We have consistently condemned in the strongest possible terms the actions of Charles Littlejohn. When Littlejohn’s criminal conduct occurred more than five years ago, it was on government systems, not Booz Allen systems. Booz Allen stores no taxpayer data on its systems and has no ability to monitor activity on government networks. The DOJ expressed its gratitude to Booz Allen for its support of the U.S. government in its investigation, which ultimately led to Littlejohn’s conviction and incarceration. The IRS accepted responsibility for its system failures and has since increased protections for taxpayer data.

Booz Allen has zero tolerance for violations of the law and operates under the highest ethical and professional guidelines, including in safeguarding sensitive government information. In July 2025, we filed an amicus brief advocating that Littlejohn’s sentence was insufficient for the severity of his crimes and that he should have received a more substantial prison term for deterrence.

Summary of Booz Allen’s Amicus Brief in Support of the Government on Littlejohn Sentencing Appeal

Executive Summary

In October 2023, Charles Littlejohn pleaded guilty to unauthorized disclosure of tax return information and was sentenced to the statutory maximum of five years in federal prison. Littlejohn committed his crimes entirely on IRS systems, using sophisticated techniques to evade IRS controls and conceal his activities from the IRS. Booz Allen had no ability to control, monitor, or detect irregularities on IRS systems. Booz Allen had no awareness of Littlejohn’s crimes and did not condone or facilitate these criminal acts.

In his sworn testimony, Littlejohn admitted sole responsibility for his crimes. He admitted that he concealed his wrongdoing from the IRS and Booz Allen, and that he acted alone to serve his own personal interests. In connection with prior litigation surrounding Littlejohn’s wrongdoing, the IRS issued a public apology in which it “acknowledge[d] that it failed to prevent Mr. Littlejohn’s criminal conduct and unlawful disclosure of [taxpayer] data.”

Booz Allen has consistently condemned Littlejohn’s crime in the strongest possible terms. The DOJ expressed its gratitude for the company’s support of the criminal investigation and assistance in Littlejohn’s prosecution, which led to his incarceration. Booz Allen has advocated for the strongest possible punishment for his crimes and believes that the punishment he did receive should have been greater.

1. Littlejohn Hid His Crime

Littlejohn was authorized by the IRS to access taxpayer data on IRS databases. The IRS, not Booz Allen, directly administered, scoped, and controlled this access, granting Littlejohn what the IRS designated as “staff-like access.”

In his guilty plea, Littlejohn admitted that he sought employment with Booz Allen in 2017 “with the hope and expectation of accessing and disclosing tax returns and return information” associated with then-President Donald Trump. He admitted in other sworn testimony that he concealed this agenda from both the IRS and Booz Allen.

Littlejohn further stated that in 2018 he developed a “sophisticated, detailed plan to secretly download” the President’s tax returns from an internal IRS database. He deliberately queried the database using “more generalized parameters” to “avoid detection by the IRS,” according to his plea. He then uploaded the stolen data to a private website he controlled, specifically “to avoid IRS protocols designed to detect and prevent large downloads or uploads from IRS devices or systems.”

Littlejohn engaged in extensive efforts to conceal his identity. He destroyed devices, canceled the registration of his private website, and deleted “almost all of the files in [his] user profile on his assigned IRS laptop computer” before returning it to the IRS, according to his plea.

2. Booz Allen Had No Knowledge of Littlejohn’s Crime

• Littlejohn’s work took place on IRS systems. Littlejohn’s work was performed on an IRS-issued computer and on IRS computer systems. It was subject to control and monitoring by the IRS, not Booz Allen. Booz Allen does not store or provide any access to taxpayer data on its systems, and it has no ability to monitor activity on government networks.

• No red flags were present in the vetting by the U.S. Government and Booz Allen. Littlejohn concealed his criminal intentions from the IRS and Booz Allen. There was no indication of any prior misconduct at the time of his hiring, and no red flags emerged during his employment. In fact, Littlejohn cleared the background check conducted by the IRS, and the IRS proceeded with giving Littlejohn elevated staff-like access to IRS systems.

• Booz Allen and the IRS provided relevant training. Littlejohn received regular training from Booz Allen and the IRS regarding information security, the handling of taxpayer information, and the criminal consequences of disclosing confidential information. Littlejohn confirmed in sworn testimony that Booz Allen conducted additional, voluntary training sessions beyond what the IRS required, noting that Booz Allen “just wanted to go the extra mile.”

• Had Booz Allen known, it would have acted immediately. As Booz Allen stated in its amicus brief arguing for the maximum possible sentence for Littlejohn, “had Booz Allen known of Littlejohn’s intentions, the company would have immediately terminated Littlejohn’s employment.” Littlejohn’s criminal behavior “was not only outside the scope of his employment, it was antithetical to Booz Allen’s mission to serve the American government.”

3. Littlejohn Confirmed He Is Responsible for His Crimes

Littlejohn’s admissions during his criminal proceedings and in subsequent sworn testimony conclusively establish that Booz Allen had no awareness of, and could not have detected, Littlejohn’s crime.

• “I alone am responsible for this crime.” At his sentencing hearing in January 2024, Littlejohn addressed the Court and stated unequivocally: “I alone am responsible for this crime and I received no compensation in return for committing it.” Littlejohn confirmed in later sworn testimony that he “wholeheartedly” agreed that he alone is responsible.

• Littlejohn admitted to concealing his intentions from Booz Allen. Littlejohn stated in sworn testimony that one reason he sought to return to Booz Allen in 2017, “which I did not disclose at the time, was I had hoped to access and disclose the tax returns of Donald J. Trump.”

• Littlejohn admitted he betrayed his employer’s trust. Speaking before the Court, Littlejohn acknowledged: “To achieve my criminal objectives I betrayed the trust of my client, my colleagues, and my firm. I used my skills to systematically violate the privacy of thousands of innocent people.”

• Littlejohn admitted his conduct was wrong. Littlejohn conceded in sworn testimony that his conduct “was against the law, it was wrong, it was sneaking around,” and acknowledged that “people don’t do those things if they’re doing virtuous things.”

• The IRS accepted responsibility for its system failures. The IRS issued a public apology in June 2024, acknowledging that “it failed to prevent Mr. Littlejohn’s criminal conduct and unlawful disclosure” of taxpayer data. The IRS stated that it had subsequently “made substantial investments in its data security to strengthen its safeguarding of taxpayer information” and was working to “address potential weaknesses in the IRS’s systems.”

• The IRS “stepped up protections” for taxpayer systems and data in response to Littlejohn’s crimes. In May 2024, the IRS announced “tak[ing] dramatic steps to strengthen [its] internal systems, protocols and procedures by putting in place numerous improvements to bolster protection of key systems and information” to sharply reduce risks for taxpayers and the tax system.