Trove
Sign In Sign Up

David Parse

Person
Mentions
96
Relationships
51
Events
39
Documents
47
Search

Relationship Network

Loading... nodes
Interactive Network: Click nodes or edges to highlight connections and view details with action buttons. Drag nodes to reposition. Node size indicates connection count. Line color shows relationship strength: red (8-10), orange (6-7), yellow (4-5), gray (weak). Use legend and help buttons in the graph for more guidance.

Event Timeline

Interactive Timeline: Hover over events to see details. Events are arranged chronologically and alternate between top and bottom for better visibility.
51 total relationships
Connected Entity Relationship Type
Strength (mentions)
Documents Actions
person Conrad
Juror defendant
8 Strong
4
View
person Brune
Client
7
3
View
person Matt Coleman
Professional
7
3
View
person William B Kavanagh
Professional
6
1
View
location UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Legal representative
6
2
View
person Craig Brubaker
Legal representative
6
2
View
person PAUL SHECHTMAN
Client
6
2
View
person Daniel Aronoff
Professional
6
2
View
person Edelstein
Legal representative
6
2
View
location United States
Legal representative
6
2
View
person Theresa Trzaskoma
Client
6
2
View
person Ms. Brune
Professional
6
1
View
organization LLP
Client
6
2
View
person Preet Bharara
Prosecutor vs defendant
6
2
View
person Paul Daugerdas
Co defendants
6
2
View
person Catherine Conrad
Juror defendant
6
2
View
person Carrie Yackee
Professional supervisor subordinate
5
1
View
person Aronoff family members
Client
5
1
View
person Kevin Blair
Professional
5
1
View
person Mr. Shechtman
Legal representative
5
1
View
person J&G Attorneys
Co conspirators professional
5
1
View
person Carrie Yackee
Professional superior subordinate
5
1
View
person Kyle Coleman
Professional
5
1
View
person Theresa Parse
Friend
5
1
View
person Jenkins
Professional
5
1
View
Date Event Type Description Location Actions
N/A N/A Trial related to the defense of David Parse, where Edelstein was involved in various parts, focus... N/A View
N/A Trial A previous trial involving David Parse and other defendants. this courtroom View
N/A Financial transaction Complex and varied transactions were effectuated to change the results of three sets of transacti... N/A View
N/A Legal proceeding Sentencing of David Parse for his role in tax shelter-related transactions. N/A View
N/A Prosecution Prosecution of brokers who performed functions for Jenkins and other law firms. N/A View
N/A Financial fraud Fraudulent backdating of transactions was committed to achieve impermissible tax results, in viol... Deutsche Bank (implied) View
N/A Trial The David Parse trial, in which Theresa Trzaskoma served as a lawyer. this courtroom View
N/A Trial A trial in which Conrad served as a juror and David Parse was a defendant. N/A View
N/A Trial verdict David Parse was convicted of two charges and acquitted of four charges by a jury. N/A View
N/A Legal proceeding Jury selection for the case United States of America v. Paul M. Daugerdas, et al. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUR... View
N/A Meeting David Parse met with the Brune lawyers to discuss possible post-trial motions and appellate issues. N/A View
N/A Trip The underlying trial in the case of UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v PAUL M. DAUGERDAS, ET AL. Courtroom View
N/A Conviction A jury convicted David Parse for his involvement in three backdating transactions. N/A View
N/A N/A Conviction and Acquittal of David Parse Court View
N/A N/A Oral argument on defendant Parse's motion for a new trial. Open Court View
N/A N/A Trial of David Parse Unknown (Court) View
N/A N/A Representation of David Parse by Brune. Unknown View
2022-02-24 Legal filing Filing of Document 646-10, an appendix (Volume XVI of XVII), in case 13-1388-cr in the United Sta... United States Court of Appe... View
2014-02-24 Legal filing Filing of an appendix (Volume XVI of XVII) in the case of United States of America v. Paul M. Dau... United States Court of Appe... View
2013-03-22 N/A Scheduled sentencing of David Parse Southern District of New York View
2013-03-22 N/A Sentencing of David Parse Court View
2013-03-22 N/A Transcript—Sentencing of David Parse Court View
2013-03-20 N/A Reply Of The United States Regarding Defendant David Parse Court View
2013-03-18 N/A Filing of Amended Sentencing Memorandum regarding David Parse SDNY View
2013-03-18 N/A Amended Sentencing Memorandum of the United States Regarding Defendant David Parse Court View

DOJ-OGR-00009907.jpg

This document is an index or table of contents from a legal case file, specifically page 'iv' of a larger document. It lists various court documents, including trial transcripts from May 2011, correspondence between legal professionals and a judge, a defendant's motion, and a list of the government's trial exhibits. The exhibits include financial records from Deutsche Bank Alex. Brown and correspondence dating back to 2001, involving individuals such as defendant David Parse, Matt Coleman, and C.R. Gibb.

Legal document index
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009903.jpg

This document is the cover page for Volume XVI of a legal appendix filed on February 24, 2022, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for case number 13-1388-cr. The case is an appeal by Defendant-Appellant David Parse and others against the United States of America. The document identifies the parties involved and lists the legal counsel for both the government (Appellee) and the appellant David Parse.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009534.jpg

This document is a page from a 2013 legal filing (likely a sentencing memorandum) concerning the tax fraud case of United States v. Daugerdas et al. It details the conviction of David Parse for obstructing the IRS and mail fraud, noting he faces a statutory maximum of 23 years in prison. While this document is included in the unsealed bundle for the Giuffre v. Maxwell case (Case 1:20-cv-00330), the text specifically addresses the legal proceedings and sentencing guidelines of the Daugerdas tax shelter scheme, likely serving as a legal exhibit or precedent within the broader Maxwell litigation.

Legal filing / court document (sentencing memorandum or government submission)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009533.jpg

This legal document, a filing in case 1:09-cr-00581-WHP, argues that David Parse is culpable for criminal conduct involving fraudulent backdating of financial transactions. It refutes Parse's attempt to blame his subordinate, Carrie Yackee, by citing her testimony that she acted solely on his instructions. The document clarifies that supposed 'Deutsche Bank approvals' for the transactions were, in fact, direct orders from Parse himself to achieve impermissible tax results.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009532.jpg

This document is a page from a legal filing (Case 1:09-cr-00581) filed in 2013, subsequently used as an exhibit in the 2022 Giuffre v. Maxwell case. It details the government's argument against David Parse, an investment broker, regarding his role in illegal backdating of financial transactions for tax shelters involving clients like the Aronoff family and Michael Toporek. The text criticizes Parse for attempting to blame his sales assistant, Carrie Yackee, for executing the illegal trades.

Legal filing (court opinion or government memorandum)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009527.jpg

This document is an Amended Sentencing Memorandum filed by the United States on March 18, 2013, regarding defendant David Parse. It outlines the procedural history, noting Parse's conviction on May 24, 2011, for obstructing IRS laws and mail fraud following an eleven-week trial involving 'one of the largest tax fraud schemes ever charged.' The document appears to be part of a larger case file (possibly related to the Jenkens & Gilchrist tax shelter case) that may have been included in a larger document production.

Court filing (amended sentencing memorandum)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009525.jpg

This document is the cover page for an Amended Sentencing Memorandum filed by the United States (via US Attorney Preet Bharara) regarding defendant David Parse in the case *United States v. Paul Daugerdas, et al.* (S3 09 Cr. 581). Originally filed on March 18, 2013, this specific copy was submitted as Exhibit A-6074 on February 24, 2022, in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330-AJN), likely as legal precedent or background material.

Legal pleading / sentencing memorandum
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009518.jpg

This document is a legal filing from the law firm Zuckerman Spaeder LLP to Judge William H. Pauley, III, dated March 7, 2013. It serves as a sentencing memorandum for their client, David Parse, arguing for a non-incarcerative sentence following his conviction for involvement in backdating transactions. The letter emphasizes the significant personal, professional, and familial suffering Parse has endured since the investigation began in 2004 and cites legal precedents to support a lenient, individualized sentence.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009517.jpg

This legal document, a letter from the law firm Zuckerman Spaeder LLP to Judge William H. Pauley, III dated March 7, 2013, argues for a lenient sentence for their client, David Parse. The letter contends that Parse's role was limited to that of a broker executing trades, not designing or marketing illegal tax shelters, and that the sentencing guidelines are too harsh for his level of culpability. It further notes that of all the brokers performing similar functions for the law firm Jenkins, only Parse and Craig Brubaker were prosecuted, with Parse being the only one convicted.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009515.jpg

This legal document, dated March 7, 2013, from the law firm Zuckerman Spaeder LLP to Judge William H. Pauley, III, argues for a lower sentencing guideline for a client. It contests the Probation Office's preliminary calculation, which suggests a 292-365 month sentence based on a $1.5 billion tax loss. To support its argument, the document cites a letter from a juror detailing the conviction of David Parse, suggesting his conviction was limited to "backdating" transactions and not a broader conspiracy.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009501.jpg

This document is page 82 of a court transcript filed on February 24, 2022, as an exhibit (A-5925) in the Ghislaine Maxwell case (1:20-cr-00330). The text captures a legal argument by Ms. Davis referencing the 'Parse' case (likely United States v. Parse) and a letter from juror Catherine Conrad. The argument focuses on the legal distinction between 'wilfully' and 'knowingly' in the context of tax evasion and conspiracy counts, and how the jury's split verdict demonstrates a lack of prejudice and a deliberate decision-making process. This appears to be a citation of precedent used during post-trial motions in the Maxwell trial.

Court transcript / legal exhibit
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009498.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (Exhibit A-5922 within Case 1:20-cr-00330, likely the Ghislaine Maxwell case) containing a legal argument. The text discusses a tax fraud case involving David Parse, Carrie Yackee, Jenkins & Gilchrist, and Deutsche Bank, focusing on whether Parse knew transactions were made solely for tax losses rather than investment purposes. This appears to be a citation of case law (likely U.S. v. Daugerdas) used as a precedent within the broader filing, rather than a direct record of Epstein's activities.

Court transcript / legal exhibit
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009480.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript filed on February 24, 2022, as part of a larger filing (Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE, which corresponds to the Ghislaine Maxwell case). However, the content of the transcript records proceedings for 'United States of America v. David Parse,' where attorney Paul Shechtman argues for a new trial based on 'ineffective assistance of counsel.' This transcript was likely submitted in the Maxwell case as legal precedent or an exhibit regarding standards for new trials.

Court transcript (exhibit)
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009477.jpg

This is the second page of a legal document from case 1:09-cr-00581-WHP, signed by David Parse and notarized in Illinois on August 3, 2012. The text states that after a paralegal ran a Westlaw report, 'Brune lawyers' concluded that an individual named Conrad was not a suspended attorney and that the Court did not need to be informed. The document was officially filed with the court on August 7, 2012.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009476.jpg

This is an affidavit from David Parse, a defendant in case S3 09 Cr. 581 in the Southern District of New York, filed on August 7, 2012. Parse states that he only became aware of a potential issue regarding a juror named Conrad being a suspended lawyer after his legal team, the Brune firm, had already filed a motion for a new trial. He specifies learning this information after a conference call on July 15, 2011, and recalls his lawyer, Theresa Trzaskoma, had previously dismissed a concern about a prospective juror having the same name during jury selection.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009428.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a case filed on February 24, 2012, detailing the direct examination of witness Barry H. Berke. Mr. Berke, a partner at the law firm Kramer, Levin, Naftalis & Frankel, outlines his legal career, including his time as a judicial clerk, a lawyer with the Federal Defenders, and a professor at NYU. He also confirms his prior involvement as a lawyer in a trial concerning the defendant, David Parse.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009421.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript where the witness, Schoeman, is being questioned about his relationship with a lawyer named Theresa Trzaskoma. Schoeman explains that he met her around the year 2000 and they became family friends, and that he also had a prior professional connection to her husband from the law firm Paul Weiss. The witness confirms that Ms. Trzaskoma was a lawyer for David Parse during a trial.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009420.jpg

This page is a transcript from the Ghislaine Maxwell trial (Case 1:20-cr-00330) featuring the direct examination of attorney Mr. Schoeman. The testimony focuses on establishing Schoeman's background and his involvement in a previous trial (United States v. Parse et al.) regarding a specific incident on May 11, 2011, involving a note from a juror named Catherine Conrad. This testimony is likely being used to establish legal precedent regarding juror misconduct.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009396.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (page 335) filed on February 24, 2022. A witness named Edelstein is being questioned regarding their role in the defense of David Parse, specifically concerning email exchanges involving Theresa Trzaskoma and David Benhamou regarding Robert Conrad. The testimony also touches on the witness's involvement in voir dire (jury selection) and the receipt of a 'Catherine Conrad letter' or dossier.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009369.jpg

This document is a page from a court transcript (page 308) filed on February 24, 2022. A witness, Ms. Brune, is being questioned by Mr. Davis about a mistake in a legal brief regarding the timing of a Google search relative to receiving a letter. The testimony also confirms that David Parse was convicted of two charges and acquitted of four, and that the witness believed the jury rendered a fair verdict.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009312.jpg

This document is a court transcript from a case filed on February 24, 2022, capturing the direct examination of a witness named Brune. The questioning focuses on Brune's professional philosophy as a "forceful advocate," the factual certainty behind issues they raised in court, and their prior representation of David Parse. Brune defends their conduct, stating they strive for accuracy and only raise issues they believe have merit.

Court transcript
2025-11-20
Analysis Source

DOJ-OGR-00009311.jpg

This document is a court transcript of a direct examination of an attorney named Brune. The questioning focuses on establishing the nature of the lawyer-client relationship between Brune and his client, David Parse, confirming that Parse trusted Brune and his firm to make strategic decisions and that Brune had a good working relationship with him.

Legal document
2025-11-20
Analysis Source
Total Received
$0.00
0 transactions
Total Paid
$0.00
0 transactions
Net Flow
$0.00
0 total transactions
No financial transactions found for this entity. Entity linking may need to be improved.
As Sender
2
As Recipient
18
Total
20

No Subject

From: Matt Coleman
To: David Parse

A letter from Matt Coleman to David Parse, identified as exhibit GX401-44.

Letter
N/A
Communication Source

Sentencing arguments

From: David Parse
To: Court

Parse claimed he gave no investment advice and trades were executed by his assistant.

Sentencing memorandum
N/A
Communication Source

No Subject

From: Matt Coleman
To: David Parse

A letter from Matt Coleman to David Parse, identified as exhibit GX401-44.

Letter
N/A
Communication Source

Sentencing Memorandum

From: David Parse
To: Court

Parse claimed 'He gave no investment advice, and the trades were executed by his assistant.'

Legal memorandum
N/A
Communication Source

Tax Transactions

From: Unspecified
To: David Parse

Conversations regarding the necessity to complete transaction steps by year-end to achieve tax benefits.

Meeting
N/A
Communication Source

Conference Call

From: Unknown
To: David Parse

A conference call after which Parse learned about the juror issue dates.

Call
2011-07-15
Communication Source

No Subject

From: Matt Coleman
To: David Parse

A letter sent from Matt Coleman to David Parse, listed as exhibit GX24-23.

Letter
2001-12-28
Communication Source

No Subject

From: Michael Toporek
To: David Parse

Letter listed as exhibit GX201-3a.

Letter
2001-12-28
Communication Source

No Subject

From: Michael Toporek
To: David Parse

Letter listed as exhibit GX201-39a.

Letter
2001-12-28
Communication Source

N/A

From: Michael Toporek
To: David Parse

Exhibit GX201-39a

Letter
2001-12-28
Communication Source

N/A

From: Michael Toporek
To: David Parse

Exhibit GX201-3a

Letter
2001-12-28
Communication Source

No Subject

From: Matt Coleman
To: David Parse

A letter sent from Matt Coleman to David Parse, listed as exhibit GX24-22.

Letter
2001-12-24
Communication Source

No Subject

From: Daniel Aronoff
To: David Parse

A letter from Daniel Aronoff to David Parse, identified as exhibit GX401-47a.

Letter
2000-12-19
Communication Source

No Subject

From: Daniel Aronoff
To: David Parse

A letter from Daniel Aronoff to David Parse, identified as exhibit GX401-98.

Letter
2000-12-19
Communication Source

No Subject

From: Daniel Aronoff
To: David Parse

A letter from Daniel Aronoff to David Parse, identified as exhibit GX401-100.

Letter
2000-12-19
Communication Source

No Subject

From: Daniel Aronoff
To: David Parse

A letter from Daniel Aronoff to David Parse, identified as exhibit GX401-99.

Letter
2000-12-19
Communication Source

No Subject

From: Daniel Aronoff
To: David Parse

A letter from Daniel Aronoff to David Parse, identified as exhibit GX401-100.

Letter
2000-12-19
Communication Source

No Subject

From: Daniel Aronoff
To: David Parse

A letter from Daniel Aronoff to David Parse, identified as exhibit GX401-99.

Letter
2000-12-19
Communication Source

No Subject

From: Daniel Aronoff
To: David Parse

A letter from Daniel Aronoff to David Parse, identified as exhibit GX401-98.

Letter
2000-12-19
Communication Source

No Subject

From: Daniel Aronoff
To: David Parse

A letter from Daniel Aronoff to David Parse, identified as exhibit GX401-47a.

Letter
2000-12-19
Communication Source

Discussion 0

Sign in to join the discussion

No comments yet

Be the first to share your thoughts on this epstein entity

Back to Search