Articles Posted in White Collar Criminal Defense

Attorney Behr’s mortgage fraud prosecutions series continues with the following EXCERPT:
ii. State
Dissimilar to legislation by the federal government, the State of Florida and other states have specific promulgated legislation to prosecute mortgage fraud. Florida has three different statutes regarding mortgage fraud. The first two statutes are more concerned with the actual mortgage transaction while the last revolves around the process in the obtainment of a mortgage. The first statute, § 877.10, Fla. Stat. (2009) prohibits “…any person to knowingly make, issue, deliver, or receive dual contracts, either written or oral…” for the “…same parcel of real property…” one with “…the true and actual purchase price and..” and another reflecting “…a purchase price in excess of the true and actual purchase price…” used to induce mortgage investors “…to make a loan commitment on such real property in reliance upon the stated inflated value…” is guilty of a second degree misdemeanor.94 The second statute, § 817.54, Fla. Stat. (2009) concerns any person who “…obtains any mortgage, mortgage note, promissory note, or other instrument evidencing a debt from any person or obtains the signature of any person…” “…by color or aid of fraudulent or false pretenses…” is “…guilty of a felony of the third degree…”95

Lastly, the third and final statute, § 817.545, Fla. Stat. (2009) was promulgated for material misrepresentations or omissions in the “mortgage lending process.”96 § 817.545, Fla. Stat. (2009) was instituted to combat what Florida and other states have determined to be a serious problem, residential mortgage fraud.97 To battle against this serious issue of residential mortgage fraud, states have enacted legislation normally termed residential mortgage fraud acts to punish two different degrees of conduct committed during the mortgage lending process. Generally, as in other states, violations of § 817.545, Fla. Stat. (2009) are third degree felonies, however, exposure to a second degree felony under this statute is possible if “…the loan value stated on documents used in the mortgage lending process exceeds $100,000…”98 This monetary value qualifier for what Florida’s legislature considers to be more abhorrent conduct is inconsistent with other states’ mortgage fraud statutes.

___________________________
Any use of the previous article requires written permission from Attorney Ralph Behr and from this website and its subsidiaries under State and Federal Law. DO NOT copy and use the text provided above and/or publish as your own. The document may only be used for private study or distributing among peers in paper, not on internet transmission, with no intent to make profit or sell without credit being due to the original author.

Steven Shrago, a St. Petersburg mortgage broker, has been indicted among many other mortgage brokers in the area of disguising the risks of investing in mortgage backed securities. The original complaint filed against the defendants in the US District Court of Florida claimed that retirees were targeted by falsely marketed investments in derivatives of mortgage-backed securities. They were called “safe” and “suitable for retirees and others with conservative investment goals.” The name of the company targeted by the charges was Brookstreet Securities Corp. Shrago was a registered representative and investment adviser for Wedbush Morgan Securities Inc. Many other residents of Florida were charged along with Shrago, many living in Boca Raton, Pompano Beach, Parkland, and Weston.

The original complaint filed by the SEC said that over $18 million in combined salaries and commissions were dispersed to the defendants while more than $36 million were suffered in losses by nearly 750 investors. As well as the SEC being involved in this matter, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority filed charges in suit with the original charges against six other brokers formerly with the company in question. Mortgage fraud occurred here and is clearly the general charge in question.

Continue reading →

Yvette Scott Patterson appeared in court recently in connections with a mortgage fraud operation. She fled the country to Jamaica, trying to avoid being detained. Her business front used fraudulent bank statement, fake employment verifications, stolen drivers licenses and other false documents in order to secure loans for the homes purchased by the company during the real estate boom.

The Magistrate in charge of her case will determine by the end of the week whether Patterson will be eligible for bond. Originally when Patterson was apprehended in Jamaica, she waved her right to fight extradition back to the United States.

Continue reading →

Angelo Mozilo is in hot water with mortgage fraud charges and civil lawsuits in 4 states, Florida included. Mozilo’s Countrywide Financial is just one of the many mortgage brokerages under fire for profiting and conductive illegal activity during the recently devastating boom and bust. Last July, Bank of America, for $2.5 billion, bought Countrywide with Mozilo leaving soon after the completion of the deal.

A white collar offense can also lead to civil lawsuits filed by the government or the persons who were allegedly victimized by the crime. Unlike in a criminal case, the accused in a civil lawsuit does not have the right to remain silent, and they may be obligated to testify at their own trial. An attorney will not be appointed for them if they cannot afford one on their own.

Continue reading →

Attorney Behr’s mortgage fraud prosecutions series continues with the following EXCERPT:
18 U.S.C. § 2314 Transportation of stolen goods, securities, moneys, fraudulent State tax stamps, or articles used in counterfeiting
Under this statute, a person who enables assists or intends to enable property with a value of $5,000.00 or more into interstate commerce or foreign commerce by a scheme enabled through the use of material misrepresentations could be convicted under the statute.89
In United States v. Grintjes, 237 F.3d 876, 877 (7th Cir. 2001), the defendant a mortgage broker and his co-defendant Thomas Younk, a client who owned a real estate company allegedly obtained “…inflated appraisals of properties, use the inflated appraisals to obtain mortgages, purchase the properties for significantly less than the amount of the mortgage, and pocket the rest of the loan.”90 The defendant was indicted for “…aiding and abetting a fraudulent scheme involving the interstate transfer of funds… ”91 “Grintjes testified that he never independently inspected the properties Younk sought to finance, nor did he ever verify the appraisals.”92 He also testified that it was not uncommon in the mortgage broker industry not to inspect verify the appraisals.93
___________________________

Any use of the previous article requires written permission from AttorneyRalph Behr and from this website and its subsidiaries under State and Federal Law. DO NOT copy and use the text provided above and/or publish as your own. The document may only be used for private study or distributing among peers in paper, not on internet transmission, with no intent to make profit or sell without credit being due to the original author.

South Florida Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog is proud to present the next installment of Attorney Behr’s mortgage fraud prosecutions series:

18 U.S.C. §1956 Laundering of monetary instruments

&
18 U.S.C. §1957 Engaging in monetary transactions in property
derived from specified unlawful activity
Both statutes essentially have the same purpose of preventing persons from legitimizing proceeds obtained illegally although there are differences. 18 U.S.C. § 1956, is concerned with any financial transaction concerning proceeds of a “specified unlawful activity”73 whenever action is focused to keep the criminal activity from being discovered, or to hide the source or current possessor of the funds, or to avoid the mandatory disclosures under the Bank Secrecy Act under Title 31 U.S.C.74 Conversely, provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 1957 is applicable if a person “…knowingly engages or attempts to engage in a monetary transaction in criminally derived property of a value greater than $10,000 and is derived from specified unlawful activity…”75
In United States v. Moncrief, 133 Fed.Appx. 924 (5th Cir. 2004), both of these statutes were instituted in a case which the government claimed to be “…the largest mortgage-loan-fraud operation ever to be prosecuted.”76 The case involved Meis Enterprises which was owned and operated by the Meis family.77 Mei Enterprises was a conglomeration of several businesses operated by members of the Mei family.78 Mei Enterprises operated a construction company and several real estate companies.79 Although the assortment of companies had differing bank accounts and officers in charge, Mei Enterprises “…operated out of one common office.”80
The alleged end result of the mortgage fraud scheme was to collect “…large amounts of cash by inducing mortgage lenders to provide the Meis with loans that were $50,000 to $80,000…” over what “…it cost the Meis to purchase the real estate that served as the collateral for the loan.”81 In order to obtain the loans, “…the Meis orchestrated sham real estate transactions in which the Meis would appear to sell a particular property, which…” would overlap “…with actual sales in which the Meis would purchase, for the first time, the very same property.”82 Purportedly, the Meis first would find a property for sale and “…acting through one of their realty companies such as Hathaway Properties, would contract to purchase the property from its owner.”83
Third parties or straw buyer would serve as a temporary purchaser usually Frank Mei Sr. to complete “…a parallel sham transaction that would be used to obtain an inflated loan.”84 Mortgage brokers in one of the Mei Enterprises would falsify employment and income information on loan application to lenders.85 Eventually, Moncrief, a residential real estate appraiser became involved in the Mei scheme.86 Allegedly, Moncrief used the Mei’s formula for over inflating the value of selected properties and “…was involved in more straw buyer transactions than any other appraiser that the Meis use…”87 which exposed him to the money laundering violations.88
___________________________

Any use of the previous article requires written permission from Ralph Behr and from this website and its subsidiaries under State and Federal Law. DO NOT copy and use the text provided above and/or publish as your own. The document may only be used for private study or distributing among peers in paper, not on internet transmission, with no intent to make profit or sell without credit being due to the original author.

The next installment of Attorney Behr’s mortgage fraud prosecutions series:

18 U.S.C. §1956 Laundering of monetary instruments

&

18 U.S.C. §1957 Engaging in monetary transactions in property

derived from specified unlawful activity
Both statutes essentially have the same purpose of preventing persons from legitimizing proceeds obtained illegally although there are differences. 18 U.S.C. § 1956, is concerned with any financial transaction concerning proceeds of a “specified unlawful activity”73 whenever action is focused to keep the criminal activity from being discovered, or to hide the source or current possessor of the funds, or to avoid the mandatory disclosures under the Bank Secrecy Act under Title 31 U.S.C.74 Conversely, provisions of 18 U.S.C. § 1957 is applicable if a person “…knowingly engages or attempts to engage in a monetary transaction in criminally derived property of a value greater than $10,000 and is derived from specified unlawful activity…”75
In United States v. Moncrief, 133 Fed.Appx. 924 (5th Cir. 2004), both of these statutes were instituted in a case which the government claimed to be “…the largest mortgage-loan-fraud operation ever to be prosecuted.”76 The case involved Meis Enterprises which was owned and operated by the Meis family.77 Mei Enterprises was a conglomeration of several businesses operated by members of the Mei family.78 Mei Enterprises operated a construction company and several real estate companies.79 Although the assortment of companies had differing bank accounts and officers in charge, Mei Enterprises “…operated out of one common office.”80
The alleged end result of the mortgage fraud scheme was to collect “…large amounts of cash by inducing mortgage lenders to provide the Meis with loans that were $50,000 to $80,000…” over what “…it cost the Meis to purchase the real estate that served as the collateral for the loan.”81 In order to obtain the loans, “…the Meis orchestrated sham real estate transactions in which the Meis would appear to sell a particular property, which…” would overlap “…with actual sales in which the Meis would purchase, for the first time, the very same property.”82 Purportedly, the Meis first would find a property for sale and “…acting through one of their realty companies such as Hathaway Properties, would contract to purchase the property from its owner.”83
Third parties or straw buyer would serve as a temporary purchaser usually Frank Mei Sr. to complete “…a parallel sham transaction that would be used to obtain an inflated loan.”84 Mortgage brokers in one of the Mei Enterprises would falsify employment and income information on loan application to lenders.85 Eventually, Moncrief, a residential real estate appraiser became involved in the Mei scheme.86 Allegedly, Moncrief used the Mei’s formula for over inflating the value of selected properties and “…was involved in more straw buyer transactions than any other appraiser that the Meis use…”87 which exposed him to the money laundering violations.88
___________________________
Any use of the previous article requires written permission from Ralph Behr and from this website and its subsidiaries under State and Federal Law. DO NOT copy and use the text provided above and/or publish as your own. The document may only be used for private study or distributing among peers in paper, not on internet transmission, with no intent to make profit or sell without credit being due to the original author.

South Florida Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog is proud to present the next installment of Attorney Behr’s mortgage fraud prosecutions series:

18 U.S.C. §1344 Bank Fraud
Persons who knowingly executes or makes an attempt to execute a scheme or ploy to “…defraud a financial institution; or to obtain any of the moneys, funds, credits, assets, securities, or other property owned by, or under the custody or control of, a financial institution by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises…” may be convicted under this statute.65
In United States v. Walsh, 75 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 1996), the defendant was under indictment for a scheme allegedly carried out “…by directing his employees to obtain 29 specific loans through the use of deceptions so that customers could purchase condominiums from Walsh and his associates.”66 The defendant along with other investors “…purchased apartment buildings or complexes, converted the property into condominiums, and sold the condominiums to customers, using the unit sales to pay off the acquisition financing.67 The defendant also usually served as a trustee representative and legal counsel for a trust set up to acquire the buildings.68 “During 1986, sales of units in one of the projects started to fall behind schedule and the trust began to have difficulty repaying its acquisition loan.”69 The defendant subsequently discovered a bank “…made mortgage loans available rapidly-with no verification of income, assets or down payments-but the loans required a twenty percent down payment and secondary financing was prohibited.”70
Along with the first failing projects, others followed suit and the defendant instructed his employees to arrange loans “…for unit purchasers and to falsify documents submitted to…” the bank “…to conceal the existence of secondary financing (and in some cases third mortgages as well).”71 Loans were eventually defaulted on and the bank “…incurred substantial losses.”72
___________________________
Any use of the previous article requires written permission from Ralph Behr and from this website and its subsidiaries under State and Federal Law. DO NOT copy and use the text provided above and/or publish as your own. The document may only be used for private study or distributing among peers in paper, not on internet transmission, with no intent to make profit or sell without credit being due to the original author.

Victor Thomas Clavizzao, 46, has been sentenced to 5 years in prison on convictions of conspiring to commit mortgage fraud. The court also ordered Clavizzao to pay $2 million in restitution and to forfeit an additional $6 million. Clavizzao had entered a guilty plea on September 23, 2009. Court documents stated that Clavizzao worked as a mortgage broker in the purchase of 13 real estate properties. He conspired to submit false and fraudulent information to a variety of lenders in the hopes of inducing the lenders to fund bad loans.Clavizzao’s co-defendant, a Pinellas property flipper who procured bogus loans with Clavizzao’s assistance, was sentenced earlier by a US District judge to 13 months in prison in his actions related to the conspiracy.

Mortgage fraud is a popular charge being seen in the news these days. If you are involved in such an incident, do not forgo your rights to the state. Defend your rights in court with a lawyer that knows the law and that will fight for you.

Continue reading →

Inyang Amos was charged via a superseding indictment with 10 counts of mortgage fraud through interstate wire, one count of engaging in a monetary transaction involving criminally derived property and two counts of aggravated identity theft. He allegedly devised and executed the fraudulent scheme from 2003 through 2006 in which 15 residences were purchased and resulted in a loss totaling $400,000 to various mortgage lenders he worked with. Inyang would recruit others in order to have money lent to them by mortgage lenders and appearing to them as a person in the “real estate business.” Single family homes were the primary target and promising financial terms lured in his victims. If found guilty of these charge, he faces a max of 20 years in prison on each count of mortgage fraud, 10 years for the transaction count and minimum of 2 years for each aggravated identity theft count. A Federal district court judge will be responsible for the sentencing.

A white collar offense can also lead to civil lawsuits filed by the government or the persons who were allegedly victimized by the crime. Unlike in a criminal case, the accused in a civil lawsuit does not have the right to remain silent, and they may be obligated to testify at their own trial. An attorney will not be appointed for them if they cannot afford one on their own.

Continue reading →