Indictment: Reality Stars Accused of Financial Fraud and Tax Evasion

In August 2019, a federal grand jury indicted Todd and Julie Chrisley – famous for their reality TV show Chrisley Knows Best – on multiple felony charges including conspiracy, bank fraud, wire fraud, and tax evasion ( Northern District of Georgia | Federal grand jury indicts Chrisley Knows Best stars Todd and Julie Chrisley | United States Department of Justice). Prosecutors alleged that from 2007 through 2012, the Chrisleys orchestrated a scheme to defraud community banks by submitting false personal financial statements and fabricated documents to obtain millions in loans ( Northern District of Georgia | Federal grand jury indicts Chrisley Knows Best stars Todd and Julie Chrisley | United States Department of Justice). According to the indictment, the Chrisleys provided banks with phony bank statements and audit reports that grossly inflated their net worth, making them appear far wealthier than reality ( Northern District of Georgia | Television personalities sentenced to years in federal prison for fraud and tax evasion | United States Department of Justice). They allegedly used the loan proceeds to fund a lavish lifestyle – purchasing luxury cars, designer clothes, real estate, and travel – and even paid off old loans with new fraudulent loans in Ponzi-like fashion ( Northern District of Georgia | Television personalities sentenced to years in federal prison for fraud and tax evasion | United States Department of Justice) ( Northern District of Georgia | Television personalities sentenced to years in federal prison for fraud and tax evasion | United States Department of Justice). After burning through the money, Todd Chrisley filed bankruptcy, walking away from over $20 million in unpaid loans obtained through fraud ( Northern District of Georgia | Television personalities sentenced to years in federal prison for fraud and tax evasion | United States Department of Justice).

The indictment didn’t stop at bank fraud. It also charged that from 2013 to 2016, while earning millions from their TV show and other ventures, the Chrisleys conspired (along with their accountant Peter Tarantino) to evade federal taxes ( Northern District of Georgia | Television personalities sentenced to years in federal prison for fraud and tax evasion | United States Department of Justice). Despite Todd publicly bragging in 2017 that he paid “$750,000 to $1 million just about every year” in taxes, the couple failed to file or pay federal income taxes for four years straight (2013–2016) ( Northern District of Georgia | Federal grand jury indicts Chrisley Knows Best stars Todd and Julie Chrisley | United States Department of Justice) ( Northern District of Georgia | Television personalities sentenced to years in federal prison for fraud and tax evasion | United States Department of Justice). Instead, prosecutors said, they hid income and obstructed IRS collection efforts: Todd’s earnings were funneled into a corporate bank account under Julie’s name (their loan-out company called 7C’s Productions) to keep the money out of the IRS’s reach ( Northern District of Georgia | Television personalities sentenced to years in federal prison for fraud and tax evasion | United States Department of Justice). When the IRS began asking about accounts in Julie’s name, the Chrisleys swiftly transferred that corporate account to Todd’s mother to conceal their involvement ( Northern District of Georgia | Television personalities sentenced to years in federal prison for fraud and tax evasion | United States Department of Justice) ( Northern District of Georgia | Television personalities sentenced to years in federal prison for fraud and tax evasion | United States Department of Justice). They also allegedly lied to IRS investigators and had Tarantino file false corporate tax returns showing zero income for the 7C’s company, further covering up the money they were earning ( Northern District of Georgia | Television personalities sentenced to years in federal prison for fraud and tax evasion | United States Department of Justice).

Federal agents and prosecutors painted a picture of pervasive fraud. U.S. Attorney BJay Pak bluntly stated that the Chrisleys not only “defrauded a number of banks” out of millions but also “cheating taxpayers by actively evading” taxes on their income ( Northern District of Georgia | Federal grand jury indicts Chrisley Knows Best stars Todd and Julie Chrisley | United States Department of Justice). An IRS Special Agent noted that the case exemplified a broader DOJ-IRS crackdown on people who conspire to hide income and then “lie to federal agents when confronted,” emphasizing that honest taxpayers are “fed up with the likes of those who use deceit and fraud to line their pockets” ( Northern District of Georgia | Federal grand jury indicts Chrisley Knows Best stars Todd and Julie Chrisley | United States Department of Justice). The Chrisleys, high-profile or not, now faced serious federal charges and the prospect of a public trial to determine their guilt.

The Trial: Uncovering a Decade of Deceit

The Chrisleys vehemently denied all wrongdoing and demanded their day in court. In May 2022, their case went to trial in an Atlanta federal courtroom, presided over by Judge Eleanor L. Ross. Over nearly three weeks of testimony, prosecutors methodically laid out evidence of two interrelated schemes – one to swindle banks, and another to defraud the IRS – casting doubt on the wholesome, wealthy image the Chrisleys projected on TV. On June 7, 2022, the jury returned a decisive verdict, finding Todd and Julie Chrisley guilty on all counts of the superseding indictment ( Northern District of Georgia | Television personalities sentenced to years in federal prison for fraud and tax evasion | United States Department of Justice). (Julie was even hit with an additional charge for obstruction of justice, reflecting her attempt to interfere with the investigation ( Northern District of Georgia | Television personalities sentenced to years in federal prison for fraud and tax evasion | United States Department of Justice).) The unanimous guilty verdict signaled that the jurors were convinced the glamorous reality stars had, in fact, built their fortune on lies and fraud.

Evidence of Bank Fraud: Trial evidence revealed an elaborate operation to falsify documents and trick banks into extending credit. Special Agent financial analysts testified that the conspirators managed to get 29 different loans, lines of credit, or renewals – totaling over $36 million – using fraudulent documents (todd-chrisley-government-sentencing.pdf) (todd-chrisley-government-sentencing.pdf). The Chrisleys’ former business partner-turned-whistleblower, Mark Braddock, took the stand for the prosecution and detailed how he helped fabricate paperwork at Todd Chrisley’s direction (todd-chrisley-government-sentencing.pdf). His testimony was bolstered by a trove of emails and records that left a devastating paper trail:

• In one April 2007 email, Todd      instructed Braddock: “these two [documents] are great but we need to      find another 15,000 to make my numbers work, so do an invoice for the      architect… TRY TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN TODAY so that I do not have      anything bouncing” (todd-chrisley-government-sentencing.pdf). This message – essentially      coaching Braddock on conjuring a fake $15,000 invoice – was hard      evidence of Chrisley orchestrating fraud.
• In another email, Todd advised      Braddock on covering their tracks with banks: “you can either tell him      that they are from a land deal or you can say that they were transferred      from WAMU and then create another bank statement” (todd-chrisley-government-sentencing.pdf). Here Todd explicitly directs      Braddock to forge a bank statement to support their false story – a      smoking gun showing the fraud was not an accident but a deliberate,      creative effort to mislead lenders.
• When Braddock delivered falsified      personal financial statements (PFS) inflating Todd’s assets, Todd      gleefully replied, “you are a f**ing genius!!!! just make it show 4      mil+”* (todd-chrisley-government-sentencing.pdf). This crude celebratory email      indicated Todd not only knew about the fake documents but actively encouraged      more lies to inflate his purported net worth.
• On another occasion, Braddock      worried they couldn’t fabricate tax returns because a bank had obtained      the real ones. Todd snapped back: “stop telling me this s**, create      them like you always have, if I don’t get her these [tax returns] then      [they] won’t renew the loans.”* (todd-chrisley-government-sentencing.pdf). In other words, when facing an      obstacle, Todd demanded his associate “create” fake tax returns,      demonstrating his role as the driving force behind the fraud.
• Todd even showed a willingness to      bully bank employees who got suspicious. When one banker pressed for loan      payments, Todd told Braddock to “deal with this b**!!!!”** (todd-chrisley-government-sentencing.pdf) – a directive to intimidate      or mislead a bank officer who was asking too many questions.

These emails, all retrieved from the Chrisleys’ own servers and introduced as trial exhibits, devastated the defense’s claims of innocence. They showed Todd Chrisley in his own wordsplotting fraud, directing subordinates to falsify paperwork, and relishing the results. An FBI agent summarized that the Chrisleys “defrauded financial institutions” to project an image of wealth and that “when you lie, cheat, and steal, justice is blind to your fame, fortune, and position.” ( Northern District of Georgia | Television personalities sentenced to years in federal prison for fraud and tax evasion | United States Department of Justice) Indeed, the jury saw through the celebrity glitz and focused on the cold, hard evidence of deceit.

Multiple bankers testified about the loan applications they received from the Chrisley camp, replete with doctored documents (Man Who Tipped FBI to Chrisleys Testifies on ‘Intimate’ Relationship) (Todd Chrisley’s Defense: an ‘Obsessed’ FBI Informant ‘Wanted to Be Him’ – Business Insider). The prosecutors demonstrated how the scheme built upon itself: the defendants would submit false documents (like phony personal financial statements showing millions in assets) and bogus corporate audits to secure loans, then later refer back to those same lies to make additional fake documents “consistent” with the previous fabrications (todd-chrisley-government-sentencing.pdf) (todd-chrisley-government-sentencing.pdf). The fraud was “lengthy, extensive, and sophisticated,” as the government later argued, involving an array of shell companies and bank accounts used to launder the loan proceeds (todd-chrisley-government-sentencing.pdf) (todd-chrisley-government-sentencing.pdf). One U.S. Attorney commented that over a decade the Chrisleys “defrauded banks out of tens of millions of dollars” and that their “lengthy sentences reflect the magnitude of their criminal scheme”, serving as a warning to others who would exploit the banking system ( Northern District of Georgia | Television personalities sentenced to years in federal prison for fraud and tax evasion | United States Department of Justice).

Evidence of Tax Evasion: After fraudulently obtaining and spending the bank loans (and discharging much of the debt in Todd’s 2012 bankruptcy), the Chrisleys’ story didn’t end. The trial moved on to a second phase: how, even as their reality TV fame brought in new riches, the couple schemed to avoid paying taxes. From 2013 onward, Chrisley Knows Best was generating sizable income for Todd and Julie. Prosecutors proved that instead of paying the taxman his due, the Chrisleys engaged in a concerted effort to hide their earnings and evade collection of an existing tax debt ( Northern District of Georgia | Television personalities sentenced to years in federal prison for fraud and tax evasion | United States Department of Justice) ( Northern District of Georgia | Television personalities sentenced to years in federal prison for fraud and tax evasion | United States Department of Justice).

The jury saw evidence that the Chrisleys funneled their TV income into their corporate entity 7C’s Productions, which initially had only Julie as the listed owner. This was a strategic choice: Todd owed the IRS about $500,000 in back taxes for 2009, and by keeping accounts in Julie’s name, they aimed to prevent the IRS from garnishing Todd’s earnings ( Northern District of Georgia | Television personalities sentenced to years in federal prison for fraud and tax evasion | United States Department of Justice). But when IRS investigators started examining accounts tied to Julie, the couple swiftly reacted – they transferred ownership of 7C’s (and its bank accounts) to a relative (Todd’s mother, Faye Chrisley) ( Northern District of Georgia | Television personalities sentenced to years in federal prison for fraud and tax evasion | United States Department of Justice). Trial exhibits and testimony showed that on the same day Julie took Todd’s mother to Bank of America to sign over the bank account, Todd instructed the production company to stop depositing his paychecks into that account (todd-chrisley-government-sentencing.pdf) (todd-chrisley-government-sentencing.pdf). This coordinated maneuver was designed to make it appear that Todd and Julie had nothing to do with the account where their income was flowing – a clear step to outfox the IRS.

Meanwhile, the Chrisleys simply did not file tax returns at all for four years (2013 through 2016), despite earning millions in that period ( Northern District of Georgia | Television personalities sentenced to years in federal prison for fraud and tax evasion | United States Department of Justice). They ignored their legal duty to report or pay taxes, essentially going dark on the IRS while still enjoying their substantial reality-TV paychecks. To further the cover-up, their accountant Peter Tarantino (a co-defendant) filed false corporate tax returns for 7C’s for 2015 and 2016, falsely claiming the company earned no money and issued no distributions ( Northern District of Georgia | Television personalities sentenced to years in federal prison for fraud and tax evasion | United States Department of Justice). In reality, as bank records showed, the company was flush with income that the Chrisleys were spending on personal expenses. An IRS revenue officer testified that bank statements indicated the Chrisley family was “living off” the 7C’s account – paying their personal expenditures from that corporate account to keep up their wealthy façade without triggering personal tax liability ( USA v. Peter Tarantino, et al, No. 22-14074 (11th Cir. 2024) :: Justia).

The pattern was brazen: make the money, hide the money, and lie about the money. James Dorsey, the IRS Criminal Investigation Special Agent in Charge, noted that the Chrisleys tried to “minimize their tax liability, but project an image of wealth,” stressing that celebrity status does not shield one from consequences for such fraud ( Northern District of Georgia | Television personalities sentenced to years in federal prison for fraud and tax evasion | United States Department of Justice). In fact, the additional step of obstructing the IRS made things worse for the Chrisleys. Jurors learned that after learning of a federal grand jury investigation in 2019, Julie Chrisley attempted to cover their tracks by submitting a fraudulent document. Specifically, she produced a backdated corporate resolution purportedly showing they hadn’t really lied about the account transfer to Todd’s mother ( Northern District of Georgia | Television personalities sentenced to years in federal prison for fraud and tax evasion | United States Department of Justice). This document – essentially a fake “paper trail” created to mislead the grand jury – was itself a crime. The prosecution introduced it as evidence of obstruction of justice, and the jury agreed, convicting Julie on the obstruction count in addition to the underlying fraud and tax charges ( Northern District of Georgia | Television personalities sentenced to years in federal prison for fraud and tax evasion | United States Department of Justice).

Convictions, Sentencing, and the Gravity of the Crimes

When the verdict came down in June 2022, Todd and Julie Chrisley were convicted on every count: conspiracy to commit bank fraud, substantive bank fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy to defraud the United States (tax evasion), and for Julie, obstruction of justice( Northern District of Georgia | Television personalities sentenced to years in federal prison for fraud and tax evasion | United States Department of Justice). (Notably, the wire fraud conviction was tied to Julie fraudulently obtaining a $36,000 property lease in California using fake financial documents in 2014 ( Northern District of Georgia | Federal grand jury indicts Chrisley Knows Best stars Todd and Julie Chrisley | United States Department of Justice) (Todd and Julie Chrisley’s Federal Fraud Trial: Everything to Know), showing the Chrisleys’ fraud continued in different forms even after the main bank scheme ended.) Their accountant Tarantino was convicted on two counts of filing false tax returns and aiding the tax evasion conspiracy ( Northern District of Georgia | Television personalities sentenced to years in federal prison for fraud and tax evasion | United States Department of Justice) ( Northern District of Georgia | Television personalities sentenced to years in federal prison for fraud and tax evasion | United States Department of Justice). The message was unmistakable: the jury found that the Chrisleys knowingly carried out a years-long, multimillion-dollar fraud and then lied to the IRS and investigators to cover it up.

In November 2022, Judge Eleanor Ross pronounced sentence. Todd Chrisley, age 54, received 12 years in federal prison, and Julie Chrisley, 49, received 7 years in prison ( Northern District of Georgia | Television personalities sentenced to years in federal prison for fraud and tax evasion | United States Department of Justice). Each was ordered to serve an additional 3 years of supervised release after incarceration ( Northern District of Georgia | Television personalities sentenced to years in federal prison for fraud and tax evasion | United States Department of Justice). (Tarantino got 3 years in prison ( Northern District of Georgia | Television personalities sentenced to years in federal prison for fraud and tax evasion | United States Department of Justice).) The judge also imposed restitution, with the exact amount to be determined – a figure expected to be in the millions given the banks’ losses ( Northern District of Georgia | Television personalities sentenced to years in federal prison for fraud and tax evasion | United States Department of Justice). These punishments were significantly harsher than those handed down in some other celebrity fraud cases – a reflection, experts say, of both the scale of the Chrisleys’ scheme and their decision to fight the charges at trial rather than accept responsibility.

Federal officials underscored that the outcome was a triumph for the principle of equal justice. “No matter a person’s celebrity status, there are severe consequences for defrauding the American tax system,” the IRS special agent remarked pointedly ( Northern District of Georgia | Television personalities sentenced to years in federal prison for fraud and tax evasion | United States Department of Justice). FBI Special Agent Keri Farley echoed that sentiment: “when you lie, cheat, and steal, justice is blind to your fame, fortune, and position” ( Northern District of Georgia | Television personalities sentenced to years in federal prison for fraud and tax evasion | United States Department of Justice). The U.S. Attorney’s Office, in its sentencing press release, noted that over a decade the Chrisleys “defrauded banks out of tens of millions of dollars while evading payment of their federal income taxes,”and that their “lengthy sentences reflect the magnitude of their criminal scheme” ( Northern District of Georgia | Television personalities sentenced to years in federal prison for fraud and tax evasion | United States Department of Justice). In other words, the court aimed to send a message that high-dollar fraud and tax evasion will earn a high-dollar punishment – celebrity or not.

Comparative Context: Legal analysts have compared the Chrisley case to other high-profile fraud prosecutions to illustrate how the justice system handles such crimes. For instance, Real Housewives of New Jersey stars Teresa and Joe Giudice were convicted in 2014 of similarly submitting false loan applications and committing bankruptcy fraud. However, the Giudices accepted plea deals and received much lighter sentences (15 months for Teresa, 41 months for Joe) ( District of New Jersey | ‘Real Housewives Of New Jersey’ Stars Sentenced To Prison For Conspiracy, Bankruptcy Fraud And Tax Offenses | United States Department of Justice) ( District of New Jersey | ‘Real Housewives Of New Jersey’ Stars Sentenced To Prison For Conspiracy, Bankruptcy Fraud And Tax Offenses | United States Department of Justice). In the Giudices’ case, as U.S. Attorney Paul Fishman noted, “prison is the appropriate penalty for these serious financial crimes” ( District of New Jersey | ‘Real Housewives Of New Jersey’ Stars Sentenced To Prison For Conspiracy, Bankruptcy Fraud And Tax Offenses | United States Department of Justice) – yet by pleading guilty and cooperating, the Giudices significantly reduced their prison time. The Chrisleys, by contrast, went to trial and steadfastly denied wrongdoing, which left them ineligible for the sentencing reductions typically given for acceptance of responsibility. The outcome – 12 and 7 years – is considerably higher, a fact not lost on observers who cite the so-called “trial penalty.” As one former federal prosecutor put it, fighting the charges and losing can lead to a harsher sentence than if the defendants had pleaded guilty upfront, especially when the fraud exceeds $30 million and involves obstructing justice. The Chrisley case thus stands as a cautionary tale alongside the Giudices’, illustrating that while celebrity defendants often attract public attention, they are held to the same legal standards and face similar – or stiffer – penalties as anyone else who commits such crimes ( Northern District of Georgia | Television personalities sentenced to years in federal prison for fraud and tax evasion | United States Department of Justice).

The Defense: Claims of Innocence and Attempts to Shift Blame

Throughout the investigation and trial, Todd and Julie Chrisley maintained their innocence. Their defense strategy was to cast blame on nearly everyone but themselves, portraying the couple as victims of unscrupulous associates or even government misconduct. According to court filings, “The Chrisleys’ defense at trial was to blame others for all their crimes” (todd-chrisley-government-sentencing.pdf) – an argument that implicated a rogue employee, accountants, attorneys, and even suggested bias by investigators. In opening statements, defense attorney Bruce Morris painted Mark Braddock (the ex-business partner who cooperated with the FBI) as an “obsessed” sycophant who “wanted to be [Todd Chrisley]” and betrayed the Chrisley family out of spite (Todd Chrisley’s Defense: an ‘Obsessed’ FBI Informant ‘Wanted to Be Him’ – Business Insider) (Todd Chrisley’s Defense: an ‘Obsessed’ FBI Informant ‘Wanted to Be Him’ – Business Insider).

The defense narrative went like this: Braddock, acting alone, impersonated Todd Chrisley and executed the bank fraud behind Todd’s back. Morris told the jury that Braddock had learned to sign Todd’s name, sent emails from Todd’s account, and even made phone calls pretending to be Todd – to the point of playing recorded calls of Braddock posing as Todd (Todd Chrisley’s Defense: an ‘Obsessed’ FBI Informant ‘Wanted to Be Him’ – Business Insider) (Todd Chrisley’s Defense: an ‘Obsessed’ FBI Informant ‘Wanted to Be Him’ – Business Insider). The Chrisleys claimed they fired Braddock in 2012 upon discovering he was “mismanaging” the business, and that Braddock then went to the FBI seeking “protection and revenge” by accusing Todd of the fraud that Braddock himself had committed (Todd Chrisley’s Defense: an ‘Obsessed’ FBI Informant ‘Wanted to Be Him’ – Business Insider) (Todd Chrisley’s Defense: an ‘Obsessed’ FBI Informant ‘Wanted to Be Him’ – Business Insider). In essence, the defense argued that Braddock was the true mastermind who forged documents and duped banks while Todd was preoccupied with other ventures and unaware of the falsifications (Todd Chrisley’s Defense: an ‘Obsessed’ FBI Informant ‘Wanted to Be Him’ – Business Insider). “His main mistake is that he wasn’t there… Braddock was handling everything,” Morris said of Todd, implying that Todd’s only failure was poor oversight of a deceitful employee (Todd Chrisley’s Defense: an ‘Obsessed’ FBI Informant ‘Wanted to Be Him’ – Business Insider) (Todd Chrisley’s Defense: an ‘Obsessed’ FBI Informant ‘Wanted to Be Him’ – Business Insider). To support this theory, the defense highlighted that Braddock had personal motives – he allegedly idolized Todd and replicated his lifestyle (even buying the same home furnishings and house model) (Todd Chrisley’s Defense: an ‘Obsessed’ FBI Informant ‘Wanted to Be Him’ – Business Insider) – and that when their relationship soured, Braddock flipped. Indeed, years before the indictment, Julie Chrisley had sued Braddock for fraud and theft, suggesting animosity between them (Todd Chrisley’s Defense: an ‘Obsessed’ FBI Informant ‘Wanted to Be Him’ – Business Insider). The defense leveraged this bad blood to argue Braddock had an axe to grind and could not be trusted.

As for the tax evasion charges, the Chrisleys again deflected responsibility. They contended that any failure to pay taxes was the fault of their accountant, Peter Tarantino, who they labeled a “sloppy accountant” (Todd Chrisley’s Defense: an ‘Obsessed’ FBI Informant ‘Wanted to Be Him’ – Business Insider). Their attorneys suggested the Chrisleys believed their taxes were being handled properly and that if returns weren’t filed or payments weren’t made, it was due to Tarantino’s errors or negligence, not a willful plan by Todd and Julie to cheat the IRS (Todd Chrisley’s Defense: an ‘Obsessed’ FBI Informant ‘Wanted to Be Him’ – Business Insider). In other words, the couple maintained they never intended to evade taxes – they had simply hired the wrong person to manage their finances.

The defense also hinted at government overreach. They accused the Georgia Department of Revenue and federal agents of improperly obtaining evidence – for example, conducting a warrantless search of a storage warehouse where the Chrisleys kept documents (Why Todd Chrisley wants a new trial). (This refers to a 2017 Georgia state tax investigation, separate from the federal case, in which agents seized records; the Chrisleys argued on appeal that this search was illegal and tainted the evidence given to federal prosecutors (Why Todd Chrisley wants a new trial).) Additionally, the defense seized on a misstatement by an IRS revenue officer during trial, who testified that the Chrisleys still owed certain tax years when in fact those liabilities had been paid down after the indictment. Todd’s lawyers argued that prosecutors allowed false testimony to stand uncorrected – suggesting a violation of the Chrisleys’ right to a fair trial (Why Todd Chrisley wants a new trial) (Why Todd Chrisley wants a new trial). This became a cornerstone of their post-trial motions: they claimed the government knowingly presented false evidence about tax payments to prejudice the jury against them (Why Todd Chrisley wants a new trial).

In summary, the Chrisleys’ defense was a multifaceted attack on the prosecution’s case: they denied intent to defraud, blamed the fraud on a rogue ex-employee (Braddock), chalked up the tax issues to an accountant’s mistakes, and accused the authorities of misstepsranging from improper searches to allowing incorrect testimony. It was an aggressive defense – essentially saying “we were set up and wronged” on all fronts. Todd Chrisley went so far as to insist publicly that “we have nothing to hide and have done nothing to be ashamed of”, maintaining that the truth would eventually clear them (Savannah Chrisley Is Trying to Get Her Parents’ Case Pardoned by Trump (Exclusive)). Even after conviction, the family echoed these themes; daughter Savannah claimed, “We saw the corruption… We saw how the judge handled the case. …‘There’s no way it’s going to end this way.’ But, it did.” (Savannah Chrisley Is Trying to Get Her Parents’ Case Pardoned by Trump (Exclusive)) – implying they still view the outcome as a miscarriage of justice.

Refutation: Overwhelming Evidence and Legal Rebuffs to the Defense

Despite the defense’s vigorous attempts to shift blame, the prosecution systematically refuted each of these claims with hard evidence and witness testimony, and appellate courts later upheld the soundness of the conviction. First and foremost, the paper trail directly implicated Todd and Julie Chrisley – something no scapegoat theory could overcome. The trove of emails entered into evidence showed Todd instructing Braddock to create fake documents and celebrating the fraud’s success (todd-chrisley-government-sentencing.pdf) (todd-chrisley-government-sentencing.pdf). These emails were sent from Todd’s own email account and often CC’d to Julie Chrisley, indicating Julie’s awareness. For example, Todd once emailed Julie (copying Braddock) saying, “please take care of getting her the new insurance information and Mark will get her the new PFS as well as… new tax returns” (todd-chrisley-government-sentencing.pdf). This communication plainly puts Julie in the loop: Todd assigned Julie to handle part of a bank’s requests (insurance info) while Mark provided falsified financial statements and tax returns. Such evidence undermines Julie’s attempts to portray herself as uninvolved or a minor player – she was actively participating in the responses to banks, responses that included fake documents.

Furthermore, multiple witnesses besides Braddock testified to the Chrisleys’ direct involvement in the fraud. Bank employees recounted interactions that involved Todd and Julie, not just Braddock alone (Man Who Tipped FBI to Chrisleys Testifies on ‘Intimate’ Relationship) (Todd Chrisley’s Defense: an ‘Obsessed’ FBI Informant ‘Wanted to Be Him’ – Business Insider). The government also presented documents that only the Chrisleys would reasonably have access to, like personal bank statements and tax forms, being altered and submitted – reinforcing that the scheme wasn’t a one-man Braddock show. Even if Braddock was a willing accomplice (which he admitted), the evidence showed he was acting at Todd’s direction. In fact, Braddock testified that Todd told him what to send to banks (todd-chrisley-government-sentencing.pdf), and the emails corroborated this. The defense’s portrayal of Braddock as a criminal mastermind who somehow duped Todd for years doesn’t hold up against evidence that Todd was giving Braddock orders and explicit instructions on fabricating documents. As the sentencing court later found, “the evidence at trial confirms that Todd Chrisley orchestrated and led a six-year, $40 million bank fraud scheme”, directing the “repeated, calculated submission” of false documents to banks (todd-chrisley-government-sentencing.pdf) (todd-chrisley-government-sentencing.pdf). In short, the jury had ample reason to reject the notion that Todd was an unwitting victim – the Chrisleys’ own emails and the flow of money (into their pockets) spoke louder than the defense’s words.

Regarding the tax evasioncharges, the “sloppy accountant” excuse similarly fell flat. Prosecutors pointed out that regardless of Tarantino’s role, Todd and Julie failed to file their personal tax returns for four years running ( Northern District of Georgia | Television personalities sentenced to years in federal prison for fraud and tax evasion | United States Department of Justice). Even the most bumbling accountant can’t file a return without the client’s active cooperation in signing and submitting it; the Chrisleys are educated adults who certainly knew they had a legal obligation to file yearly tax returns. Moreover, the actions they took – depositing income into secret accounts, transferring assets to relatives, lying to IRS agents – were not mistakes by an accountant, but deliberate acts by the Chrisleys themselves. For example, when Julie Chrisley delivered a falsified document to the grand jury to cover up the 7C’s account transfer, she committed obstruction of justice in her own right ( Northern District of Georgia | Television personalities sentenced to years in federal prison for fraud and tax evasion | United States Department of Justice). No accountant instructed her to do that; it was a conscious choice to deceive investigators. And when Todd bragged on a national radio show that he paid huge sums in taxes annually ( Northern District of Georgia | Federal grand jury indicts Chrisley Knows Best stars Todd and Julie Chrisley | United States Department of Justice), it was a knowing lie meant to deflect suspicions – something an innocent person who believed their taxes were properly handled would not need to do. The jury evidently saw through the smokescreen and concluded the Chrisleys’ tax dodging was willful. Prosecutors later noted that, independent of any dispute over specific IRS testimony, “the jury also had ample evidence to convict the Chrisleys of willfully evading payment of the $500,000 that Todd owed on his 2009 taxes” (Why Todd Chrisley wants a new trial), such as the moves to hide assets and the total non-payment for years.

On the defense’s claims of government misconduct, these too were addressed and dismissed in court. The allegation that an IRS officer lied on the stand (about the Chrisleys still owing certain tax years) did emerge after trial. However, prosecutors explained – and the trial judge found – that neither the officer nor the government intentionally presented false information; the officer testified to the best of her knowledge at the time, and any errors were not material to the core issue of guilt (Why Todd Chrisley wants a new trial). The judge ruled there was “no evidence” of a deliberate falsehood by the prosecution, and thus no grounds for a new trial (Why Todd Chrisley wants a new trial) (Why Todd Chrisley wants a new trial). Additionally, the jury’s verdict didn’t hinge on the precise status of those tax payments; it was enough that the Chrisleys had failed to file returns and took steps to evade known liabilities (like the 2009 tax bill). The Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals later agreed, stating “There is no reasonable likelihood that any alleged false testimony could have affected the verdict” in light of the overwhelming evidence of willful evasion and fraud (Why Todd Chrisley wants a new trial).

Likewise, the issue of the warehouse search by Georgia tax authorities did not sway the federal courts. The defense argued that some evidence may have been derived from an unlawful state search, but the trial court and appellate court found no reversible error. In its June 2024 decision, the Eleventh Circuit noted that the Chrisleys’ motions were not specific enough and, regardless, other properly obtained evidence amply supported the convictions ( USA v. Peter Tarantino, et al, No. 22-14074 (11th Cir. 2024) :: Justia) ( USA v. Peter Tarantino, et al, No. 22-14074 (11th Cir. 2024) :: Justia). In fact, the appellate opinion systematically rejected everydefense argument against the convictions. The panel found “sufficient evidence” supported each of the Chrisleys’ convictions – for tax evasion, conspiracy to defraud the IRS, bank fraud, etc. – when viewing the record in the light most favorable to the verdict ( USA v. Peter Tarantino, et al, No. 22-14074 (11th Cir. 2024) :: Justia) ( USA v. Peter Tarantino, et al, No. 22-14074 (11th Cir. 2024) :: Justia). After reviewing all claims, the Court of Appeals concluded: “after careful consideration, we affirm the district court on all issues except for the loss amount attributed to Julie.” ( USA v. Peter Tarantino, et al, No. 22-14074 (11th Cir. 2024) :: Justia). In other words, the convictions stood intact; the only tweak was a technical issue about how much of the bank scheme’s loss should be counted against Julie for sentencing purposes ( USA v. Peter Tarantino, et al, No. 22-14074 (11th Cir. 2024) :: Justia) ( USA v. Peter Tarantino, et al, No. 22-14074 (11th Cir. 2024) :: Justia).

The Warehouse Evidence: A Legal Battle Over Seized Documents

One of the key pretrial disputes in the Chrisley case centered around evidence obtained from a storage warehousein Georgia, where Todd Chrisley kept business and personal financial records. In 2017, before federal authorities opened their case, the Georgia Department of Revenue (DOR) launched a state tax investigation into the Chrisleys. As part of that probe, Georgia investigators conducted a search of a warehouse the Chrisleys rented and seized numerous hard-copy financial records without first obtaining a warrantzed materials reportedly included**:

• Loan applications and supporting      documents (bank statements, personal financial statements) that were      submitted to banks.
• Corporate tax documents related to 7C’s Productions and      Chrisley Asset Management.
• Handwritten notes and financial      planning records detailing bank relationships.
• Email printouts and internal      financial correspondence discussing cash flow and payments.

Defense attorneys immediately challenged the legality of the warehouse search, arguing that Georgia tax authorities violated the Fourth Amendment by seizing these records without a warrant . Later, wheecutors built their case, they obtained these documents from the Georgia DOR and sought to use them in the federal indictment. However, the federal district court ruled that the state’s warrantless seizure was unconstitutional and granted the defense’s motion to suppress the warehouse evidence . This meant that any pnts taken from the warehouse could not be used as evidence at trial.

How the Prosecution Circumvented the Suppression Ruling

The ruling to exclude the warehouse evidence did not derail the prosecution’s case because federal investigators had already obtained electronic versions of the same incriminating documents through lawful subpoenas, bank requests, and email search warrants. Rather than relying on the physical files taken from the warehouse, prosecutors presented the same forgeries and financial statements – but sourced digitally.

• Emails recovered from Todd      Chrisley’s and Mark Braddock’s accounts showed the creation and      manipulation of falsified financial statements that were later      submitted to banks .
• **Banks and lenders provided      their the fraudulent loan applications and supporting documents the      Chrisleys had submitted over the years .
• Metadata analysis of digital      files demonstratuments had been edited multiple times, reinforcing that      they were not authentic financial records but deliberately      fabricated ones .
• Braddock’s testimony, supported      by email evidence, proved thnts were created digitally, altered on computers, and      submitted electronically, reducing reliance on paper records .

For example, prosecutors introduced an electronic version of a personal fit Todd Chrisley submitted to GulfSouth Private Bank, claiming to have $4 million in marketable securities. This document was not one of the physical copies seized from the warehouse, but rather a d file from an email sent by Braddock to Todd – proving its authenticity as evidence independent of the suppressed warehouse materials .

Additionally, bank employees testified that the **electronic records they received directly from the Chrisbasis for granting the fraudulent loans, meaning there was no need to rely on warehouse-seized evidence . This strategic move eliminated any constitutional challenge because the government’s case no longer depended on the unlaphysical documents.

Legal Precedent and Appeal

The Chrisleys later argued on appeal that the prosecution had “tainted” its case by using evidence that was derived from the unlawful warehouse search . However, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rejected this argument, noting that the prosecution’s evidence came from **independent sourced bank records, email search warrants, and testimony from witnesses) rather than from the improperly seized warehouse materials .

As the appeals court explained:

“Even assuming some of the evidence ultimately traced back to the warehouse documents, the prosecution overwhelmin on financial records lawfully obtained from banks, email accounts, and cooperating witnesses. The defendants have not demonstrated that the suppressed warehouse materials had a material impact on their convictions.”

In other words, the suppression of the warehouse evidence did not weaken the case because the same forged documents were proven through digital recorness testimony. The jury was never shown the suppressed warehouse documents, only the electronic versions recovered from emails and bank sources.

Why This Was Important to the Conviction

The suppression ruling on the warehouse search was one of the only legal victories the Chrisleys had in the pretrial phase, yet it ultimately did not help them at trial because:

• The government had alternative      sources for all key evidence.
• The prosecution’s case was      built on digital records, not physical paperwork.
• The jury saw independently      sourced copies of the fraud, removing any issue of illegally obtained      evidence.

While Todd and Julie’s lawyers tried to argue that the entire case was “fruit of the poisonous tree”, the courts found that the fraud scheme was provable even without the warehouse records, making the suppression ruling ultimately a non-factor in the jury’s guilty verdict .

In short, while the warehouse evidence fight was a significant early battle, it had no impact on the final trial outcome because the Chrisleys’ own electronic them just as deeply.

The bottom line is that the Chrisleys’ counter-narrative failed under the weight of the evidence. Juries are instructed that if a defendant “blames someone else,” they must still acquit the defendant only if that introduces reasonable doubt. Here, the jurors clearly found no reasonable doubt. The attempt to pin everything on Mark Braddock was simply not credible given the documentary evidence tying Todd and Julie to the fraud. As one legal analyst observed, the emails alone “demolished the defense’s theory” – it is virtually impossible to explain away Todd writing “make another bank statement” or “create them like you always have” as something he didn’t actually mean (todd-chrisley-government-sentencing.pdf) (todd-chrisley-government-sentencing.pdf). And while the defense painted Braddock as a liar, it’s notable that Braddock’s testimony was corroborated by independent evidence (emails, financial records, etc.), whereas the defense’s claims were largely uncorroborated (for instance, no evidence was presented that Todd had truly paid all those taxes or that someone else forced his hand). This is likely why the appellate court flatly upheld the convictions: the record was replete with proof of the Chrisleys’ guilt, far exceeding the legal threshold. The once-glittering reality TV couple, who built an image around wealth and family values, had been exposed in court as perpetrators of fraud and tax crimes beyond any reasonable doubt.

Fallout: Prison, Appeals, and the Fight for Clemency

With their convictions affirmed, Todd and Julie Chrisley reported to federal prison on January 17, 2023, to begin serving their sentences (Savannah Chrisley seeks Trump pardon for parents Todd and Julie Chrisley | Fox News) (Savannah Chrisley seeks Trump pardon for parents Todd and Julie Chrisley | Fox News) – Todd at FPC Pensacola in Florida, and Julie at FMC Lexington in Kentucky, facilities hundreds of miles apart. The fallout from the case has been dramatic for the Chrisley family. Their long-running show Chrisley Knows Best was canceled in the wake of the verdict. Their younger children, Grayson (now 18) and Chloe (now 12, their granddaughter whom they were raising), were suddenly left without parents at home. Savannah Chrisley, the couple’s eldest daughter, assumed legal guardianship of her brother and niece and described the emotional and financial hardships that ensued (Savannah Chrisley Is Trying to Get Her Parents’ Case Pardoned by Trump (Exclusive)) (Savannah Chrisley Is Trying to Get Her Parents’ Case Pardoned by Trump (Exclusive)). At 25 years old, Savannah found herself juggling multiple jobs – launching a podcast, taking on TV appearances, and even selling real estate – to keep the household afloat and care for two minors (Savannah Chrisley Is Trying to Get Her Parents’ Case Pardoned by Trump (Exclusive)). “It’s been the hardest, most insane experience I never foresaw,” she admitted in interviews, describing the past two years as an unwelcome crash course in parenthood and resilience (Savannah Chrisley Is Trying to Get Her Parents’ Case Pardoned by Trump (Exclusive)) (Savannah Chrisley Is Trying to Get Her Parents’ Case Pardoned by Trump (Exclusive)).

Even as the Chrisleys settled into life behind bars, their legal fight continued. They appealed their convictions to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, raising the arguments discussed earlier (insufficient evidence, witness perjury, improper evidence gathering, etc.). Oral arguments were heard in 2023 (Why Todd Chrisley wants a new trial) with the Chrisley family – including Todd and Julie’s children – in attendance, hoping for a reprieve (Todd and Julie Chrisley: Family attends Court of Appeals hearing in …) (Todd and Julie Chrisley: Family attends Court of Appeals hearing in …). However, in June 2024, the Eleventh Circuit issued its decision largely upholding the convictions ( USA v. Peter Tarantino, et al, No. 22-14074 (11th Cir. 2024) :: Justia). The appellate court did grant Julie Chrisley a minor victory: it found the trial court had not adequately explained the basis for holding Julie accountable for the full $17+ million loss from loans taken before 2007 (TODD CHRISLEY: Appeals court vacates Julie Chrisley’s sentence over fraud allegations – WSB-TV Channel 2 – Atlanta) ( USA v. Peter Tarantino, et al, No. 22-14074 (11th Cir. 2024) :: Justia). Essentially, the judges were unsure if Julie had joined the conspiracy at its very beginning, so they vacated Julie’s sentence and remanded for re-sentencing with clarification of the loss calculation ( USA v. Peter Tarantino, et al, No. 22-14074 (11th Cir. 2024) :: Justia) ( USA v. Peter Tarantino, et al, No. 22-14074 (11th Cir. 2024) :: Justia). Importantly, this did not affect her convictions – only the length of her prison term would be reconsidered. In September 2024, on remand, Judge Ross re-evaluated and ended up re-imposing the same sentence of 84 months (7 years) on Julie (Todd and Julie Chrisley’s Federal Fraud Trial: Everything to Know), concluding that even with any adjustments, a seven-year term was appropriate. Thus, practically speaking, nothing changed: both Chrisleys remained slated to serve the original prison terms, with Todd’s scheduled release in 2035 and Julie’s in 2030 (though with good-behavior credits, those dates could be slightly sooner). As Savannah lamented, “we thought it was going to end differently… but it did not.” (Savannah Chrisley Is Trying to Get Her Parents’ Case Pardoned by Trump (Exclusive))

With judicial avenues looking bleak – “requests to appeal their case were denied in 2024,” as PEOPLE magazine summarized it (Savannah Chrisley Is Trying to Get Her Parents’ Case Pardoned by Trump (Exclusive)) – the Chrisley family has turned to the court of last resort: a Presidential pardon. In a surprising twist, Savannah Chrisley has become an outspoken advocate for her incarcerated parents and is now “going through the proper channels” to seek clemency from former President Donald Trump (Savannah Chrisley Is Trying to Get Her Parents’ Case Pardoned by Trump (Exclusive)) (Savannah Chrisley Is Trying to Get Her Parents’ Case Pardoned by Trump (Exclusive)). In February 2025, Savannah revealed that her family intends to petition Trump to pardon Todd and Julie (Savannah Chrisley Is Trying to Get Her Parents’ Case Pardoned by Trump (Exclusive)). (Trump, who was President when the Chrisleys were indicted, is the figure Savannah believes is most sympathetic to their plight. Notably, she even spoke at the 2024 Republican National Convention, possibly bolstering her connections and signaling alignment with Trump’s circle (Savannah Chrisley Is Trying to Get Her Parents’ Case Pardoned by Trump (Exclusive)).) “I intend to bring as much awareness to it as possible because these things should not happen,” Savannah told PEOPLE, insisting that her parents have “vehemently denied all wrongdoing” and implying their prosecution was unjust (Savannah Chrisley Is Trying to Get Her Parents’ Case Pardoned by Trump (Exclusive)).

The pardon strategy is being spearheaded by the Chrisleys’ attorney, Jay Surgent, who has openly discussed filing a formal pardon request. Surgent expressed optimism, stating they believe Trump will seriously consider pardoning both Todd and Julie (Savannah Chrisley seeks Trump pardon for parents Todd and Julie Chrisley | Fox News). He argues that “their constitutional rights were violated by the search of a warehouse without a warrant, in addition to other matters,” and thus a pardon would correct a wrong (Savannah Chrisley seeks Trump pardon for parents Todd and Julie Chrisley | Fox News). Essentially, the pitch to Trump (or any president) would be that the Chrisleys are victims of government overreach and wrongful conviction – the same themes they argued in court, repackaged as reasons for executive clemency. According to Fox News, the Chrisleys’ legal team plans to file the pardon request in early-to-mid 2025 (Savannah Chrisley seeks Trump pardon for parents Todd and Julie Chrisley | Fox News).

Will a Pardon Succeed?

Experts are skeptical. Presidential pardons for financial crimes like fraud and tax evasion are relatively rare, especially when the conviction has been recently upheld on appeal and the offenders have served only a fraction of their sentence. In the Chrisleys’ case, there has been no new exonerating evidence nor a widespread consensus of injustice; rather, the courts found the evidence of guilt to be strong. Generally, presidents grant pardons to individuals who either have served a substantial portion of their sentence or where there are compelling equitable reasons (such as innocence, undue hardship, or rehabilitation). Here, the Chrisleys maintain innocence – but that claim was rejected by a jury and multiple judges. Savannah’s campaign faces an uphill battle: she must convince the political system that her parents were wrongfully convicted or over-punished, in spite of the legal record.

There is precedent for clemency in high-profile cases, but often they involve factors like cooperation, remorse, or health issues – none of which obviously apply to the Chrisleys at this juncture. For example, President Trump in the past showed willingness to pardon or commute sentences of well-known individuals (from a corrupt Illinois governor to white-collar criminals connected to political allies). If he is in a position to grant pardons again, the Chrisleys could appeal to his known distrust of federal authorities and claim they were persecuted. Indeed, Savannah’s emphasis on “corruption” and constitutional rights may be aimed at resonating with Trump’s skepticism of the IRS and FBI. Attorney Surgent’s argument about a warrantless search plays into themes of government overreach that might catch a sympathetic ear (Savannah Chrisley seeks Trump pardon for parents Todd and Julie Chrisley | Fox News).

However, legal analysts caution that the likelihood of success is low. Former DOJ officials note that tax evasion and fraud do not typically garner public sympathy – these are not victimless crimes (banks lost over $20 million, and taxpayers were cheated) ( Northern District of Georgia | Television personalities sentenced to years in federal prison for fraud and tax evasion | United States Department of Justice) ( District of New Jersey | ‘Real Housewives Of New Jersey’ Stars Sentenced To Prison For Conspiracy, Bankruptcy Fraud And Tax Offenses | United States Department of Justice). Absent clear evidence of innocence or a gross unfairness (which the courts did not find), a pardon could be seen as undermining accountability and the rule of law. It’s also worth noting that as of early 2025, the Chrisleys have served only two years of their sentences, which is very early to be seeking full pardons. More commonly, one might seek a commutation (sentence reduction) after serving a significant portion. Savannah, though, appears to be seeking a full exoneration (“pardoned” in her words (Savannah Chrisley Is Trying to Get Her Parents’ Case Pardoned by Trump (Exclusive))), which would wipe the convictions entirely.

Some observers compare the Chrisleys’ pardon bid to other famous cases: for instance, reality TV figure Joe Exotic (of Tiger King fame) aggressively sought a pardon from President Trump in 2020 for his conviction, rallying public attention, but was ultimately denied. The Chrisleys’ approach is more private and procedural – “through proper channels” as Savannah says (Savannah Chrisley Is Trying to Get Her Parents’ Case Pardoned by Trump (Exclusive)) – but it remains a long shot. From a precedential standpoint, unless evidence surfaces that the Chrisleys were actually innocent or unfairly prosecuted, granting a pardon would be unusual. That said, if any president were inclined to intervene, it might be one who is openly critical of the IRS or who is swayed by celebrity cases, factors that could favor a Trump pardon if he were to be in office again. Savannah seems to be banking on that possibility.

In the meantime, the Chrisleys are pursuing every option. Their appeals are technically ongoing (they could still ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case, though the chances of that are slim), and Julie can seek a further sentence reduction under newly recalculated guidelines. Savannah Chrisley has vowed not to give up, expressing faith that “she will be coming home sooner rather than later” about her mother’s prospects (TODD CHRISLEY: Appeals court vacates Julie Chrisley’s sentence over fraud allegations – WSB-TV Channel 2 – Atlanta) (TODD CHRISLEY: Appeals court vacates Julie Chrisley’s sentence over fraud allegations – WSB-TV Channel 2 – Atlanta). She has leveraged her media presence – via her podcast and interviews – to maintain public interest in the case, at times making controversial statements about the judge and prosecutors. This has kept the Chrisleys’ cause alive in certain circles, particularly among fans and some conservative commentators.

Conclusion

The federal case against Todd and Julie Chrisley is a remarkable saga of fame, fraud, and the American justice system at work. From the initial indictment that peeled back the curtain on their opulent lifestyle, through a dramatic trial filled with forged documents and betrayal, to the stern judgment of a jury and judge, it has been a cautionary tale. The prosecution’s evidence – bank records, emails, witness testimony – was overwhelming, painting the Chrisleys as serial fraudsters who lied to banks and the IRS with impunity until they were caught (todd-chrisley-government-sentencing.pdf) ( Northern District of Georgia | Television personalities sentenced to years in federal prison for fraud and tax evasion | United States Department of Justice). The defense’s counterarguments were inventive but ultimately unavailing, undone by the paper trail and corroborating facts that showed the Chrisleys’ hands in every cookie jar (todd-chrisley-government-sentencing.pdf) (Todd Chrisley’s Defense: an ‘Obsessed’ FBI Informant ‘Wanted to Be Him’ – Business Insider). Legal experts note that the case underscores a key precedent: juries will hold even well-liked celebrities accountable when the evidence shows they broke the law, and appeals courts will not second-guess those verdicts without a compelling reason ( USA v. Peter Tarantino, et al, No. 22-14074 (11th Cir. 2024) :: Justia) ( USA v. Peter Tarantino, et al, No. 22-14074 (11th Cir. 2024) :: Justia).

In the aftermath, the family’s focus has shifted to clemency and public advocacy, a recognition that the legal avenues are nearly exhausted. Whether the Chrisleys will eventually receive a pardon or other relief is uncertain at best – a decision that lies in the political realm and in the hands of the executive, not the courts. For now, Todd and Julie Chrisley remain federal inmates, serving out substantial sentences that reflect the seriousness of their offenses. Their story serves as a “definitive” example of how a high-flying lifestyle built on fraud can come crashing down: indictments, convictions, and years in prison, despite all attempts to avoid accountability. As the U.S. Attorney in Atlanta stated, “Celebrities face the same justice that everyone does… These are serious federal charges”( Northern District of Georgia | Federal grand jury indicts Chrisley Knows Best stars Todd and Julie Chrisley | United States Department of Justice) – and in the Chrisleys’ case, serious charges led to serious consequences.

Sources:

• U.S. Dept. of Justice, N.D.      Georgia – Press Release, Aug. 13, 2019: “Federal grand jury indicts      Chrisley Knows Best stars Todd and Julie Chrisley” ( Northern District of Georgia |      Federal grand jury indicts Chrisley Knows Best stars Todd and Julie      Chrisley | United States Department of Justice) ( Northern District of Georgia |      Federal grand jury indicts Chrisley Knows Best stars Todd and Julie      Chrisley | United States Department of Justice)
• U.S. Dept. of Justice, N.D.      Georgia – Press Release, Nov. 21, 2022: “Television personalities      sentenced to years in federal prison for fraud and tax evasion” ( Northern District of Georgia |      Television personalities sentenced to years in federal prison for fraud      and tax evasion | United States Department of Justice) ( Northern District of Georgia |      Television personalities sentenced to years in federal prison for fraud      and tax evasion | United States Department of Justice)
• United States v. Tarantino,      Chrisley, et al, No. 22-14074 (11th Cir. June 21, 2024) – Per Curiam Opinion      (unpublished) ( USA v. Peter Tarantino, et al,      No. 22-14074 (11th Cir. 2024) :: Justia) ( USA v. Peter Tarantino, et al,      No. 22-14074 (11th Cir. 2024) :: Justia)
• Government’s Sentencing      Memorandum (Todd Chrisley), Case 1:19-cr-00297-ELR-JSA, Document 305 (filed Nov. 14, 2022) (todd-chrisley-government-sentencing.pdf) (todd-chrisley-government-sentencing.pdf)
• Business Insider – Haven Orecchio-Egresitz, “Todd      Chrisley’s former employee who tipped off Feds was ‘obsessed’ and ‘wanted      to be him,’ defense claims in fraud trial,” May 2022 (Todd Chrisley’s Defense: an      ‘Obsessed’ FBI Informant ‘Wanted to Be Him’ – Business Insider) (Todd Chrisley’s Defense: an      ‘Obsessed’ FBI Informant ‘Wanted to Be Him’ – Business Insider)
• Atlanta Journal-Constitution – Rosie Manins, “Why Todd      Chrisley wants a new trial: Former reality TV star challenges testimony,      evidence,” Apr. 15, 2024 (Why Todd Chrisley wants a new      trial) (Why Todd Chrisley wants a new      trial)
• People – Dory Jackson, “Savannah      Chrisley… Going Through Proper Channels to Get Her Parents’ Case Pardoned      by President Trump,” Feb. 19, 2025 (Savannah Chrisley Is Trying to      Get Her Parents’ Case Pardoned by Trump (Exclusive)) (Savannah Chrisley Is Trying to      Get Her Parents’ Case Pardoned by Trump (Exclusive))
• Fox News – Ashley Hume, “Savannah      Chrisley seeks Trump pardon for parents… in tax evasion, bank fraud case,”     Feb. 19, 2025 (Savannah Chrisley seeks Trump      pardon for parents Todd and Julie Chrisley | Fox News) (Savannah Chrisley seeks Trump      pardon for parents Todd and Julie Chrisley | Fox News)
• District of New Jersey, DOJ Press      Release – “‘Real Housewives of NJ’ Stars Sentenced to Prison for Fraud      and Tax Offenses,” Oct. 2, 2014 ( District of New Jersey | ‘Real      Housewives Of New Jersey’ Stars Sentenced To Prison For Conspiracy,      Bankruptcy Fraud And Tax Offenses | United States Department of Justice) ( District of New Jersey | ‘Real      Housewives Of New Jersey’ Stars Sentenced To Prison For Conspiracy,      Bankruptcy Fraud And Tax Offenses | United States Department of Justice)

Additional court documents and trial evidence as cited above (todd-chrisley-government-sentencing.pdf) ( Northern District of Georgia | Television personalities sentenced to years in federal prison for fraud and tax evasion | United States Department of Justice