Can you provide for us just exactly what testimony GZ gave regarding his finances??? How can there be "omissions" if there are no "submissions". He never testified.
Only his wife testified -- not him -- and this statute applies only to the defendant -- not to SZ.
Nice try. Your argument about omissions requiring submissions is nonsensical. An omission is simply having the knowledge of a material fact and failing to mention it.
George knew he wasn’t a pauper. The recorded conversations indicate he was directly involved in the transfer of significant amounts of money (which, by the way, were transferred in a manner calculated to avoid federal reporting laws). He knew there were assets that hadn’t been accurately reported to the court (his counsel even acknowledged that in the most recent bail hearing) and he failed to disclose them. Failure to disclose a material fact of which you’re aware is an omission.
If you’ll read the court’s opinion regarding the new bail amount, you’ll discover that the judge found probable cause for a violation of the code section I cited. Based on the evidence, and George’s admissions, I’d have to conclude the judge got that part right.