http://www.marinij.com/Stories/0,1413,234~26642~2412964,00.html

Woman allegedly pays off Stanford Law loans as call girl
By Josh Richman
Oakland Tribune

Sunday, September 19, 2004 - OAKLAND - Federal prosecutors argue the government should keep $61,000 in cash seized from an Oakland woman who allegedly worked as a high-priced call girl to repay student loans from her time at Stanford Law School.

Court documents detail how agents sifted through trash, conducted surveillance, interviewed clients and a colleague, pored over tax returns and surfed the Internet to build a case for keeping money seized from Cristina Schultz, 31, who used the name "Brazil" and charged $1,300 for two hours of her services.

But, all jokes about the declining value of a Stanford law degree aside, Schultz hasn't been charged with any federal crimes.

Federal civil asset forfeiture laws let the government keep property - in this case, money - representing the proceeds of a federal crime even if the owner hasn't been convicted or even charged with the alleged crime. The government claims the money was involved in money-laundering transactions and the proceeds of interstate prostitution.

Civil libertarians long have complained that while criminal proceedings put the burden of proof upon prosecutors to prove someone's guilt, the forfeiture laws essentially put that burden upon the property's owner to prove he or she is innocent.

Robyn Few, director of the Sex Workers Outreach Project, which is backing a Berkeley ballot measure to decriminalize prostitution, said it's a form of blackmail.

"They think we're going to pay the federal government to be quiet, we're going to give up everything we've got. It's extortion, that's the bottom line," she said. "It's, 'Let's extort the whores because they're so ashamed of who they are that they'll be too afraid to stand up for themselves.'"

Efforts to reach Schultz by phone, e-mail and in person were unsuccessful.

Special Agent Mark Lessler, spokesman for the IRS Criminal Investigation Division office in Oakland, and Assistant U.S. Attorney Stephanie Hinds, who's prosecuting Schultz, declined comment.

Luke Macaulay, spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's office in San Francisco, said it's not uncommon to seek asset forfeiture without any criminal charges. A Justice Department Web site says the asset forfeiture program's purpose is "to disrupt or dismantle criminal organizations that would continue to function if we only convicted and incarcerated specific individuals."

Schultz's Web site remained active this week. The Web site, depicting her in various lingerie-clad poses, describes her as a "Portuguese-speaking entertainer and physical model."

"The quintessential Gemini, I am an unusual mix of well-educated good-girl and erotic-Bachian-sensualist, with some down-to-earth sweetness thrown in," it says. "I am sure you will never forget any time you spend with me and I look forward to meeting you soon."

Her home page's fine print says "Escort services advertised on this Web site are for companionship and dating only."

But clients posting reviews of Brazil's services at another Web site gave her rave - and sometimes, explicit - reviews as recently as February 2004, a month after Internal Revenue Service agents seized evidence and $61,171 from Schultz's Oakland apartment, storage locker and safe deposit box.

The government's forfeiture complaint filed in July says Schultz operated an interstate prostitution business at least since August 2001 - three months after earning her degree at Stanford Law School - by charging up to $1,300 for two hours, $5,000 for overnight and $15,000 for three days to serve clients in the Bay Area, Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., New York City, Chicago and Seattle.

The complaint says investigators in September 2002 searched trash put out from Schultz's Palo Alto apartment, recovering items such as a law book containing $2,400 in $100 bills; bills and invoices from Washington, D.C., hotels; business cards in the name of "Brazil;" condoms; invoices for large cash purchases; tax records; an admission card for the July 2001 California Bar Exam; and a promotional postcard from a Southern California woman.

That woman, when arrested for solicitation in January 2003, told officers her friend Brazil had gotten her started in prostitution. She also told officers they'd worked together as prostitutes.

The complaint notes Schultz's tax returns reported only $28,717 in income from 1997 through 2002, but investigators found she deposited more than $45,000 cash to an account she'd opened at a Washington, D.C., Bank of America branch in 2002. Those deposits slacked off after she opened an Oakland safe deposit box from which agents seized cash in January.

"My investigation indicates that there is a large discrepancy between the income that Schultz has reported to the IRS and her expenditures and the lifestyle those expenditures have allowed Schultz to become accustomed to," reads a January affidavit filed by IRS Special Agent Anthony Ghio.

"Based on my training and experience, generally people whose adjusted gross income is consistently less than $13,500 a year are not able to put themselves through Stanford Law School, lease a $70,000 Mercedes-Benz for $1,486 a month, live alone in a $1,800-a-month apartment, pay off almost $300,000 in loans, compile savings over $10,000, build a cash hoard of $40,000, throw away $2,400 in cash and buy postal money orders totaling $13,500 all at one time."

- L4B -

i can't believe a law student failed to set herself up as an individual-contractor... she got greedy...

and now she's screwed in a bad bad way...

that's karma for yah... overcharging and then not payin yer taxes...

hello? is this thing on? Federal authorities interviewed CLIENTS. This is the type of story where some reporter is gonna go hmmmmmmm, i wonder who exactly those clients who talked with the Feds are and start looking for names. It's a sexy story

Any way you look at this, despite what many people's personal opinions are of Brazil, IMO I don't see how her getting busted is a good thing in any way shape or form for anyone here.

I know this place is to share info, but discretion still rules the day in this hobby.

So I think deductions for hotel rooms, lingerie, condoms, medical check ups, etc. would likely all be deductible. However, not declaring sufficient income for your lifestyle and having large amounts of cash around changes the nature of the crime for asset forfeiture.