 3: Timeline of the Federal Crackdown on Abusive SCEs

Justice Served: An Analysis of the Landmark Sentences

The sentences handed down to Jack Fisher and James Sinnott—25 and 23 years in federal prison, respectively—were more than just punishment; they were a statement. These are among the longest prison terms ever imposed for tax-related crimes in the United States, reflecting a deliberate decision by the Department of Justice and the court to make this a ‘message case.’ The goal was to send an unmistakable signal to the entire ecosystem of financial professionals that the days of promoting abusive tax shelters with impunity were over, and the potential consequences had become personally catastrophic.  

Dissecting the Sentence: The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines in Action

To understand how the sentences reached such extraordinary lengths, one must look at the mechanics of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, the complex framework federal judges use to determine appropriate punishments.

• The Primacy of Tax Loss: For financial crimes, and especially tax crimes, the single most important factor driving the recommended sentence is the amount of monetary loss. Under Guideline §2T1.1, the “tax loss” dictates the starting point, or “base offense level”. In the case of Fisher and Sinnott, the tax loss to the U.S. Treasury was determined to be over   $450 million. This astronomical figure placed them at an extremely high offense level before any other factors were even considered.  
• Key Sentencing Enhancements: The guidelines then provide for a series of “enhancements” or upward adjustments based on specific characteristics of the crime. The Fisher-Sinnott scheme triggered several powerful enhancers:
  • Sophisticated Means: The guidelines provide a significant increase for offenses involving “sophisticated means”. The use of a complex web of shell companies and partnerships, the coordination of fraudulent appraisals across multiple states, the systematic backdating of documents, and the recruitment of a network of complicit professionals were textbook examples of a sophisticated criminal scheme.  
  • Role in the Offense: As the organizers and leaders of a criminal activity that was extensive and involved five or more participants, Fisher and Sinnott were subject to a substantial upward adjustment for their leadership roles. They were not mere participants; they were the architects and commanders of the conspiracy.  
  • Abuse of a Position of Trust or Special Skill: The guidelines also punish defendants who abuse their professional standing to commit or conceal a crime. As a CPA and an attorney, respectively, Fisher and Sinnott used their specialized knowledge of the tax code and legal structures not to ensure compliance, but to design and execute the fraud. This abuse of their professional licenses was a key aggravating factor.  

The Judge’s Message: “A Level of Greed That is Sinister”

The final sentence, however, rested with Chief U.S. District Judge Timothy C. Batten. The government’s sentencing memorandum urged the court to impose sentences of no less than 30 years for Fisher and 28 for Sinnott. Judge Batten, in an extraordinary move, chose to “stack” the sentences for several of the counts to run consecutively (one after the other) rather than concurrently (at the same time). This allowed him to construct a total sentence that exceeded the 20-year statutory maximum for the most serious single charge they faced, signaling his agreement with the prosecution’s view of the crime’s severity.  

His remarks from the bench were scathing and left no doubt as to his reasoning. “It shocks the conscience, the degree of fraud in this case,” Judge Batten stated, adding, “At the core of this is a level of greed that is sinister”. This commentary reveals that the sentence was not just a mathematical calculation based on the guidelines; it was a moral judgment on the defendants’ character and motivations.  

Crucially, the judge and jury rejected the defense’s argument that Fisher and Sinnott were simply relying in good faith on the advice of expert appraisers—a common defense in white-collar cases. The prosecution successfully argued that the defendants did not rely on experts, but rather selected and directed them for “mere optics” to achieve a preconceived fraudulent outcome. This finding has profound implications, establishing that an organizer of a scheme cannot feign ignorance by hiding behind the opinions of experts they themselves commissioned with a fraudulent purpose.

The Price of Not Cooperating

The severity of the sentences for Fisher and Sinnott is thrown into even sharper relief when contrasted with the outcomes for their co-conspirators who chose a different path. Numerous other professionals involved in the scheme pleaded guilty and cooperated with the government’s investigation. Their reward was dramatically lighter sentences.

For example, appraiser Walter “Terry” Roberts, who admitted to generating the fraudulent valuations, was sentenced to just 12 months in prison. Attorney Randall Lenz, who marketed the funds, received one year of probation. CPAs Victor Smith and William Tomasello, who sold millions in fraudulent deductions, were each sentenced to 20 months. This stark disparity illustrates the enormous risk of taking the federal government to trial in a complex fraud case and losing. It is a powerful demonstration of the “trial penalty” and the immense leverage prosecutors wield through plea bargaining. For Fisher and Sinnott, the gamble to fight the charges resulted in the loss of their freedom for the better part of their remaining lives.  

A Guide for the Wary: How to Avoid and Report Tax Fraud

The downfall of the Fisher-Sinnott empire and its network of facilitators like Ofer Gabbay offers critical lessons for taxpayers, investors, and financial professionals alike. The entire fraudulent ecosystem was built upon a collective failure of professional skepticism and the age-old lure of a deal that is too good to be true. Understanding the warning signs and professional obligations is the best defense against becoming the next victim or the next defendant.

Red Flags for Taxpayers and Investors

Any taxpayer or investor approached with a deal resembling a syndicated conservation easement should be on high alert. The IRS and fraud experts point to several key red flags:

• Promises Too Good to Be True: This is the single most important warning sign. Legitimate investments and charitable contributions do not come with guarantees of tax deductions that are a multiple of the amount invested. Any promoter promising a 4-to-1, 5-to-1, or higher deduction-to-investment ratio is selling an abusive tax shelter, not a legitimate conservation opportunity.  
• High-Pressure Sales Tactics: Be wary of promoters who create a sense of urgency, especially those pushing for a quick investment at the end of the tax year to offset a surprise tax liability. Legitimate conservation takes time and careful planning.  
• Questionable Appraisals: The appraisal is the heart of the fraud. Investors should be deeply skeptical of any appraisal that is provided by the promoter or a “hand-picked” appraiser. A valuation that seems wildly disconnected from the property’s recent purchase price or its realistic market value is a massive red flag. An investor should insist on seeing an independent, qualified appraisal from a reputable firm.  
• Unfamiliar or Unqualified Charities: A legitimate conservation easement is donated to and held by a qualified, experienced land trust with a history of stewardship. If the charity designated to receive the easement is newly formed, has no track record, or seems to exist only on paper, it is likely part of the fraudulent structure.  
• High Upfront Fees: While legitimate transactions have costs, abusive schemes often involve promoters demanding exorbitant fees, often structured as a percentage of the promised (and fraudulent) tax benefits.  

The Professional’s Duty—Due Diligence for CPAs and Advisors

The case of Ofer Gabbay serves as the ultimate cautionary tale for every CPA, attorney, and financial advisor. His journey from a respected professional to a convicted felon underscores that ignorance is no defense, and willful blindness is a path to prosecution. The IRS imposes strict due diligence requirements on all paid tax professionals, and failure to meet them can have severe consequences.

• Due Diligence is Non-Negotiable: Federal regulations require paid preparers to practice due diligence, especially when preparing returns that claim complex deductions or tax credits. This is not optional. It is a legal and ethical mandate.  
• Ask, Don’t Just Accept: A professional cannot simply accept information provided by a client or a promoter at face value, especially if it appears “incorrect, inconsistent, or incomplete”. If a reasonable and well-informed preparer would be suspicious, they have a duty to ask probing follow-up questions. They cannot ignore the obvious implications of a deal that promises a 400% return in the form of a tax deduction.  
• Documentation is the Shield: The key to proving due diligence is meticulous record-keeping. Professionals must document the questions they ask their clients, the answers they receive, and the documents they review. Required forms, such as Form 8867, Paid Preparer’s Due Diligence Checklist, must be completed accurately and retained for three years. In an audit or investigation, this paper trail can be the professional’s best defense.  
• The Consequences of Failure: The penalties for failing to meet due diligence requirements range from monetary fines imposed on the preparer and their firm to IRS audits of their entire client base. And as the cases of Gabbay, Fisher, and the other convicted CPAs demonstrate, when that failure crosses the line into active participation in a fraudulent scheme, the consequences escalate to the loss of professional license, forfeiture of assets, and years in federal prison.  

The Whistleblower’s Role

The government cannot fight large-scale fraud alone. It often relies on insiders with courage to come forward. The IRS Whistleblower Program provides a powerful incentive for individuals with knowledge of major tax fraud to report it.

Under the program, a whistleblower who provides specific, credible, and original information about a tax fraud scheme can be eligible for a substantial financial reward. If the IRS uses the information to successfully prosecute the case and recovers unpaid taxes, penalties, and interest, the whistleblower may receive between 15% and 30% of the total amount collected, provided the amount in dispute exceeds $2 million.  

Information must be concrete and not publicly known. This can include internal documents, emails, recordings, or firsthand knowledge of how the scheme operates. Individuals with such information can file a claim with the IRS Whistleblower Office using Form 211, Application for Award for Original Information. Given the complexities, consulting with an experienced whistleblower attorney is highly recommended to ensure the claim is prepared and submitted in a way that maximizes its chances of success.  

The Conspiracy Roster: Where Are They Now?

The decade-long saga of the Fisher-Sinnott syndicated conservation easement scheme has resulted in a clear and decisive outcome for nearly all involved. The final disposition of the key players paints a stark picture of the risks and rewards of confronting the federal justice system, offering a powerful conclusion to this story of widespread fraud.

• Ofer Gabbay (CPA): Has pleaded guilty to conspiracy to defraud the United States. He is currently awaiting sentencing by a federal judge and faces a statutory maximum of five years in prison, along with restitution and other financial penalties.  
• Jack Fisher (CPA, Promoter): The mastermind of the scheme was convicted on all counts at trial. He was sentenced to 25 years in federal prison and ordered to pay approximately $458 million in restitution to the United States. He is currently incarcerated. An appeal of his conviction and sentence to the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is widely expected but its status remains pending.  
• James Sinnott (Attorney, Promoter): Fisher’s top partner was also convicted at trial. He was sentenced to 23 years in federal prison and ordered to pay approximately $444 million in restitution. He is currently incarcerated. The Georgia Supreme Court has suspended his license to practice law pending the outcome of his direct appeal.  
• Kate Joy / Yekaterina Lopuhina (Assistant, Promoter): A central figure in the scheme’s execution, Joy was indicted on multiple felony charges, including conspiracy to commit wire fraud. She fled before she could be arrested and remains an international fugitive.  
• The Cooperating Professionals: The conspirators who chose to plead guilty and cooperate with the government received dramatically different fates. Their outcomes underscore the immense value of cooperation in the eyes of the justice system.
  • CPAs Victor Smith and William Tomasello were each sentenced to 20 months in prison for their roles in selling the fraudulent shelters.  
  • Attorney Vi Bui was sentenced to 16 months for obstructing an IRS investigation into the scheme.  
  • Appraiser Walter “Terry” Roberts, whose fraudulent valuations were the engine of the scheme, was sentenced to just 12 months in prison after his cooperation.  
• The Acquitted: The case of appraiser Clayton Weibel stands as a reminder that an indictment is not a conviction. After a full trial, a jury acquitted him of all charges, concluding that the government had not proven his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  

The final tally is a dramatic illustration of the strategic decisions defendants face in complex conspiracy prosecutions. The leaders who maintained their innocence, fought the charges, and lost were handed sentences that will likely see them spend the rest of their lives in prison. The participants who admitted their guilt early and provided substantial assistance to the government received punishments that, while serious, are measured in months, not decades. And the one who fled remains a fugitive, her fate unresolved. It is a fittingly cautionary conclusion for a report on one of the most audacious tax frauds the nation has ever seen.