Score:   1
Docket Number:   D-MT  1:18-cr-00149
Case Name:   USA v. Price Jr.
  Press Releases:
BILLINGS – The owners of Kisling Quality Builders today admitted they evaded paying more than $320,000 in taxes in a scheme in which they used the construction of a Billings mansion to avoid reporting more than $800,000 in profits, U.S. Attorney Kurt Alme said.

James Kisling, 51, and his wife, Timilynn Kisling, 44, of Billings, each pleaded guilty to an information charging them with two counts of tax evasion.  The Kislings face a maximum five years in prison, a $100,000 fine, costs of prosecution and three years of supervised release.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Timothy J. Cavan presided and will recommend the couple’s pleas be accepted by U.S. District Judge Susan P. Watters, who is hearing the case. The Kislings were released pending further proceedings. A sentencing date has not yet been set.

 Prosecutors said in court records that the Kislings, who own KQB, arranged with Larry Wayne Price, Jr., to hide income when Price hired the company in 2014 to build his house—one of the largest residential mansions every constructed in Billings. KQB agreed to construct the house at cost plus 9 percent, making KQB’s profit an additional 9 percent of the cost.

Price, a former vice president of Signal Peak Energy, a Montana coal company, is awaiting sentencing for his guilty pleas to wire fraud, money laundering and false statements for defrauding coal companies of about $20 million and lying to investigators about a fake abduction. Price’s Billings mansion is among properties to be forfeited at sentencing as part of an agreement with the government.

The Kislings committed tax fraud with Price’s cooperation and knowledge, prosecutors said in court documents. In 2014, the Kislings began building a home for themselves. Instead of paying for this house with their income, the Kislings arranged with Price to make it appear as if the cost of their personal house was part of construction costs of Price’s mansion. The Kislings referred to their house as the “Price Guest House” in work documents for the mansion, and they deducted construction costs for this house from the 9 percent profits they were supposed to receive from Price. Rather than pay the Kislings their profit for building the mansion, Price and the Kislings agreed that Price would simply not pay them approximately $526,132, which was the cost of constructing their personal home, but that the Kislings would still credit him for doing so.

Through this arrangement, the Kislings disguised $526,132 of profits on the Price mansion and deliberately did not report this income to the IRS on their 2014 tax return as required.

In 2015, a similar transaction occurred when the Kislings needed a $275,000 loan on a short time frame for a land transaction in Wyoming. Instead of going to a bank for financing, the Kislings asked Price for the money. Price agreed to the loan and provided the funds. And in an arrangement similar to the Kislings’ personal house construction, the repayment of this loan was disguised as expenses related to the “Price Guest House” and deducted from the 9 percent Price was supposed to pay the Kislings. As a result, the Kislings disguised $275,000 of profits for their work on the Price mansion. The Kislings deliberately did not report this income to the IRS on their 2015 tax return as required.

In an interview with Department of Justice representatives, the Kislings acknowledged that they knowingly and willfully omitted profits from their 2014 and 2015 tax returns and that they both participated in the scheme. The scheme enabled the Kislings to hide approximately $801,132 in income from the IRS.

The parties disagree on the amount of the government’s loss from the fraud but hope to resolve the difference before sentencing. The IRS has calculated the tax due and owning as $327,664, not including penalty and interest, while the Kislings’ accountant has calculated the tax due as $320,102, not including penalty and interest.

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Colin Rubich, Zeno Baucus and Tim Tatarka are prosecuting the case, which was investigated by the IRS and FBI.

XXX

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BILLINGS – A Billings man who worked for Signal Peak Energy, a Montana coal mining company, admitted in federal court today to an embezzlement scheme that defrauded companies of more than $20 million and to lying to investigators about a false abduction, U.S. Attorney Kurt G. Alme said.

Larry Wayne Price, Jr., 38, pleaded guilty to three counts of wire fraud, conspiracy to commit money laundering and false official statement.

U.S. Magistrate Judge Timothy J. Cavan presided at the hearing and recommended Price’s pleas be accepted by U.S. District Judge Dana L. Christensen, who is assigned to the case. A sentencing date will be set. Price was released pending sentencing.

Price faces a maximum 20 years in prison, a $250,000 fine and three years of supervised release on the wire fraud and conspiracy counts. He faces a maximum five years in prison, a $250,000 fine and three years of supervised release on the official false statement count.

Price also faces the forfeiture of real and personal property derived from the crimes, including a $20,321,134 monetary judgment, two Billings residences located at 5650 Canyonwoods Drive and at 5875 Whispering Woods Drive, three properties in Virginia, a motorhome, boat trailers, watercrafts and jewelry.

The government agrees that forfeited property will be used for restitution for victims until all eligible victims have been made whole. Remaining property will be forfeited under the normal forfeiture procedures and will not exceed the money judgment of $20,321,134.

If the case had proceeded to trial, the government would have provided the following information as evidence:

From about October 2016 until April 2018, Price embezzled about $20,321,134 from three coal-related companies. During that time, Price was vice president of surface activities at Signal Peak Energy and also operated a private business called 3 Solutions, LLC, which was involved in coal mining but its primary purpose was to supply chemicals to Signal Peak Energy. 

The three companies Price defrauded were Ninety M, LLC, a Wyoming company of investors looking to invest large sums in coal mining projects; Three Blind Mice, LLC, another Wyoming company with investors seeking to invest in mining; and Signal Peak Energy.

Price had developed a reputation in Billings and elsewhere as a coal mining expert. Based on his reputation, he convinced Three Blind Mice to lend him $7.5 million, which he stole. Price maintained that 3 Solutions had secured a contract with a Pennsylvania coal company to install coal mining equipment. To complete the project, Price claimed he needed $7.5 million for expenses.

Price proposed that Three Blind Mice lend him the $7.5 million, and he would repay it $11 million on Jan. 31, 2018. Three Blind Mice agreed, signed an unsecured promissory note and wired 3 Solutions the funds. Price defaulted on the loan on Jan. 31, 2018.

An investigation found there was no contract between 3 Solutions and a Pennsylvania coal mine. Instead, Price spent the $7.5 million on unrelated expenses.

In another scheme, Price convinced Ninety M’s investors to appoint him as a representative of the company to help it buy and develop a coal mining property in Tazewell, VA, and to help develop other coal-related ventures. Price engaged in a series of five business deals with other companies on behalf of Ninety M in which he solicited about $13.5 million from the firm, of which $10,475,000 was fraudulently obtained.

Meanwhile, Price, while still employed by Signal Peak Energy, fraudulently induced Signal Peak Energy to buy coal-related equipment from a firm knowing that the firm would not actually provide the equipment. The firm funneled the money to Price through a bank account registered to 3 Solutions. The scheme defrauded Signal Peak Energy of about $2,396,134.

In April 2018, the Ninety M investors began to question some of the transactions involving Price and had confronted him on the phone. By April, Price was living in Virginia, where he was originally from.

On April 18, 2018, Price learned Ninety M was sending representatives to confront him about the fraudulent transactions and he decided to hide. Price contacted a woman he knew and agreed to hide at a house the woman had rented.

The same day, Price’s wife reported him missing to Virginia authorities and local law enforcement responded. Late that night, a driver spotted Price standing on the side of the road in Gratton, Va. Price was taken to a hospital for treatment and released.

Price was subsequently questioned by several law enforcement agencies. In those statements, Price falsely claimed he had been kidnapped by men who may have been associated with an outlaw motorcycle gang.

In statements to the FBI and IRS on April 20, 2018, Price said he had been approached by an unknown man who discussed possibly selling a motorcycle to Price. Price agreed to meet this man at a park and ride. When Price went to the meeting location, the unknown man arrived with a windowless van and was accompanied by another unknown man who pointed a gun at him. Price claimed the second man applied a rag with chemical on it to his face and that made him disoriented. Price said the men took him to an unknown location where he sat in a dark room on the floor for a period of time. The men applied the chemical rag to his face again. He then remembered the men threatening him and throwing him out of the moving van onto the side of the road.

Price knew that none of these statements to the FBI and IRS or to other law enforcement about his supposed abduction was true. Price was not kidnapped by anyone. The false statements cost the government significant investigative resources and hampered the investigation into Price’s own wrongdoing.

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Colin Rubich and Zeno Baucus are prosecuting the case, along with Assistant U.S. Attorney Randy Ramseyer, of the Western District of Virginia. The case was investigated by the FBI, IRS and the Montana State Auditor.

XXX

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rYNgTmgm6l6EoPzOb0OtNN_yPCEPVETeXlEbVbAzc3I
  Last Updated: 2024-03-31 03:56:01 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5

Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15

Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1

Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2

Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3

Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5

Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8

Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10

Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2

Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
F U C K I N G P E D O S R E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E