The lawyer for a jailed Akron businessman who got caught trying to run an income tax business while imprisoned withdrew his client’s request for early release after a stern judge made it clear how she felt about the request.
“He’s a manipulator. He does not believe rules apply to him,” Summit County Common Pleas Judge Christine Croce told Ronald Conte’s lawyer. Conte, who is in prison, was not present at the hearing.
Conte, 58, of Akron was sentenced in May 2015 to a 59-month prison sentence after being found guilty of charges that he collected taxes from his payroll clients and did not pay them to the local, state and federal agencies. He was ordered to pay $558,102 in restitution to 37 companies involved.
He was eligible for early release earlier this year after six months, but at the time of sentencing, Croce strongly suggested Conte not try for nine months.
This spring, questions arose about whether Conte was involved in his former Akron Income Tax business on Waterloo Road. Conte sold the business and is involved in a separate civil case brought on by some of his payroll tax victims.
Conte’s attorney in the civil case has insisted that Conte was not involved in the business and that business cards displayed on the counter during tax season, letters sent out with Conte’s name and Conte’s name appearing on prepared tax returns were mistakes and quickly remedied.
But victim complaints about Conte’s possible involvement in the spring led to disciplinary actions by the Richland Correctional Institution against Conte, including 10 days in “disciplinary housing,” 90 days of email and visitation restrictions and a security review.
In a hearing Tuesday afternoon in front of Croce for her to consider whether to bring Conte to court at a future date to consider an early release, Summit County Assistant Prosecutor Colleen Sims said 21 of 30 victims said they were opposed to his release, saying they did not believe he was remorseful.
Conte’s criminal lawyer, Joel Reed, told the judge that his client had waited 15 months to make his request.
Reed told the judge that before this conviction, Conte had not had any criminal record and has accepted his punishment.
“He took his medicine,” Reed said. Recent articles about the income tax business do not have anything to do with the payroll business for which he is serving his sentence, the lawyer said.
Reed said he had listened to phone calls between Conte and his wife and “Mr. Conte was giving instructions on how the income tax business could succeed.”
The success of that business, which was sold to a colleague, is important to pay restitution to Conte’s victims and the longer he is in jail, the longer victims will need to wait to be repaid, Reed said.
“Mr. Conte — despite his numerous shortcomings — was successful in the income tax business,” Reed said.
Reed said that once Conte found out it was not appropriate to talk to his wife about the business, he stopped.
The judge did not agree.
Judge: Calls in code
Croce said she had fully intended to give Conte early release when she originally sentenced him “until I listened to the telephone calls.”
Croce said she listened to three hours of recorded calls between Conte in jail and his wife. “What you characterize as phone calls, I can definitely tell they were talking in code,” she said.
Additionally, Croce said, while Conte was being disciplined by the prison, “What did he do?” Croce asked. He used the PIN codes of two other inmates to make telephone calls, thinking he wouldn’t be caught, she said.
“I fully want the victims to get paid, but Mr. Conte doesn’t recognize rules apply to him,” Croce said before asking Conte’s lawyer if he wanted to withdraw his client’s request for early release.
Reed confirmed he wanted to withdraw the request. Croce said she would grant the withdrawal, with prejudice, to allow Conte to apply again at a later date.
“I am sadly disappointed. He manipulated other inmates, and he thought there would be no repercussions,” she said.
After the court session ended, Reed declined comment. Sims said the county was pleased with the withdrawal, and said it is common practice for a lawyer to withdraw a request if the judge has stated on the record his or her feelings about the request.
“The majority of the victims are going to be relieved about hearing he’s not going to be released,” Sims said.
Victim: Not paid back
Cuyahoga Falls attorney Raymond Powell, one of Conte’s victims who lost $16,700 in withheld payroll taxes, said he thought the court might give Conte the opportunity to come before the judge in the next phase.
“I couldn’t be more happy,” said Powell, who was not in the courtroom, but was told the result by a reporter. Powell and others are suing Conte in a civil case.
Powell said he and other victims of Conte’s criminal case have not been paid, even though some proceeds of the income tax business were supposed to go toward restitution. “I have not received a penny. All the money that has been collected has gone to the IRS or a secured loan Conte had.”
Betty Lin-Fisher can be reached at 330-996-3724 or blinfisher@thebeaconjournal.com. Follow her @blinfisherABJ on Twitter or www.facebook.com/BettyLinFisherABJ and see all her stories at www.ohio.com/betty