South Florida Criminal Defense Lawyer Blog

Hidayatullah Ali Khalil, 29, has been charged for providing false information on a mortgage loan application in attempting to purchase two home which would eventually become foreclosed. He was arrested last Thursday on a complaint levied by three separate individuals. The FBI took notice and have in holding in order to be seen in a federal court under a $75,000 unsecured bond. The incident of mortgage fraud resulted in Khali buying homes in Elk Grove and Watsonville, CA in 2005.

Khali removed more than $100,000 cash from the Elk Grove property in two separate transactions. Further investigation is underway by the FBI into the Santa Cruz police officer and other related individuals.

Continue reading →

Attorney Behr’s mortgage fraud prosecutions series continues with the following EXCERPT:
§ 877.54, Fla. Stat. (2009) should be reduced to an attempt because the crime was not completed.108 The defendant reasoned the corporation “…was not deceived as a result of any false representations and issued the check in an attempt to lure her presence and facilitate her arrest.”109 The court agreed with the defendant and determined the record did “…not demonstrate reliance by the victim on the defendant’s misrepresentations.”110
Furthermore, § 877.54, Fla. Stat. (2009) and § 877.10, Fla. Stat. (2009) are similar to the mail, wire and bank fraud statutes because it is evidence of a defendant’s involvement in “…the scheme to defraud and not actual fraud that is required.”111 “No particular type of victim is required…nor need the scheme have succeeded.”112 Although the government need not prove there is any reliance or injury, it must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the evidence shows a “…willful participation in [the] scheme with knowledge of its fraudulent nature and with intent that these illicit objectives be achieved.”113 However, a defendant may have a complete defense to wire fraud, bank fraud, or money laundering negating the specific intent element of the statutes if a jury determines a defendant acted in a good faith belief his or her actions were not illegal.114
___________________________

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.

Compared and Contrasted Against One Another
V. DEFENSES

Unlike § 817.545, Fla. Stat. (2009) and two other federal statutes concerning mortgage fraud previously discussed, both § 877.10, Fla. Stat. (2009) and § 817.54, Fla. Stat. (2009) require reliance by a person or entity by the fraudulent activity undertaken in order for a defendant to be convicted for either statute. § 877.10, Fla. Stat. (2009) specifically states this reliance requirement,102 but § 877.54, Fla. Stat. (2009) does not.103 However, the latter’s reliance requirement is laid out in the Third District Court of Appeal case, Adams v. State, 650 So.2d 1039 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995).

In Adams, the defendant gave “…an erroneous address and social security number, and misrepresented the address of…” an unregistered company the defendant owned to obtain a mortgage loan from a corporation.104 Subsequently, the company determined the information was false and notified law enforcement.105 “The police suggested issuing the check to lure the defendant to appear.”106 After exiting the corporation’s office, the defendant was arrested.107 A jury convicted the defendant and on appeal she argued her conviction for a violation of …

To be continued in the next posting of Attorney Behr’s prosecution series…

___________________________

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.

Attorney Behr’s mortgage fraud prosecutions series will continue with this portion of the article:

Dissimilar to the Florida statute, other states require “…a pattern of residential mortgage fraud…”99 to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before being adjudicated of a higher penalty. Other states have even set out elemental qualifications for patterns of mortgage fraud. North Carolina’s legislature requires “…five or more mortgage loans which have the same or similar intents, results, accomplices, victims or methods of commission or otherwise are interrelated by distinguishing characteristics…”100 Kentucky, Georgia, Arizona, Mississippi and Nevada describe a pattern of residential mortgage fraud “…that involves two (2) or more mortgage loans…”101 Requiring state prosecutors to prove “a pattern of mortgage fraud” ensures those persons who intend to conduct schemes to defraud persons and lending institutions are truly deserving of heightened felonies. On the other hand, by not requiring “a pattern of mortgage fraud” the Florida Legislature has not only made Florida Assistant State Attorney jobs easier, but has also allowed those persons who conduct multiple acts of mortgage fraud to escape with only third degree felony convictions as long as the scheme total does not amount to $100,000.00.

___________________________

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.

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 →