Just after Teresa and Joe Giudice, reality stars of Real Housewives of New Jersey, were sentenced to jail time by a federal judge, they sat down with Bravo’s Andy Cohen for a Watch What Happens Live special to talk about what happened in court.
If you were expecting remorse from the couple, you were disappointed.
Throughout the interview, Joe took the fall for almost all of the crimes, claiming that he duped Teresa into signing papers and other documents in order to perpetuate his fraud. Interestingly, the prosecution and the judge didn’t see it that way, charging Teresa initially with numerous felonies associated with bankruptcy fraud, tax fraud, and other economic crimes; Joe was charged separately. Teresa eventually entered into an agreement, pleading guilty to four of the charges; Joe pleaded guilty to five of the charges, including failure to file a tax return.
Without the plea, the couple faced up to 50 years of prison time and millions of dollars in fines. With the plea agreement, Teresa faced up to 21 to 27 months in jail and Joe faced up to 37 to 46 months in jail. In the end, Teresa was sentenced to 15 months and Joe was sentenced to 41 months – plus fines and restitution.
The sentence came as a shock to Teresa who claimed, in the interview, that her lawyer did not tell her jail time was a possibility under the plea. She said about the plea, “I didn’t fully understand it. I thought my lawyer was going to fight for me. I mean, that’s what lawyers do. I don’t know. That’s why you hire an attorney. You put it in their hands.”
But how likely is that, really? I don’t handle criminal law in my practice – even on tax matters – so I asked someone who does for the answers.
Brian Tannebaum, criminal and Bar defense lawyer in Miami, Florida, and author of The Practice (available at www.americanbar.org), first explained to me how a plea agreement works and how they are memorialized. “Plea agreements in federal court,” he says, “are usually, but not always, in writing.” And, he says, “When they are in writing, they explain the maximum sentence and usually the prospective sentence under the federal sentencing guidelines.”
That sure sounds like Teresa should have known the potential consequences. But what if she didn’t read the plea agreement? She likely had another shot at understanding what might happen when she stood in front of Judge Salas. Tannebaum says, “When the defendant accepts the plea the judge goes through all the possible sentences. As all sentences in federal court are up to the judge, the judge will always explain that regardless of any agreements between the prosecutor and the defendant, the ultimate sentence is up to the judge.” As a defense attorney, Tannebaum says, “I would never believe that any defendant pleading guilty in a federal case would not know that jail is a possibility.”
Of course, many fans of the show were perplexed that jail was on the table in the first place. Mortgage fraud, tax fraud, and the like are often labeled white-collar crimes: since they’re non-violent, some assumed that meant the sentence would be light. Only it wasn’t. The Giudices were initially charged with a number of felonies. The minimum sentence for any felony, Tannebaum says, is 0-6 months, “meaning that any defendant pleading guilty in a federal case is facing a minimum of 0 to 6 months.” And that’s for one felony. Put that together with several felonies? You see where the potential sentences add up.
But while Joe had a DUI on the books, Teresa didn’t have a criminal history. That should account for something, right? Not according to Tannebaum who explained that “in federal court, economic offenses are based on ‘loss,’ meaning how much money was intended to be or actually a ‘loss.’ Being a first time offender means the criminal history is not a factor, but if the loss is even $5,000, the guidelines call for the possibility of jail.”
So what happened to nudge the sentence upwards? The Giudices might have made matters worse with their behavior following their indictment. While Teresa claimed to be “shocked” that the judge had issues with their financial disclosures, the judge was clear that she thought the Giudices were still hiding something, saying, “They had an obligation to be transparent and candid and open with the court and I don’t think I got that.” That, Tannebaum claims, matters, because “in federal court, defendants get a reduction of 2-3 points for ‘acceptance of responsibility,’ which can lead to significant time off a prospective sentence.” But, he warned, “If the judge finds that the defendants were not honest about their finances, acceptance can be off the table, and as well, any agreement that the defendant be sentenced to the “low end” of the guidelines, can be ignored.”
That seems to be what happened.
But maybe – just maybe – was it also a little warning shot to the rest of us? Teresa, of course, has claimed since the beginning that she was being unfairly targeted for her celebrity.
That, says the Internal Revenue Service, simply isn’t true. Chief Richard Weber, IRS-CI, who had previously called the result “a victory for the Real Taxpayers of New Jersey and the United States,” says that it doesn’t matter who you are when it comes to personal responsibility. He said, when asked about the case, “The message should be very clear. No matter who you are, what you do, where you work, how much money you make – everyone should pay their fair share. We live in one of the most tax compliant countries in the world because of our rigorous and tireless efforts to investigate tax crimes. Our Special Agents will follow the money trail wherever it may lead.”
That trail landed the Giudices in federal court. But that didn’t seem to be enough to change their behavior. While Teresa claimed that she had learned from her mistakes, Judge Salas didn’t appear to agree, saying to Teresa, at sentencing, “I don’t honestly believe that you understand or respect the law. I need to send a message. In the eyes of the law, it doesn’t matter who you are. There are consequences to pay.”
Teresa will learn exactly what those consequences are when she reports to federal prison on January 5. That doesn’t leave the pair much time to plan – or to find money to pay back what they now owe. The Giudices have been selling off their homes to raise money and they agreed to the sit-down with Andy Cohen for a fee: funds that could be used to pay restitution, fines, and taxes owed by the pair. TMZ and other media placed the amount for the appearance at $325,000. Bravo tells me, however, that amount is “completely inaccurate.” Whatever the fee, the pair apparently still has more to say: part two of the interview will air on Thursday, October 9, at 9 p.m. ET, and is expected to touch on further issues involving the couple’s sentencing, their children, and Joe’s alleged drinking problem.
