You are here

Justice News

Department of Justice
U.S. Attorney’s Office
Middle District of Pennsylvania

Wednesday, June 15, 2016

Former Cumberland County Attorney Charged With Income Tax Evasion

HARRISBURG - The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced today that a Criminal Information was filed in U.S. District Court in Harrisburg on June 14, 2016, charging a former Cumberland County attorney with tax evasion and failure to file a federal tax return.

According to United States Attorney Peter Smith, in 2012, Karl E. Rominger, age 43, an attorney in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, attempted to evade federal income taxes due and owing for the calendar years 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010, all years in which Rominger received taxable income. Rominger allegedly made false statements to agents of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) concerning the location of his business operating accounts, with the intent to evade and defeat the actions of the IRS.

Rominger is also charged with willful failure to file a federal income tax return for the calendar year 2012.

The government also filed a plea agreement with the defendant which is subject to the approval of the court.

The charges stem from an investigation by the Internal Revenue Service.  The case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney Joseph J. Terz.

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 is 6 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.


# # #

Updated June 15, 2016