Date: October 27, 2020 Contact: email@example.com Harrisburg – Ivan Rempel, of Camp Hill, Pennsylvania, was indicted on September 30, 2020, by a federal grand jury on one count of tax evasion and nine counts of failure to pay and account for employment taxes. According to United States Attorney David J. Freed, the indictment alleges that Rempel was the President and Chief Executive of a warehousing business in Millersburg, Pennsylvania, since the early 1990s and evaded payment of approximately $2.7 million to the IRS. It is alleged that, from 1991 to 2017, Rempel habitually failed to pay to the IRS employment taxes that he withheld from his employees' paychecks. Rempel also failed to file required forms with the IRS to account for the employment taxes. The IRS eventually took steps to collect the money from his business and personal bank accounts, when in 2017 they imposed levies on certain accounts. But, when they tried to collect the money from his bank accounts, Rempel began hiding the money. He took payment from his customers and turned it into cashier checks. He deposited the cashier's checks into other bank accounts and quickly made payroll, then balanced out his bank accounts so that the IRS had no money to collect. He also began moving money overseas to international bank accounts to avoid paying the employment taxes he was withholding from his employee's paychecks. The case was investigated by the IRS-Criminal Investigation. Assistant U.S. Attorney Michael Consiglio is prosecuting the case. Indictments and Criminal Informations are only allegations. All persons charged are presumed to be innocent unless and until found guilty in court. A sentence following a finding of guilt is imposed by the Judge after consideration of the applicable federal sentencing statutes and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. The maximum penalty under federal law for each offense is five years of imprisonment, a term of supervised release following imprisonment, and a fine. Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the Judge is also required to consider and weigh a number of factors, including the nature, circumstances and seriousness of the offense; the history and characteristics of the defendant; and the need to punish the defendant, protect the public and provide for the defendant's educational, vocational and medical needs. For these reasons, the statutory maximum penalty for the offense is not an accurate indicator of the potential sentence for a specific defendant.