Tulsa World: Judge denies motion in cigarette-tax case

MAKE US YOUR HOMEPAGE | Sunday, November 22, 2009 | WIRELESS

Home > News > Article

Newspaper View Print this story

Comment

RSS

Bookmark

Judge denies motion in cigarette-tax case

By OMER GILLHAM World Staff Writer
Published: 1/29/2009 2:43 AM
Last Modified: 1/29/2009 2:43 AM

A federal judge has denied prosecutors' motion to determine whether cigarette-trafficking defendant Gary L. Hall is using his money to manipulate his criminal case.

Hall and seven other defendants have been accused in a $25 million tax-diversion scheme to defraud Oklahoma and American Indian tribes out of tobacco taxes.

The alleged scheme includes cigarette transactions and money transfers in three states, according to a 43-count indictment filed Oct. 15 in federal court in Kansas.

Additionally, three of Hall's businesses are defendants.

Federal prosecutors had asked the court to determine whether Hall is using his money and influence to affect the outcome of his pending case on allegations of money laundering, mail fraud and other various federal charges.

Hall, 66, is a self-made millionaire who owns a sprawling mansion near Joplin, Mo. He also owns several companies, including Sunflower Supply Co., a wholesale operation in Galena, Kan., that sells tobacco products in Oklahoma.

In about 2002, Hall reportedly made $110 million on the sale of the Medallion Co., a discount cigarette company.

Prosecutors have raised the question of Hall's paying for the legal expenses of many of the other defendants to keep them from agreeing to plea deals that could implicate Hall, court records show.

Many of the defendants have separate attorneys, but they appear to be paid by Hall or his companies, prosecutors state in court filings. Hall also might be paying the

legal expenses for some witnesses in the case, records state.

U.S. District Judge Monti Belot denied the prosecution's motion without prejudice on Jan. 14.

Belot wrote: "While the court is somewhat concerned that Hall (supposedly) is paying for all of the defendants' attorneys, this fact alone, assuming it is true, does not trigger an inquiry. As previously noted on the record, the court knows all the lawyers in this case, each of whom is highly ethical and will zealously represent the interests of, and only of, his client(s)."

Omer Gillham 581-8301
omer.gillham@tulsaworld.com By OMER GILLHAM World Staff Writer

Newspaper View Print this story

Comment

RSS

Bookmark

Reader Comments

Show: Most Recent Comment First

Add your comment

1 comments have been made on this story so far. Tell us what you think below!

Reporting Comments

If you see a comment that violates our terms and conditions, please help us by clicking the "Report this Comment" link next to a comment. That will alert the web staff to review the comment. Thank you. -- Web Editor Jason Collington

Report Comment

justiceawaits, Claremore (1/29/2009 8:13:44 AM)

Innocent until proven guilty. Of course he is using his money to defend himself, its his constitutional right to get a fair trial.

Add Your Comment
In order to post a comment on this article, you must sign in to Tulsaworld.com. If you do not have a site account, you can create an account for free.