The Reality TV Chrisleys Are Appealing Their Bank Fraud and Tax Evasion Convictions in Federal Court

ATLANTA – Reality TV stars Todd and Julie Chrisley, who are in prison after being convicted on federal charges of bank fraud and tax evasion, are challenging aspects of their convictions and sentences in federal appeals court.

The Chrisleys rose to fame with their show “Chrisley Knows Best,” which chronicled the exploits of their close-knit family. But prosecutors said they engaged in an extensive bank fraud scheme and hid their income from tax authorities while flaunting their extravagant lifestyle.

Peter Tarantino, an accountant they hired, is also serving time in prison. He wants his conviction overturned and a new trial granted.

Lawyers for the three, as well as federal prosecutors, are scheduled to appear for arguments before the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta on Friday.

The Chrisleys were initially charged in August 2019. In June 2022, a jury found them guilty of conspiring to defraud community banks of more than $30 million in fraudulent loans. They were also found guilty of tax evasion and conspiracy to defraud the IRS, and Julie Chrisley was convicted of wire fraud and obstruction of justice.

Todd Chrisley, 56, is housed in a minimum security federal prison camp in Pensacola, Florida, with a release date of October 2032, while Julie Chrisley, 51, is in a facility in Lexington, Kentucky, with a release date of July 2028, according to the Federal Bureau of Prisons website.

Tarantino, 61, was found guilty of conspiracy to defraud the United States and willfully filing false tax returns. He is being held at a minimum security federal prison camp in Montgomery, Alabama, with a release date of September of next year.

Prosecutors said the Chrisleys submitted false documents to banks and managed to secure more than $30 million in fraudulent loans. After the scheme collapsed, they stepped away from responsibility for repaying the loans when Todd Chrisley declared bankruptcy. While in bankruptcy, they started their reality show and “displayed their wealth and lifestyle to the American public” and then hid the millions they made from the show from the IRS, prosecutors said.

The Chrisleys’ lawyers claim that an IRS official lied in testimony about the couple owing taxes for years when she knew no taxes were owed and that prosecutors knowingly presented and failed to correct this false testimony.

They also argue that the trial judge erred in allowing certain evidence without requiring prosecutors to demonstrate that it was not obtained during an illegal search. And they say prosecutors did not provide enough evidence to convict the Chrisleys of tax evasion and conspiracy, showing only that they used a common entertainment industry practice to earn income as actors.

They also argue that prosecutors failed to present any evidence that Julie Chrisley participated in bank fraud. They say the judge was wrong to order restitution and confiscation of assets.

Todd Chrisley should be acquitted on tax evasion and conspiracy charges and given a new trial on the remaining charges, his lawyers argue. Alternatively, the appellate court should return the case to the trial court to hold a hearing on your claims that the IRS agent lied and the evidence was improperly admitted.

Julie Chrisley should be acquitted of five counts of bank fraud, her lawyers argue. They also say her sentence on the remaining charges, including $17.2 million in restitution she and her husband were ordered to pay, should be vacated and she should be resentenced on those charges.

Prosecutors argue that there was sufficient evidence at trial to support the charges and the jury’s verdicts, and that the evidence was properly obtained and admitted. They said the judge was right to deny an evidentiary hearing or new trial over the Chrisleys’ claims that the IRS agent lied, saying the agent testified as far as he could remember.

An attorney for Tarantino argued in a brief filed with the appeals court that his client was harmed by being tried with the Chrisleys and urged the court to reverse Tarantino’s conviction and return his case to the trial court for a new trial.

Although Tarantino did certain things that ultimately facilitated the Chrisleys’ fraudulent conduct, there was no evidence that he intentionally did anything to facilitate that conduct. The jurors ended up confused and biased, which led them to convict the three defendants on all the charges they faced, their lawyer wrote.

Prosecutors say there was substantial evidence demonstrating Tarantino’s personal involvement and he could not demonstrate real, convincing evidence that he was harmed by being tried alongside the Chrisleys.