News

German lawyer and tax advisor Rolf G. Krauß, a partner at Kucera, has been indicted in the United States on charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States and conspiracy to launder money, the Department of Justice announced on November 9, 2023. The indictment alleges Krauß played a central role in a scheme to conceal the ownership of assets held in U.S. Financial institutions by Russian oligarchs, including sanctioned individuals, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.

According to the Justice Department, Krauß, along with others, utilized a network of shell companies and false statements to obscure the true beneficial owners of assets worth hundreds of millions of dollars. The scheme allegedly involved creating layers of ownership through entities registered in various jurisdictions, including the British Virgin Islands and Cyprus, to evade sanctions imposed by the U.S. Government.

The indictment details how Krauß and his co-conspirators provided services to clients, including individuals identified as close associates of Russian President Vladimir Putin, to shield their wealth from seizure. These services included establishing and managing complex corporate structures designed to hide the origin and destination of funds. The Justice Department alleges that Krauß knowingly facilitated transactions that violated U.S. Sanctions laws.

“The Department of Justice is committed to holding accountable those who facilitate the evasion of sanctions and enable the Russian regime’s aggression,” said Assistant Attorney General Kenneth A. Polite Jr. Of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division in a statement. “This indictment demonstrates our resolve to disrupt the flow of illicit funds and prevent sanctioned individuals from accessing the U.S. Financial system.”

Krauß is accused of knowingly participating in a conspiracy that extended from at least 2016 through 2023. The indictment claims he actively worked to circumvent U.S. Regulations designed to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing. The Justice Department has not disclosed the identities of all individuals involved in the alleged scheme beyond those named in the indictment.

If convicted, Krauß faces a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison on each of the two conspiracy counts. The U.S. Government is seeking forfeiture of assets involved in the alleged scheme. Krauß was not immediately available for comment, and Kucera has not yet issued a public statement regarding the indictment.

The case is being investigated by the FBI and the Department of Justice’s National Security Division. The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Recent York is prosecuting the case. A hearing date for Krauß has not been publicly scheduled, and his legal representation remains undisclosed.

The rapidly unfolding financial difficulties at Uncle Nearest Premium Whiskey are escalating, with asset liquidation now underway as the brand grapples with a substantial debt load and ongoing legal challenges. While facing potential foreclosure, the distillery, founded by Fawn Weaver, is moving to sell off properties in an effort to satisfy creditors, signaling a deepening crisis for the once-high-flying spirits company.

The situation stems from a lawsuit filed in July 2025 by Farm Credit Mid-America, alleging that Uncle Nearest, Inc. And its founders, Fawn and Keith Weaver, defaulted on loans totaling $108 million as early as January 2024. The company has been under court-ordered receivership since August 2025, a move intended to stabilize the business and protect creditor interests. This legal battle casts a shadow over the brand’s previously celebrated success story and raises questions about its future.

Now, court documents reveal a push to sell off key assets. Receiver Phillip G. Young Jr. Is seeking expedited court approval to sell a property on Martha’s Vineyard for $2.595 million, according to a motion filed on February 25th. The 2,101 square-foot, four-bedroom, four-bathroom property has a full-price offer pending inspection and financing, with a planned closing date of March 19th. Farm Credit Mid-America has consented to the sale, agreeing to release its lien in exchange for approximately $900,000 of the proceeds. Planet Home Lending holds a first lien of about $1.5 million and would be fully satisfied by the sale.

The prospective buyers are identified as Jennifer Kaalund, PhD and Sekou Kaalund. Notably, Sekou Kaalund is a senior executive vice president at U.S. Bank and a motivational speaker with the Harry Walker Agency – the same agency that represents Fawn Weaver, as detailed on the agency’s website.

In his motion, Young explained that the Martha’s Vineyard property does not generate income and was acquired specifically for marketing and advertising purposes. He argued that selling non-income-producing assets is the most prudent course of action for maximizing returns for creditors and the estate. This strategy reflects the receiver’s focus on preserving value and addressing the company’s significant financial obligations.

Fawn Weaver and Keith Weaver have reportedly objected to the sale, according to a recent emergency filing by the receiver. Weaver previously characterized the lawsuit as an “attempted robbery in broad daylight” in a mid-February video shared with her followers, signaling her strong opposition to the legal proceedings and asset liquidation.

The receiver’s investigation has uncovered troubling details about the company’s financial management. According to reporting by The Modern York Times, records prior to 2024 were deleted, payroll was consistently difficult to meet, and the company had not filed federal tax returns since 2018. The receiver also claims the company was losing approximately $1 million per month and is currently valued around $100 million – a stark contrast to the billion-dollar valuation Weaver publicly stated in 2023.

The sale of the Martha’s Vineyard property represents a significant step in the asset liquidation process. The court’s approval is crucial for finalizing the transaction and initiating the distribution of proceeds to creditors. The situation highlights the precarious financial position of Uncle Nearest and the challenges it faces in navigating its current legal and economic difficulties.

The future of Uncle Nearest remains uncertain as the receivership continues and further asset sales are likely. The court’s decisions in the coming weeks will be pivotal in determining the long-term viability of the brand and the fate of its creditors. The next key date is March 19th, the planned closing date for the Martha’s Vineyard property sale, pending final court approval.

This is a developing story. We will continue to provide updates as more information becomes available. Share your thoughts in the comments below.

A federal judge in West Virginia has invoked a decade-old civil rights case originating in Chicago to challenge the tactics of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, specifically their use of masks during enforcement actions. Judge Joseph Goodwin ordered the release of an El Salvadoran man detained during a January 7 traffic stop, citing constitutional concerns over the anonymity of the agents involved. The judge condemned the practice of concealing identities, arguing it undermines accountability and due process.

Goodwin’s ruling, issued February 19, centers on a traffic stop initiated because of a plastic cover on the man’s license plate. The detainee, who possessed a valid driver’s license, work permit, and a pending asylum claim, asserted his legal status. However, the judge found the actions of the masked ICE agents violated the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, which protect against unreasonable searches and seizures and guarantee due process of law. The ruling doesn’t directly bind courts outside of West Virginia’s circuit, but legal experts suggest it could influence future challenges to ICE and Border Patrol actions nationwide.

The judge’s opinion draws a direct line to Doornbos v. City of Chicago, a case stemming from an incident in 2013. Joseph Doornbos, then 35, was stopped by plainclothes Chicago police officers near the Wilson Avenue CTA station after leaving work. According to court records, Doornbos believed he was being robbed when approached by officers who did not immediately identify themselves as law enforcement. A struggle ensued after Doornbos attempted to seek help, leading to his arrest on charges of drug possession and resisting arrest. He was ultimately acquitted, but subsequently filed a civil suit.

The core of the Doornbos case revolved around whether plainclothes officers are required to identify themselves during a stop. The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ultimately ruled in 2016 that, with limited exceptions, officers must identify themselves when initiating a stop. The court found that a judge had improperly instructed the jury on this point. The city of Chicago settled the case in 2018 for $100,000, according to the Chicago Tribune.

The Escalating Debate Over Masked Enforcement

The question of officer identification has gained renewed urgency as immigration enforcement has intensified in cities like Chicago and Minneapolis. During deportation operations last year in Chicago, masked agents deployed tear gas and other “less than lethal” crowd-control munitions against protesters. More seriously, two incidents last fall involved masked immigration officers shooting people in vehicles: one driver was killed in Franklin Park, and a U.S. Citizen was wounded in Brighton Park. These incidents have fueled calls for greater transparency and accountability.

In Washington, House Democrats in early February sought to partially withhold funding from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), demanding changes to immigration enforcement practices, including a prohibition on masks. However, Congress remains at a stalemate on the issue. Goodwin distinguished the current situation with DHS agents from the Doornbos case, noting that ICE agents are arriving in unmarked vehicles, without visible badges, and concealing their identities with masks – presenting “a presence indistinguishable from lawbreakers.”

A Constitutional Challenge to Anonymity

“An anonymous government is no government at all,” Goodwin wrote in his ruling. “It cannot be held accountable. A masked agent freely uses force without justifying his actions and the public cannot name him to challenge his conduct. A regime of secret policing has no place in our society.” The judge rejected the government’s argument that masks are necessary for agent safety, finding the practice fundamentally at odds with constitutional principles.

Torreya Hamilton, a former Cook County prosecutor who represented Doornbos in the 2013 lawsuit, emphasized the novelty of the legal challenge. “These judges are having to scour the country to find legal opinions to cite because, until recently, our law enforcement officers have not worn masks and driven around in rental cars without license plates,” Hamilton said. She added that the principle at stake is basic: “These ICE and Border Patrol agents are government employees, and therefore we are their employers. And we have every right to hold them accountable for their conduct, which we can’t do unless we understand who they are.”

The West Virginia ruling is likely to be cited in future legal battles over ICE and Border Patrol tactics, as advocates seek to limit the use of masks and unmarked vehicles during immigration enforcement operations. The debate over balancing security concerns with constitutional rights and transparency is expected to continue as immigration policy remains a contentious issue.

What remains to be seen is whether Congress will act to address the concerns raised by Judge Goodwin and others, or whether the courts will continue to be the primary venue for challenging these enforcement practices. The implications of this ruling, and the broader debate over masked agents, will undoubtedly shape the future of immigration enforcement in the United States.

Share your thoughts on this developing story in the comments below.