Justia White Collar Crime Opinion Summaries

Dayton Title brokered real estate closings and had a trust account at PNC Bank for clients’ funds. In 1998-1999, Dayton facilitated bridge loans from defendants to Chari, from $1.9 million to $3.2 million, for commercial real estate purchases. Defendants would deposit funds into Dayton’s PNC account, which Dayton would transfer to Chari. Chari’s loan payments would pass through Dayton’s account. The first six bridge loans were paid, but not always on time. Defendants provided Chari another bridge loan, for $4.8 million. After the due date, Chari deposited a $4.885 million check into Dayton’s account. The PNC teller did not place a hold on the check. On the same day, Dayton “pursuant to Chari’s instructions” issued checks to defendants. PNC extended a provisional credit for the value of Chari’s check, as is standard for business accounts. After the checks were paid, PNC learned that Chari’s check was a forgery drawn on a non-existing account, exercised its right of “charge back” on the Dayton account, and regained about $740,000 of the provisional credit. Dayton was forced into bankruptcy. Chari declared bankruptcy and was convicted of racketeering, fraud, and forgery. Dayton’s bankruptcy estate and PNC sued, seeking to avoid the $4.885 million transfer to defendants as fraudulent under 11 U.S.C. 548 and Ohio Rev. Code 1336.04(A)(2). The bankruptcy court held that all but $722,101.49 of the transfer was fraudulent. The district court held that all but $20,747.13 of the transfer was not fraudulent. The Sixth Circuit reversed the district court, reinstating the bankruptcy court holding. Dayton did not hold the provisional credit funds in trust; the funds were not encumbered by a lien at the time of transfer. The funds were “assets” held by Dayton, so the transfer satisfied the statutory definition of “fraudulent.” View "In re: Dayton Title Agency, Inc." on Justia Law

In 2004 Wallace financed a home purchase with a $272,315 mortgage. He took a second mortgage of $164,500 for improvements and to pay down debt. In 2006, Wallace sought a refinance loan of $422,500. Midwest obtained an appraisal from Brock, through the now-defunct Accupraise. A former Accupraise employee explained that Midwest would send a requested appraisal value and Brock would return a tailor-made appraisal, often without seeing the property. Accupraise and Brock valued Wallace’s home at $500,000. Unbeknownst to Wallace, his refinance was an adjustable-rate mortgage that allows negative amortization; he had a teaser rate of two percent that quickly multiplied. For securing a high long-term interest rate, Midwest received a premium in excess of $14,000. The loan created insurmountable financial problems for Wallace. He learned that the true 2006 value of his home was $375,000. Wallace declared bankruptcy, surrendered the home, and sued alleging that he was the victim of a fraudulent scheme violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and Kentucky conspiracy law. Mediation produced a settlement, under which Wallace prevailed on a RESPA claim. The district court granted defendants partial summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit reversed a finding that Wallace did not sufficiently demonstrate that the appraisal proximately caused his financial injuries, but otherwise affirmed. View "Wallace v. Midwest Fin. & Mortg. Servs., Inc." on Justia Law

Based on a mortgage fraud scheme that caused the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to insure loans for unqualified applicants based upon forged documents and false information provided by Wendlandt, he pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States, 18 U.S.C. 371, and was sentenced to 42 months in prison. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to the district court’s computation of financial loss for purposes of determining his offense level under U.S.S.G. 2B1.1 and to the court’s decision to vary upward from the advisory Guidelines range of 24 to months in prison. View "United States v. Wendlandt" on Justia Law

Westerfield was a lawyer working for an Illinois title insurance company when she facilitated fraudulent real estate transfers in a scheme that used stolen identities of homeowners to “sell” houses that were not for sale to fake buyers, and then collect the mortgage proceeds from lenders who were unaware of the fraud. Westerfield facilitated five such transfers and was indicted on four counts of wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 1343. She claimed that she had been unaware of the scheme’s fraudulent nature and argued that she had merely performed the typical work of a title agent. She was convicted on three counts. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, to admission of a codefendant’s testimony during trial, and to the sentence of 72 months in prison with three years of supervised release, and payment of $916,300 in restitution. View "United States v. Westerfield" on Justia Law

Anchor Mortgage Corporation and its CEO, Munson, were convicted under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. 3729(a)(1), of making false statements when applying for federal guarantees of 11 loans. The district court imposed a penalty of $5,500 per loan, plus treble damages of about $2.7 million. The Seventh Circuit affirmed, rejecting an argument that defendants not have the necessary state of mind, either actual knowledge that material statements were false, or suspicion that they were false plus reckless disregard of their accuracy. The court noted that Anchor submitted bogus certificates that relatives had supplied the down payments that the borrowers purported to have made, when it knew that neither the borrowers nor any of their relatives had made down payments and represented that it had not paid anyone for referring clients to it, but in fact it paid at least one referrer. View "United States v. Munson" on Justia Law

Defendant-Appellant Harald Dude secured a $1.9 million loan on his Aspen home from Washington Mutual Bank. He sought to borrow another $500,000 from Wells Fargo Bank. As part of the application process, Defendant completed a form for Wells Fargo's title insurance company, Plaintiff-Appellee Stewart Title Guaranty Company. The form required Defendant to disclose existing liens on property. Knowing that the company failed to discover the existence of the Washington Mutual loan, Defendant did not list the lien on Stewart Title's form. Wells Fargo proceeded with the second loan based on representations made on the form. Several years later, Defendant elected to sell the property. Stewart Title was contacted to provide title insurance. A second title search failed to reveal the Washington Mutual loan. The company again provided its disclosure form to Defendant who again omitted the Washington Mutual loan. At some point, Defendant stopped making payments on the Washington Mutual loan. Eventually it threatened the property's new owner with foreclosure. The new owner made a claim on her title insurance with Stewart Title. Honoring what it perceived to be its contractual obligations, Stewart Title paid Washington Mutual’s loan amount in full. Stewart Title then sued. A jury found Defendant liable for fraudulent misrepresentation. On appeal, Defendant and his company argued there was insufficient evidence to hold him liable. Finding sufficient evidence for which the jury could have found Defendant liable, the Tenth Circuit affirmed the verdict against him. View "Stewart Title v. Dude, et al" on Justia Law

The Condominium Association’s declaration required Bayside to provide fresh water and wastewater treatment to the Association and made all of the water facilities common property of the Association. Bayside contracted with TSG to construct and operate a system to fulfill its obligations. TSG charged Bayside $0.02 per gallon. By 2005, Bayside owed millions of dollars to creditors including TSG and the Association. Bayside assigned its rights to TSG, permitting TSG to charge $0.05 per gallon. To secure the Association’s consent Bayside and TSG threatened to cease providing services even though it was not feasible to obtain those services elsewhere. The Association’s Board consented and signed a Water Supply Agreement, which provided that Bayside owned the water facilities and contained an arbitration clause. After not receiving payments under the WSA, TSG temporarily stopped producing potable water for the Association, which then filed suit, asserting criminal extortion under the Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organizations Act; breach of obligations under the Declaration; and ownership of the water treatment systems. The district court ordered arbitration. The Third Circuit affirmed in part but vacated in part. The Association raised a bona fide question as to whether its Board had authority to enter into the WSA, a question that requires judicial determination. View "SBRMCOA, LLC v. Bayside Resort Inc." on Justia Law

The United States obtained a judgment for restitution of more than $85 million against Lawrence Duran for crimes that he committed in a conspiracy to defraud Medicare. After the United States obtained a writ of execution against an apartment that, according to property records, was owned jointly by Lawrence and his former wife, Carmen Duran, she moved to dissolve or stay the writ on the ground that she had acquired sole title to the property as part of their divorce settlement several months before his prosecution. The district court denied the motion without prejudice on the grounds that it lacked jurisdiction. Because the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 28 U.S.C. 3203(a), provided that the United States could levy only property in which a judgment debtor had a substantial nonexempt interest, the district court erred in refusing to adjudicate Carmen's motion. Accordingly, the court vacated the order and remanded for further proceedings. View "United States v. Duran" on Justia Law

Robers pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire fraud, 18 U.S.C. 371, based on his role in a mortgage fraud scheme; Robers signed mortgage documents seeking loans based on inflated income and assets and on his claim that he would reside in the houses and pay the mortgages. The loans went into default. The district court sentenced Robers to three years’ probation and ordered him to pay $218,952 in restitution to a lender and a mortgage insurance company. The Seventh Circuit affirmed the restitution order. The Mandatory Victims Restitution Act, 18 U.S.C. 3663A, requires restitution in the case of a crime resulting in damage to or loss or destruction of property. The court rejected Robers’s argument that the MVRA requires the court to determine the offset value based on the fair market value the collateral had on the date the lenders obtained title to the houses following foreclosure as the “date the property is returned.” Money was the property stolen and foreclosure is not a return of that property; only when the real estate is resold do the victims receive money. Victims are also entitled to expenses, other than attorney’s fees and unspecified fees, related to foreclosure and sale. View "United States v. Robers" on Justia Law

In 2007, Fifth Third loaned Buford $406,000 in exchange for a mortgage on property that Buford purportedly owned. Fifth Third obtained a title-insurance policy from Direct Title, an issuing agent for Chicago Title. Direct Title was a fraudulent agent; its sole “member” was the actual title owner of the property and conspired with Buford to use that single property as collateral to obtain multiple loans from different lenders. When creditors foreclosed on the property in state court, Fifth Third intervened and asked Chicago Title to defend and compensate. Chicago Title refused to defend or indemnify. Chicago Title sought to avoid summary judgment, indicating that it needed discovery on the questions whether “Fifth Third failed to follow objectively reasonable and prudent underwriting standards” in processing Buford’s loan application and whether Direct Title had authority to issue the title-insurance policy. The district court granted Fifth Third summary judgment. The Sixth Circuit affirmed, noting that “When a party comes to us with nine grounds for reversing the district court, that usually means there are none.”View "Fifth Third Mortg. Co. v. Chicago Title Ins. Co." on Justia Law