Justia White Collar Crime Opinion Summaries

The Attorney General filed a complaint in which Count IV alleged that Wildermuth, an attorney, and Kleanthis, a veteran of the real estate business, engaged in acts and practices that violated section 3-102 of the Illinois Human Rights Act by a pattern and practice of discrimination in the offering of loan modification services to Illinois consumers. The complaint alleged that defendants advertised that they would succeed where other loan modification providers had failed, help consumers save their homes and obtain significant reductions in their monthly payments. The circuit court of Cook County denied defendants’ motion to dismiss but certified for interlocutory appeal the question: “Whether the State may claim a violation under the Illinois Human Rights Act pursuant to a reverse redlining theory where it did not allege that the defendant acted as a mortgage lender.” The appellate court answered the question in the affirmative. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed in part, stating that it is not necessary to allege that one is a mortgage lender to sustain a claim for a violation of the statute. The court concluded, nonetheless, that Count IV should have been dismissed, rejecting the state’s argument that the defendants engaged in a “real estate transaction” by providing “financial assistance for ... maintaining a dwelling.” Defendants’ services cannot be considered necessary; they were not “necessary conduits” through which funds flow, nor did they act as real estate brokers. View "Madigan v. Wildermuth" on Justia Law

Sawyer, with co-defendants, formed A&E to recover salvageable materials (copper, steel, aluminum) from the 300-acre Hamblen County site of the former Liberty Fibers rayon plant, which contained buildings, a water treatment facility, and extensive above-ground piping. The defendants knew that many of the buildings contained regulated asbestos-containing material (RACM), such as pipe-wrap, insulation, roofing, and floor tiles, much of which was marked. Demolition did not comply with National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) governing the handling and disposal of asbestos. Workers were not provided with proper respirators or protective suits; some were asked to remove or handle friable asbestos without adequately wetting it. In a 2008 consent agreement, A&E agreed to correct the violations and comply with NESHAP during future removal and demolition. In 2009, the EPA terminated the agreement and issued an immediate compliance order. Federal agents searched the site, seized documents, and took samples of RACM. EPA, acting under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), cleaned up the site, at a cost of $16,265,418. In 2011, Sawyer and his co-defendants were charged. Sawyer pled guilty to conspiring to violate the Clean Air Act, 18 U.S.C. 371. His PSR calculated a guideline sentencing range of 87-108 months. The statutory maximum under 18 U.S.C. 371 is 60 months, so his effective range was 60 months. The Sixth Circuit affirmed Sawyer’s 60-month sentence and an order holding the co-defendants jointly and severally liable for $10,388,576.71 in restitution to the EPA. View "United States v. Sawyer" on Justia Law

Over four years, Dade, a former licensed real estate agent, with co-defendants, facilitated loans to purchase residential real estate by knowingly providing lenders with false statements and documents. Dade referred potential buyers to loan officers and provided false payroll stubs and W-2 forms from fake companies. Dade (with help) refinanced a mortgage on his own Chicago property, stating that he was paying monthly rent of $1,450 (he did not live in the house), and provided a rental verification from “Jireh,” which did not exist. Dade received a $156,000 loan. He was charged with bank fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1344, wire fraud, section 1343, and mail fraud, section 1341. He pleaded guilty to bank fraud, based on the fraudulent refinancing; the remaining charges were dismissed. The government sought a 2-level upward adjustment for his role as an organizer, leader, manager, or supervisor in the offense, U.S.S.G. 3B1.1(c). When preparing the presentence report, however, the probation officer concluded that a 4-level upward adjustment would be appropriate, stating that the scheme had involved five or more participants and Dade had organized the scheme. The government adopted that position, recounting the facts underlying the charges dismissed as part of Dade’s plea agreement. The Seventh Circuit affirmed his 20-month sentence, upholding the upward adjustment. View "United States v. Dade" on Justia Law

When purchasing a house, the defendants submitted loan documents containing false incomes and bank statements, and failed to disclose that husband’s company was selling and his wife was buying. The company received $750,000 and rebated money paid above that amount to husband. The $1 million in loans they received resulted in $250,000 extra that was not disclosed as going to the couple. They were able to sell the house four months later for the same inflated amount, without raising any concerns. They failed to disclose on the HUD-1 forms in the second transaction that they would be giving the buyer kickbacks. The buyer received $1,090,573.06 in loans, but defaulted without making a payment. The lender eventually sold the house for $487,500. Defendants were convicted of three counts of wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343 and aiding and abetting wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 2. The Presentence Investigation Report determined that the lender’s loss was $603,073.06 and recommended a 14-point enhancement under USSG 2B1.1(b)(1)(H). The Seventh Circuit affirmed the convictions but remanded for explanation of why the loss was “reasonably foreseeable” and why the sentencing enhancement was proper. Involvement in a fraudulent scheme does not necessarily mean it was reasonably foreseeable that all the subsequent economic damages would occur; there was no evidence that defendants knew they were selling to what turned out to be a fictional buyer. View "United States v. Domnenko" on Justia Law

Thomas and Chapman were part of a scheme to fleece real estate lenders by concocting multiple false sales of the same homes and using the loan proceeds from the later transactions to pay off the earlier lenders. They were convicted of multiple counts of wire fraud. Thomas was also convicted of aggravated identity theft for using an investor’s identity without permission to craft a phony sale of a home that the victim never owned. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting: challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence; a claim by Thomas that there was no proof that he created or used the falsified documents at issue; Chapman’s claim that there was no evidence that he was the Lamar Chapman identified by the evidence, because no courtroom witness testified to that effect; Chapman’s claim that his due process rights were violated when the government dropped a co-defendant from the indictment; and a claim that the government failed to turn over unspecified exculpatory evidence. The court noted testimony from several victims, an FBI investigator, an auditor, and an indicted co-defendant who had already pleaded guilty. View "United States v. Chapman" on Justia Law

Patriot was authorized to issue title policies underwritten by First American in Michigan. In 2007, Patriot closed a transaction and provided title insurance and a closing protection letter (CPL) when which WaMu loaned $4,543,593.07 to Truong for the purchase of property in Grosse Ile. In the CPL, First American agreed to indemnify WaMu for actual losses arising from Patriot’s fraud or dishonesty in connection with the closing. In 2008, First American discovered that the Truong transaction was a sham, orchestrated by Patriot’s owner, and obtained title to the property. During negotiations concerning sale of the property, federal regulators closed WaMu. The FDIC became its receiver and sold most of WaMu’s assets to Chase, including the title insurance commitment issued in connection with the Truong transaction. Attempting to resolve the claim, First American tendered a quitclaim deed. Chase refused to accept that deed. First American sought a declaration that First American had fulfilled its obligations under the commitment by tendering a deed to the property. Chase sought a declaration that the deed was void and requested money damages. The FDIC intervened, alleging breach of contract against First American based on the CPL. After the property was sold, First American and Chase stipulated to dismissal of Chase’s claims against First American and First American’s claims against Chase. Chase and the FDIC entered into a stipulation that Chase did not acquire the CPL claim that the FDIC was pursuing. A jury awarded the FDIC $2,263,510.78. The Sixth Circuit affirmed.View "JP Morgan Chase Bank NA v. First Am. Title Ins. Corp." on Justia Law

Rymtech, a mortgage reduction program, purported to provide financial assistance to homeowners facing foreclosure. Daniel, its Vice President, recruited homeowners to place their properties in the program and instructed them to sign over title to straw purchasers called “A buyers.” Homeowners were told that title would be placed in trust, that A buyers would obtain financing to pay off the mortgage, and that they would regain clear title in five years. Daniel instructed loan officers to prepare fraudulent loan applications on behalf of A buyers. Even if Rymtech had invested all of the owners’ equity, implausibly high rates of return would have been required to make the mortgage payments. The equity was actually primarily used to operate Rymtech. When its finances started to disintegrate, Daniel continued to recruit homeowners. After the program failed Daniel was convicted of wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343 and mail fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1341. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence and an argument that the court erred in rejecting his proposed instruction, requiring the jury to agree unanimously on a specific fraudulent representation, pretense, promise, or act. Unanimity is only required for the existence of the scheme itself and not in regard to a specific false representation. View "United States v. Daniel" on Justia Law

Robers, convicted of submitting fraudulent mortgage loan applications to two banks, argued that the district court miscalculated his restitution obligation under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. 3663A–3664, which requires property crime offenders to pay “an amount equal to ... the value of the property” less “the value (as of the date the property is returned) of any part of the property that is returned.” The court ordered Robers to pay the difference between the amount lent to him and the amount the banks received in selling houses that had served as collateral. Robers argued that the court should have reduced the restitution amount by the value of the houses on the date on which the banks took title to them since that was when “part of the property” was “returned.” The Seventh Circuit and a unanimous Supreme Court affirmed. “Any part of the property ... returned” refers to the property the banks lost: the money lent to Robers, not to the collateral the banks received. Because valuing money is easier than valuing other property, this “natural reading” facilitates the statute’s administration. For purposes of the statute’s proximate-cause requirement, normal market fluctuations do not break the causal chain between the fraud and losses incurred by the victim. Even assuming that the return of collateral compensates lenders for their losses under state mortgage law, the issue here is whether the statutory provision, which does not purport to track state mortgage law, requires that collateral received be valued at the time the victim received it. The rule of lenity does not apply here. View "Robers v. United States" on Justia Law

Robers, convicted of submitting fraudulent mortgage loan applications to two banks, argued that the district court miscalculated his restitution obligation under the Mandatory Victims Restitution Act of 1996, 18 U.S.C. 3663A–3664, which requires property crime offenders to pay “an amount equal to ... the value of the property” less “the value (as of the date the property is returned) of any part of the property that is returned.” The court ordered Robers to pay the difference between the amount lent to him and the amount the banks received in selling houses that had served as collateral. Robers argued that the court should have reduced the restitution amount by the value of the houses on the date on which the banks took title to them since that was when “part of the property” was “returned.” The Seventh Circuit and a unanimous Supreme Court affirmed. “Any part of the property ... returned” refers to the property the banks lost: the money lent to Robers, not to the collateral the banks received. Because valuing money is easier than valuing other property, this “natural reading” facilitates the statute’s administration. For purposes of the statute’s proximate-cause requirement, normal market fluctuations do not break the causal chain between the fraud and losses incurred by the victim. Even assuming that the return of collateral compensates lenders for their losses under state mortgage law, the issue here is whether the statutory provision, which does not purport to track state mortgage law, requires that collateral received be valued at the time the victim received it. The rule of lenity does not apply here. View "Robers v. United States" on Justia Law

An asbestos survey showed that the Kankakee building contained 2,200 linear feet of asbestos‐containing insulation around pipes. The owner hired Origin Fire Protection, to modify its sprinkler system. O’Malley, who operated Origin, offered to properly remove the pipe insulation for a cash payment ($12,000) and dispose of it in a lawful landfill. O’Malley provided no written contract for the removal work, but provided a written contract for the sprinkler system. O’Malley and Origin were not licensed to remove asbestos. O’Malley hired untrained workers, who stripped dry asbestos insulation off the pipes using a circular saw and other equipment provided by O’Malley. The workers were given paint suits, simple dust masks, and respirators with missing filters. They stopped working after inhaling dust that made them sick. Asbestos insulation was packed into garbage bags and taken to abandoned properties and a store dumpster. The Illinois EPA discovered the dumping; Superfund contractors began cleanup. O’Malley attempted to mislead federal agents. O’Malley was convicted of removing, transporting, and dumping asbestos‐containing insulation. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that the government did not prove the appropriate mens rea for Clean Air Act violations. O’Malley argued that the government was required to prove that he knew that the asbestos in the building was a regulated type of asbestos. View "United States v. O'Malley" on Justia Law