A criminal information is a formal written charging document filed directly by federal prosecutors that lists the crime and basic facts. For serious federal crimes, the Constitution normally requires an indictment, which is a charging document that comes from a grand jury after it votes there is probable cause. Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7, a felony can be prosecuted by information instead of indictment only if the defendant appears in court, is advised of the charge and rights, and waives the right to grand‑jury indictment. In practice, defendants who intend to plead guilty, like Mitchell, often waive indictment and are charged by information as part of a plea agreement process.
IRS Criminal Investigation (IRS‑CI) is the law‑enforcement arm of the IRS. Its special agents investigate potential criminal violations of the tax laws and related financial crimes (like tax evasion, filing false returns, or money laundering), using tools such as subpoenas, interviews, and forensic accounting. When IRS‑CI believes a tax crime can be proven, it forwards the case to the Justice Department or a U.S. Attorney’s Office for criminal prosecution and its agents often testify in court. In Mitchell’s case, IRS‑CI’s New York office investigated the diverted church and daycare funds and the resulting unreported income, then worked with DOJ prosecutors on the tax‑evasion charge.
The Public Integrity Section (often called PIN) is a specialized unit within the Justice Department’s Criminal Division that prosecutes crimes involving corruption and abuse of the public trust, including cases against federal, state, and local officials and election‑related crimes. It has nationwide jurisdiction and often partners with local U.S. Attorney’s Offices on complex or sensitive cases. According to DOJ, PIN is responsible for overseeing the investigation and prosecution of federal crimes affecting government integrity, such as bribery and other abuses of public trust. In Mitchell’s case, DOJ’s press release states that prosecutors from the Public Integrity Section are handling the case along with the U.S. Attorney’s Office and the Tax Division, reflecting DOJ’s view that a pastor and daycare president allegedly looting tax‑exempt institutions and evading millions in taxes is a serious abuse of a position of trust that fits PIN’s mission.
In federal tax‑crime cases, ‘tax loss’ means the amount of tax the government lost, or would have lost, because of the offense—not including most interest or civil penalties. Under the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines for tax offenses (Guideline §2T1.1 and related provisions), tax loss is generally defined as the total tax the defendant evaded or tried to evade; this number is the main driver of the recommended sentencing range. Investigators estimate tax loss by reconstructing the unreported income or other tax wrongdoing for each year, calculating how much federal tax should have been paid, and summing those amounts. In Mitchell’s case, DOJ says his conduct caused about $2,906,072 in federal tax loss between 2015 and 2022; that is the government’s estimate of the federal taxes that went unpaid because he diverted church and daycare funds and failed to report them as income.
In a tax‑evasion case, restitution and fines serve different purposes. Restitution is a court‑ordered payment meant to repay the actual financial loss to the government—essentially the unpaid taxes and, if the court or plea agreement specifies, some related interest or penalties. IRS guidance explains that in criminal tax cases, courts can require defendants to pay the losses incurred by the government, and the restitution amount is calculated from evidence in the case or the plea agreement and presented at sentencing. Federal fines are additional monetary penalties meant to punish and deter; for tax evasion they can be substantial (DOJ notes fines up to $250,000 in Mitchell’s case) and are separate from restitution and the underlying tax debt. A defendant can therefore owe both restitution (to make the IRS and state whole) and fines (as punishment) on top of any remaining civil tax liabilities.
The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines are advisory rules that give federal judges a recommended sentencing range based on the seriousness of the crime and the defendant’s criminal history. For tax cases, the applicable guideline (in Chapter 2T) uses the tax‑loss amount, plus adjustments (for example for use of a position of trust or acceptance of responsibility), to produce an offense level, which combines with the criminal‑history category to generate a range of months of imprisonment. After calculating that range, the judge must also consider broader statutory factors in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), such as the nature of the offense, deterrence, and the defendant’s history, and may impose a sentence above or below the guideline range because the Guidelines are not mandatory. In Mitchell’s case, the federal district judge in Brooklyn will ultimately decide his punishment—within the statutory maximum of five years for this offense—after reviewing the Guidelines calculations, the parties’ arguments, and all relevant facts.
Pleading guilty does not automatically mean a person will go to prison in a federal tax‑evasion case, nor does it automatically keep them out of prison. The tax‑evasion statute Mitchell is charged under (26 U.S.C. § 7201) authorizes a fine, or imprisonment of up to five years, or both, and does not require a mandatory minimum prison term. After a guilty plea, the defendant usually receives a reduction in the Guidelines calculation for ‘acceptance of responsibility,’ which lowers the recommended range and can make probation or a shorter custodial sentence more likely, especially in smaller cases. However, the tax‑loss amount in Mitchell’s case is very large (nearly $2.9 million federally), and the Sentencing Commission has stated that the tax guidelines were designed to reduce the number of purely probationary sentences in serious tax cases. The sentencing judge therefore retains full discretion: Mitchell could receive a prison term, or in theory a non‑custodial sentence such as probation or home confinement if the judge finds that is justified under the Guidelines and the § 3553(a) factors, but there is no automatic outcome just because he pleaded guilty.