 |
 |
Mortgage Fraud
DOCX, LLC
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTGAGE ASSN.
Action Date: March 9, 2010
Location: West Palm Beach, FL
ON MARCH 9, 2010, researchers for Fraud Digest easily found at least 10 Assignments, for combined loan amounts well over $2 million, with the Assignment Effective Date listed as 9/9/9999. These were all prepared by Docx, LLC in Alpharetta, Georgia, a subsidiary of Lender Processing Services in Jacksonville, FL.
These are the same "document preparers/officers of too many banks" that prepared and filed Assignments where the grantor or grantee was listed as "Bogus Assignee for Intervening ASMTS" and also the same people who listed the grantor or grantee as "A Bad Bene." All of these documents are witnessed and notarized (by other Docx employees).
Fraud Digest researchers are now attempting to quantify the number of Assignments (in the hundreds or more likely thousands) where MERS is stated to be the original mortgagee.
If the assignment is not effective until 9/9/9999, many homeowners will be able to stay in their homes a VERY long time. Each of these assignments effective in 9999 was to the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Assn.
Securities and Investments
Excel lease Fund, Inc.
Benny Lee Judah (Sentence: 25 years, Restitution/Fines/Penalties/Settlements Paid: $59,802,581)
Action Date: March 8, 2010
Location: Lubbock, TX
On March 5, 2010, Benny Lee Judah was sentenced in federal court in Lubbock Texas, to the statutory maximum of 300 months (25 years) in federal prison and ordered to pay $59,802,581.06 in restitution. Judah has been in federal custody since he pleaded guilty in November, 2009, to felony offenses stemming from his defrauding at least 250 investors of nearly $60 million.
Judah, who operated numerous restaurants and related businesses, including Excel Lease Fund, Inc., pleaded guilty to one count of money laundering and one count of sale and delivery after sale of unregistered securities. At the sentencing hearing, it was noted that the offense involved more than 250 victims; the offense involved a prior specific judicial injunction; the offense substantially endangered the solvency or financial security of 100 or more victims; the offense involved a violation of securities law; at the time of the offense, the defendant was a person associated with an investment advisor; and the defendant obstructed and impeded the administration of justice.
On February 1, 2001, in U.S. District Court for the NDTX, Judah and his company, Excel, were subjects of a final judgment of permanent injunction filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) that permanently restrained and enjoined them in the offer or sale of unregistered securities, in providing through the mails any communication employing any scheme to defraud or material misrepresentation, or from engaging in any transaction or practice which would operate as a fraud or deceit on any purchaser. Judah and Excel were ordered to pay a $50,000 civil penalty as part of the Court’s final judgment, and Judah was put on notice of the illegal fraudulent securities violations in which he had engaged.
Judah, an accountant by education and training, is not a licensed securities broker. Since at least 2001, he has sold Excel debentures, guaranteeing a high rate of return. Essentially, however, while purporting to manage and operate the Excel leasing business, Judah was actually operating a Ponzi scheme.
Judah admitted that from October 2005 until April 2009, he schemed to fraudulently obtain $50,162,707 from victim investors in Excel who purchased Excel debentures. He operated this scheme successfully until April 21, 2009, when the SEC filed a civil Complaint against him and Excel alleging violations of federal securities laws. That same day, the Court granted the SEC’s motion to appoint a receiver, signed an order freezing their assets, and signed an injunction prohibiting them from taking further actions in violation of federal securities laws.
As part of his scheme, Judah misrepresented the viability of Excel by failing to disclose the true and actual use of investor funds, and the true financial condition of Excel, thus allowing him to conceal, disguise and convert investor monies for unauthorized purposes. He generated false documents consisting of prospectuses, balance sheets, income statements and interest accrual letters that were represented to be true in order to perpetuate the image of a successful company. He mailed these fraudulent documents to investors and received approximately $50,162,707. He represented to investors that Excel was profitable, when it was not, and grossly overstated the value and nature of Excel’s assets.
After an investment was made, Judah would mail the victim investors the debentures for the investor to sign and then the investors would mail the signed debentures back to Excel and Judah. Oftentimes, Judah would mail false account statements to the investors showing that their investments were earning interest at the 10% rate he had represented. Regarding the money laundering charge, Judah knew that while conducting and attempting to conduct his financial transactions, that the property involved in those financial transactions represented proceeds of his unlawful activity of mail fraud.
Judah admitted using investor proceeds in a manner grossly inconsistent with representation he had made. For example, he lost at least $5 million of the proceeds by “day trading” and used investment proceeds to provide related-party loans to himself and to other businesses he controlled.
The case was investigated by the Lubbock offices of Internal Revenue Service - Criminal Investigation and the FBI. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Dick Baker and Ann C. Roberts of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Lubbock prosecuted the case.
Mortgage Fraud
Florida Civil Procedure Rules
Action Date: February 11, 2010
Location: Tallahassee, FL
On February 11, 2010, the Florida Supreme Court addressed the problem of widespread mortgage foreclosure fraud BY LENDERS in Florida by amending certain rules of civil procedure. (See, Nos. SC09-1460, SC09-1579, Supreme Court of Florida.) The rule changes were recommended by the Task Force on Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Cases. By administrative order on March 27, 2009, the Task Force was "established to recommend to the Supreme Court policies, procedures, strategies, and methods for easing the backlog of pending residential mortgage foreclosure cases while protecting the rights of parties." In re Task Force on Residential Mortgage Foreclosure Cases, Fla. Admin. Order No. AOSC09-8, at 2 (March 27, 2009). Rule 1.110(b) was amended to require verification of mortgage foreclosure complaints involving residential real property. According to the Court, the primary purposes of this amendment are (1) to provide incentive for the plaintiff to appropriately investigate and verify its ownership of the note or right to enforce the note and ensure that the allegations in the complaint are accurate; (2) to conserve judicial resources that are currently being wasted on inappropriately pleaded "lost note" counts and inconsistent allegations; (3) to prevent the wasting of judicial resources and harm to defendants resulting from suits brought by plaintiffs not entitled to enforce the note; and (4) to give trial courts greater authority to sanction plaintiffs who make false allegations. The rule change was necessary because lenders in Florida, as in every other state, have filed hundreds of thousands of foreclosure cases without any legal authority. In cases after case, where the lenders do not have the documents to prove that they own the mortgage and note, they have lied to the courts and falsely alleged: 1) we own the note; 2) we had possession of the note; 3) we lost the note. In truth, the lenders never obtained valid assignments of these notes from the loan originators in the rush to securitization, to bundle residential mortgages as investments. In court proceedings, the lenders hired certain "document preparers" - including law firms - to "create" these critical missing Assignments, but in many cases, the documents were dated subsequent to the date the foreclosure case was filed, creating a tremendous strain on the courts. Many foreclosure defense advocates, while applauding the rules changes, have criticized the fact that the Supreme Court did not provide relief to the thousands of homeowners who are at risk of losing their homes because of forged and fabricated mortgage assignments filed with the courts in foreclosure actions by lenders. Many expected the Court to stay all foreclosure actions where the mortgage assignments were dated subsequent to the date the action was filed. Without such widespread relief, victims of the Assignment scheme must prove fraud on a case-by-case basis, most often in courts where the judges have already declared themselves unwilling to consider the issue of fraudulently created mortgage assignments.
Securities and Investments
Eli Goldshor (Sentence: 18 months)
Harvard Learning Center
Judith Massaro (Sentence: 3 years' probation)
Donald Platten (Sentence: 262 months)
Action Date: February 9, 2010
Location: Boca Raton, FL
Donald Platten, of Boca Raton, Fla., was sentenced today by Judge Donald Middlebrooks in West Palm Beach, Florida to 262 months in prison, to be followed by 3 years’ of supervised release for securities fraud, mortgage fraud, and tax fraud, the Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced. The Court will schedule a hearing within the next 90 days to determine the amount of restitution owed to the victims.
In August 2009, Platten was convicted of conspiracy to commit securities fraud, six counts of securities fraud, conspiracy to commit wire fraud, and impeding the internal revenue laws. Platten was acquitted of eight additional counts of securities fraud.
According to the indictment and evidence introduced at trial, Platten was the president of Harvard Learning Centers Inc., a Florida corporation also located in Boca Raton. Harvard Learning changed its name several times and claimed to be involved in several different business ventures. From 2004 to 2007, Platten caused Harvard Learning to issue more than $1 million in stock to his wife, his sister, Judith Massaro, his ex-sister-in-law, and his limousine driver, Eli Goldshor, supposedly as repayment of promissory notes, even though Platten knew that the promissory notes were fraudulent and the company did not owe these individuals the money reflected on the promissory notes. Goldshor, the limousine driver, kicked back most of the proceeds from the sale of the stock to Platten and for Platten’s benefit. In this manner, Platten caused Harvard Learning to issue stock to repay his own obligations and to enrich himself, his relatives and others. Platten also caused a subsidiary of Harvard Learning to pay the personal expenses of himself, his wife, his mother, his sister, and his teenage son.
According to the indictment and evidence introduced at trial, Platten failed to file corporate federal tax returns for Harvard Learning for the years 2004 through 2007 and failed to file his personal federal tax returns for the years 2004 and 2005. For the year 2006, Platten failed to report on his personal tax return the income that he received as a result of Harvard Learning's stock issuances and payment of his personal expenses.
According to the indictment and evidence introduced at trial, Platten caused Goldshor to purchase a house and obtain a mortgage by providing false information about his income and assets in order to conceal Platten's ownership of the house in Boca Raton. The day after he purchased the house, Platten caused Goldshor to execute a quit claim deed transferring his interest in the property to Platten's wife.
Two individuals who testified for the government in the trial of Platten in August 2009 had pleaded guilty to criminal charges relating to their misconduct. Eli Goldshor, Platten’s former limousine driver, pleaded guilty to charges of conspiracy to commit securities fraud and willfully failing to file tax returns. In September 2009, Goldshor was sentenced by Judge William Zloch in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida to 18 months in prison for his role in the offense. Judith Massaro, Platten’s ex-sister-in-law, pleaded guilty to obstructing the internal revenue laws. In December 2009, Massaro was sentenced by Judge Thomas Whelan in San Diego, California to three years probation. Tax Division Trial Attorneys Steven D. Grimberg, Gregory R. Bockin, and Kenneth C. Vert, prosecuted the case.
Securities and Investments
Edward Stein (Sentence: 9 years)
Action Date: February 9, 2010
Location: Brooklyn, NY
On February 9, 2010, Edward T. Stein, an investment advisor based in Roslyn, New York, was sentenced to nine years of imprisonment for securities fraud and wire fraud. The sentence was imposed by United States District Judge Jack B. Weinstein.
On June 22, 2009, Stein pled guilty to operating a Ponzi scheme by inducing investors to purchase interests in several funds and partnerships that he controlled between 1998 and the date of his arrest in April 2009. While Stein falsely assured investors that he would make investments on their behalf with the funds provided to him, he used millions of dollars for other purposes, including personal expenses, investments in his own name, and to pay redemptions to other individuals who had invested money with him. The scheme resulted in over $45 million in losses to approximately 100 investors.
The government’s case was prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Scott Klugman, Winston Paes, and Claire Kedeshian.
Securities and Investments
Brian Brunette (Sentence: 12 months)
Lawrence Kaplan (Sentence: 36 months)
Steven Luscko (Sentence: 60 months)
Justin Medlin (Sentence: 72 months)
Gregory Neu (Sentence: 60 months)
Phillip Windom Offill, Jr. (Sentence: pending)
Kenneth Owen (Sentence: pending)
Michael Saquella (Sentence: 120 months)
David Stocker (Sentence: pending)
Anthony Tarantola (Sentence: 6 months)
Henry Zemla (Sentence: 3 months)
Action Date: January 28, 2010
Location: Alexandria, VA
On January 28, 2010, Phillip Windom Offill, Jr., a securities attorney, was convicted by a federal jury in Alexandria, Va., for participating in multi-million dollar pump-and-dump stock manipulation schemes.
Offill was indicted on March 12, 2009. He was found guilty of one count of conspiracy to commit registration violations, securities fraud and nine counts of wire fraud.
“It is a sad day when a former U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) attorney uses what he learned in the government to later defraud the investing public,” said Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer of the Criminal Division. “As this case shows, individuals who illegally manipulate our securities markets to line their own pockets will be brought to justice.”
“As a former SEC lawyer, Mr. Offill knew the law – and he intentionally broke it and tried to hide his crimes,” said U.S. Attorney Neil H. MacBride of the Eastern District of Virginia. “He and his co-conspirators made millions while innocent investors were left with stock in worthless companies. We are committed to pursuing these cases aggressively to protect the public and the integrity of the securities market.”
According to court records and evidence at trial, Offill, an attorney in Dallas and a former attorney with the SEC, was retained by David Stocker, a Phoenix attorney who pleaded guilty in March 2009 in the Eastern District of Virginia to conspiracy to commit securities fraud. According to the indictment, from approximately March 2004 through October 2004, Offill and Stocker evaded federal securities registration requirements and provided co-conspirators with millions of unregistered and “free-trading” shares of nine companies’ common stock that the co-conspirators could not have otherwise legally obtained. Many of the shares were subsequently sold by co-conspirators to investors in the general public. By evading the registration requirements, the co-conspirators were able to hide from the investing public the actual financial condition and business operations of the companies. The companies included Emerging Holdings Inc.; MassClick Inc.; China Score Inc.; Auction Mills Inc.; Custom-Designed Compressor Systems Inc.; Ecogate Inc.; Media International Concepts Inc.; Vanquish Productions Inc.; and AVL Global Inc.
In connection with Emerging Holdings, MassClick and China Score, evidence at trial showed that Offill knowingly participated in a conspiracy known as a “pump-and-dump” scheme to manipulate the price of these companies’ securities. Co-conspirators falsely manipulated the price and volume of some of the companies’ stock by making materially false and misleading statements in press releases and in spam e-mails to tens of millions of e-mail addresses throughout the United States in an effort to create artificial demand for the three companies’ stock. After fraudulently “pumping” the market price and demand for the companies’ stock, co-conspirators “dumped” shares by selling them for large profits to the general investing public in the over-the-counter market through listings on Pink Sheets, an inter-dealer electronic quotation and trading system. These shares were purchased by unsuspecting investors, including investors in the Eastern District of Virginia, and were often rendered virtually worthless.
Offill, who was immediately remanded by U.S. District Judge Liam O’Grady, faces a maximum penalty of five years in prison on the conspiracy charge and 20 years in prison for each charged count of wire fraud. He will also be subject to up to $15 million in forfeiture. Sentencing has been scheduled for April 16, 2010, at 9 a.m., before Judge O’Grady.
Ten other defendants have pleaded guilty and eight of them have been sentenced in federal court in Alexandria, Va., for their roles in related stock manipulation schemes. David B. Stocker will be sentenced on March 8, 2010. Kenneth Owen pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit securities fraud and will be sentenced in federal court in Los Angeles on Aug. 25, 2010. Michael R. Saquella was sentenced to 10 years in prison; Justin Medlin was sentenced to six years in prison; Steven P. Luscko and Gregory A. Neu were each sentenced to five years in prison; Lawrence Kaplan was sentenced to three years in prison; Brian G. Brunette was sentenced to a one year in prison; Anthony Tarantola was sentenced to six months in prison; and Henry “Hank” Zemla was sentenced to three months in prison. he case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorney Patrick Stokes of the Criminal Division’s Fraud Section and Assistant U.S. Attorney Ed Power of the Eastern District of Virginia.
Mortgage Fraud
Michael Hershkowitz (Sentence: 48 months, Restitution/Fines/Penalties/Settlements Paid: $27,184,750)
Kingsland Group
Action Date: January 28, 2010
Location: New York, NY
On January 28, 2010, Manhattan real
estate developer Michael Hershkowitz was sentenced to four
years in prison for his participation in a $27 million Ponzi
scheme involving fraudulent loans secured by nonexistent
mortgages.
According to the documents filed in the case in
Manhattan federal court:
Hershkowitz, working through a Manhattan real estate
development company, The Kingsland Group, Inc., and related
entities, fraudulently
induced approximately 100 individuals to lend the Kingsland Group
over $27 million to fund the renovation of approximately sixteen
multi-family apartment buildings located in upper Manhattan.
Hershkowitz and a co-conspirator, Ivy Woolf-Turk, falsely
represented that the lenders would hold, as collateral for the
loans, interests in bona fide first mortgages in the various
properties in which they thought they were investing. In truth
and in fact, Hershkowitz did not record mortgages on behalf of
the lenders. Some interest was paid to some of the defrauded
lenders with loans made by other victims, and Hershkowitz or
Woolf-Turk made false statements to investors about the status of
their loans. Ultimately the principal on the loans was not
repaid when due, and the lenders learned that they did not have
valid first mortgages on the properties in question, as had been
falsely promised to them.
Hershkowitz, 53, of New York, New York, previously
pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit mail and wire
fraud. He was sentenced by United States District Judge P.
KEVIN CASTEL. In addition to the four-year prison term, Judge
CASTEL ordered forfeiture of $27,184,750, representing the funds
obtained through the fraud.
Woolf- Turk, of Port Washington, New York, previously
pled guilty to a related charge and was sentenced on November
23, 2009, to five years in prison and restitution of $27,184,750.
This prosecution is being handled by the Complex Frauds
Unit of the United States Attorney's Office. Assistant United
States Attorney HARRY A. CHERNOFF is in charge of the
prosecution.
Mortgage Fraud
AIG
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
Federal Reserve Bank of NY
Action Date: January 27, 2010
Location: New York, NY
On Jaunary 27, 2010, Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner will testify before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The House Committee is investigating the AIG bailout and the role Geithner played, as head of the New York Federal Reserve Bank. The specific issue of greatest concern is whether AIG and the NY Fed concealed bailout facts. According to a story in Financial Times, the question is whether the efforts of Geithner amounted to "nothing less than a backdoor bail-out of AIG's creditors, including Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, Societe' General and Deutsche Bank." For homeowners with homes in securitized investment trusts who are facing foreclosure, the question is also: did my mortgage holder already receive a payout for my defaulted mortgage from an insurance policy? Banks bought insurance for the pools of subprime mortgages, insuring that they would be paid even if there was widespread default. When the widespread default actually occurred, however, many of the insurance companies did not have the funds they needed to pay-out the policies they had issued. The largest of such insurers without sufficient funds was AIG. In an early development, one such insurer, Security Capital Assurance, a Bermuda-based bond insurer, negotiated a pay-out with its policyholders of 14 cents on the dollar. But the banks insured by AIG received a much better deal, receiving a 100% payout because the Fed provided most of the $62 billion in financing needed so that AIG could meet its obligations to the banks. Arguably, the payouts by AIG kept the banks, and the financial system, from collapsing. If the payout had been less than 100%, the rating agencies would have downgraded AIG, triggering even more claims. Why did the banks get 100% from AIG instead of a negotiated settlement such as the 14% from Security Capital Assurance? And what did the Fed get in return? In most cases, the banks were allowed to keep the assets. The assets the Fed did receive were placed into a Special Purpose Vehicle (another trust) called Maiden Lane III, named afer the Fed's location in NYC. The government has stipulated that the assets held in Maiden Lane III will not be revealed until 2018. Despite the payouts on the default insurance, the banks, as trustees of the securitized trusts they had created, continued to pursue the assets in the trusts - the subprime mortgages, resulting in the continued widespread foreclosure crisis. Because of the secrecy, homeowners in foreclosure cannot determine whether the bank has already been paid for its investment in the homeowner's mortgage - or even whether the mortgage is secretly part of the assets transferred to Maiden III. The foreclosure crisis cannot be resolved until these questions are answered and banks are prevented from making a double recovery: claiming both the funds from the insurance proceeds and the the funds recovered through foreclosure.
Corporate Accounting
Assurant Solutions
Assurant, Inc.
Action Date: January 22, 2010
Location: New York, NY
On January 21, 2010, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a civil injunctive action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York charging Assurant, Inc., a publicly-traded insurance company, with violating corporate reporting, books and records and internal controls provisions of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Exchange Act"). Assurant has offered to settle the charges by consenting, without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint, to the entry of a final judgment permanently enjoining Assurant from violating these Exchange Act provisions and imposing a civil penalty in the amount of $3.5 million.
The Commission's complaint alleges that Assurant improperly accounted for a $10 million recovery it obtained under a reinsurance policy in the aftermath of the 2004 Florida hurricane season. The complaint alleges that Assurant booked the $10 million payment as a bona fide reinsurance recovery when, in fact, the payment was, and should have been booked as, the return of a deposit under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles ("GAAP"). As a result, Assurant materially overstated the net income that it reported for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 to the public and in Commission filings.
The Commission's complaint specifically alleges as follows: Assurant failed to properly account for $10 million that one of its business segments (Assurant Solutions) obtained from American Re-Insurance Company ("Am Re"), a private reinsurer, in the third quarter of 2004 under a reinsurance policy that originated in 1992 and was renewed annually through 2004. The arrangement between Assurant (through its subsidiaries that comprise Assurant Solutions) and Am Re consisted of the formal reinsurance treaty documents (i.e. the written policy contract) and an oral side-agreement, which the parties referred to as their "handshake" agreement.
Although the terms of the written treaty transferred the risk of certain losses from Assurant Solutions to Am Re under certain conditions, the terms of the so-called "handshake" agreement negated the transfer of risk. Pursuant to this handshake agreement, Assurant Solutions agreed that if the total amount of claims paid by Am Re exceeded the total amount of premiums paid by Assurant Solutions over the life of the treaty, Assurant Solutions would reimburse Am Re for the difference. In return, Am Re agreed that if the total amount of premiums paid by Assurant Solutions exceeded the total amount of claims paid by Am Re, Am Re would return the difference to Assurant Solutions.
Assurant accounted for the Am Re treaty improperly by using principles of reinsurance accounting instead of deposit accounting. Under reinsurance accounting, the reinsured is permitted to offset relevant losses in the amount of the probable recovery under a reinsurance agreement, which reduces the impact of those losses on the reinsured's income statement. Under deposit accounting, the payment by the reinsurer is treated as the return of a loan or deposit and cannot be used to offset losses on the income statement. Because the "handshake" agreement between Assurant and Am Re, and in particular its pay-back provision, negated risk transfer, GAAP required the use of deposit accounting and not reinsurance accounting for the premiums paid and any recoveries made under this particular treaty.
After the 2004 Florida hurricane season, Assurant booked a $10 million claim payment made by Am Re as a reinsurance recovery rather than the return of a deposit, thereby reducing the adverse impact of the hurricane losses incurred by Assurant Solutions on Assurant's reported financial results. By improperly booking the $10 million payment using reinsurance accounting instead of deposit accounting, Assurant overstated its net income for the quarter ended September 30, 2004 by $6.41 million, or 9.4%. Assurant misstated its financial results for the third quarter of 2004 to the public in two Forms 8-K, filed on November 4 and December 22, 2004, and in a Form 10-Q filed on November 12, 2004.
Assurant is charged in the SEC's complaint with violating Sections 13(a), 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act and Rules 12b-20, 13a-11 and 13a-13. In offering to settle these charges, Assurant has consented, without admitting or denying the allegations in the complaint, to the entry of a final judgment permanently enjoining it from violating the foregoing Exchange Act provisions and imposing a civil penalty in the amount of $3.5 million. The determination of this penalty amount took into account, among other things, the company's failure fully to comply with Commission subpoenas on a timely basis. The proposed settlement is subject to court approval.
Mortgage Fraud
Bonnie Helt (Sentence: pending)
Thomas Parenteau
Dennis Sartain (Sentence: pending)
Action Date: January 21, 2010
Location: Columbus, OH
In January 21, 2010, Dennis G. Sartain of Hilliard, Ohio; and Bonnie Helt, of Columbus, Ohio, pled guilty to conspiring to commit mortgage fraud, money laundering and obstruction of justice, the Justice Department and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced. Sartain, the accountant for co-defendant Thomas Parenteau, pled guilty to one count of conspiring to defraud the United States by impeding and impairing the IRS, one count of conspiring to commit money laundering and one count of conspiring to obstruct justice. Helt, a real estate agent for co-defendant Parenteau, pled guilty to one count of conspiring to commit bank and wire fraud and one count of conspiring to obstruct justice. Parenteau is scheduled to begin trial on March 8, 2010.
In April 2009, Sartain, Helt and Parenteau were charged with tax fraud, bank and wire fraud, money laundering, and obstruction of justice in a superseding indictment. According to the indictment and statements made at the plea hearing, Sartain conspired with Parenteau and others to file false individual income tax returns for Pamela McCarty with the IRS for the tax years 2000 through 2003. These four tax returns falsely reported substantial losses and generated tax refunds from the IRS and state of Ohio of over $800,000 in total. McCarty, who was Parenteau’s mistress, gave a substantial portion of the fraudulent tax refunds to Parenteau or his nominees.
According to the indictment and statements made at the plea hearing, Sartain conspired with Parenteau, McCarty and others to prepare a $4.5 million fictitious loan application to refinance to improve a 30,000 square foot home. As a result of the fraudulent loan documents, McCarty obtained nearly $4.5 million from one bank and an additional $1.5 million from a second bank, and she transferred the money to Parenteau. From March 2004 through September 2006, Parenteau and Sartain dispersed in excess of $1 million of the loan proceeds back to McCarty by disguising the payments as payroll checks from Your Home Source (YHS) and JSS Investments, rental payments and consulting payments from YHS and other miscellaneous payments. On Jan. 31, 2007, Parenteau and his wife refinanced the 30,000 square foot property and received a $12 million loan, which was used in part to pay off McCarty's existing obligations at the two banks.
According to the indictment and statements made at the plea hearing, Helt admitted that from 2005 through 2007, she, Parenteau, and others negotiated and participated in real estate deals in which they sold luxury homes for a falsely inflated purchase price from the builder in exchange for an undisclosed or disguised kickback. In many of the transactions, the buyers misrepresented their income and assets in order to obtain financing of the inflated purchase price. The buyers and sellers in the transactions attempted to justify the inflated purchase prices by creating false work change orders and addendums which created the appearance that the inflated price represented additional substantial work to be completed on the homes. No such agreement was actually intended by any party. Further, those documents were not disclosed to the lenders. The object of each transaction was to use the loan proceeds in excess of the actual purchase price in order to fund hundreds of thousands of dollars in kickback payments to the buyers. The loans associated with several of the real estate purchases have gone into default.
According to the indictment and statements made at the plea hearing, both Sartain and Helt admitted to conspiring with Parenteau and others to obstruct the IRS criminal investigations of Sartain, Parenteau and others. Sartain and Helt admitted to altering or destroying records as well as lying to federal and local law enforcement agents.
The U.S. District Court Judge Michael H. Watson has not scheduled sentencing date. Sartain faces a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison and a maximum fine of $1 million or twice the monetary loss or gain from the offense. Helt faces a maximum sentence of 35 years in prison and a maximum fine of $1.25 million or twice the monetary loss or gain from the offense.
John DiCicco, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Tax Division, commended the special agents of the IRS Criminal Investigation for the investigation, as well as Tax Division trial attorneys Richard Rolwing, Sean O’Connell and Jessica Nuzzelillo who are prosecuting the case.
Tax Fraud
Thomas George (Sentence: pending)
Action Date: January 20, 2010
Location: Newark, NJ
On January 20, 2010, the chief executive officer of Sterling Seafood Corporation located in Cresskill
pled guilty to importing falsely labeled fish from Vietnam and evading over $60
million in federal tariffs, as well as selling over $500,000 in similarly misbranded fish
purchased from another importer in the United States.
Thomas George, 61, of Old Tappan, made his first appearance in federal court and pled
guilty before U.S. Magistrate Judge Patty Shwartz to a two-count Information charging him
with one count of importing falsely labeled goods into the United States and one count of
selling falsely labeled fish in the United States with the intent to defraud. Sentencing is
scheduled for April 28, 2010 before U.S. District Judge Faith S. Hochberg.
An investigation by Special Agents with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
revealed that from January, 2003 to June, 2006, George maintained a business relationship
through Sterling Seafood with a seafood distribution company located in Vietnam. As part of
that business relationship, Sterling Seafood regularly purchased a type of fish product in the
catfish family, specifically Pangasius hypophthalmus, sometimes referred to as Vietnamese
catfish. Sterling Seafood would then resell the Vietnamese catfish in the United States.
In the interest of fairly regulating commerce in the U.S., the U.S. Department of Commerce
(“DOC”) establishes antidumping duties or tariffs on certain imported products. In January,
2003, an antidumping duty or tariff was placed on all imports of Vietnamese catfish into the
United States because the Vietnamese catfish was being marketed at a significantly lower
price than was market rate at the time. That initial antidumping order imposed a duty of up
to 63.88 percent on all catfish subject to the order, and was adjusted at various later dates
based on market conditions.
At his plea hearing, George admitted that from 2004 to 2006, he agreed with the Vietnamese
distribution company to engage in a scheme to falsely identify and declare the purchase and
importation of the Vietnamese catfish in order to evade the applicable antidumping duties.
George stated that he specifically instructed the Vietnamese company to fraudulently identify
the Vietnamese catfish as “grouper” on commercial contracts, purchase orders, and other
documents because grouper was not subject to antidumping duties. George further admitted
that, based upon these false statements and fraudulent documents, he, through Sterling
Seafood, avoided over $60 million in antidumping duties.
Additionally, George admitted that from 2004 to 2005 he purchased over $500,000 of
similarly misbranded Vietnamese catfish that was imported from Vietnam by a Virginia
corporation and then sold that misbranded Vietnamese catfish throughout the United States.
Insurance Premium Fraud
Jerry Brewer
Regency Insurance of the West Indies
Action Date: January 14, 2010
Location: Jacksonville, FL
On January 10, 2009, Jerry Brewer was returned to the United States, to Jacksonville, Florida, after unsuccessfully attempting to avoid extradition from England. Brewer was brought back to the United States by two U.S. Marshals and will remain in the custody of the Marshals at least until January 15, 2010, when a detention hearing is scheduled before United States Magistrate Judge Howard T. Snyder. Brewer was indicted in April, 2007, for his involvement with a fake workers' compensation insurance scheme. Policies were sold nationwide through employee leasing companies, supposedly issued by Regency Insurance of the West Indies. The defendants merely used the name of this offshore, non-operational insurance company to collect millions of dollars in insurance premiums. The scheme operated primarily from 2000 to 2004. In a 21-count indictment, Brewer was charged with conspiracy, wire fraud, mail fraud and money laundering. Fourteen individuals, including PEO owners, insurance agents and third-party administrators were previously convicted in the scheme. Sentences ranged from 18 months to 22.5 years. A key defendant, Tom Brown, testified in two trials, but committed suicide before he himself reported for sentencing. Over $4 million was recovered and distributed to injured workers whose claims had gone unpaid for years. The cases were all prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Mark Devereaux.
Bank Fraud
Diego Hernandez
Robert Sacks
Action Date: January 9, 2010
Location: Trenton, NJ
On January 11, 2010, the trial is scheduled to begin of a Miami Beach, FL, man and his driver for their roles in a telemarketing fraud and identity theft scheme that attempted to defraud financial institutions and their account holders throughout the United States of millions of dollars through the unauthorized and fraudulent debit of customer bank accounts. Jury selection is scheduled to start on Monday, January 11, at 9:30 before U.S. District Judge Garrett E. Brown, Jr., in the federal courthouse in Trenton. Opening statements are schedule to begin on Wednesday, January, 13 at 9:30 a.m.
Robert Sacks, 50, and his driver, Diego Hernandez, 32, a Venezuelan citizen residing in Miami, were arrested on December 10, 2008, along with seven additional defendants and were arraigned on a 42-count Superseding Indictment before Judge Brown, on October 13 and October 8, 2009, respectively.
Sacks and Hernandez are the final two remaining defendants out of 17 charged in connection with an international bank fraud ring busted for attempting to debit well over 100,000 customer accounts for more than $40 million. The other 15 co-conspirators from Canada, New Jersey, Florida, Colorado and Michigan have already pleaded guilty for their participation in the conspiracy.
Tax Fraud
Jose Franklin Duarte (Sentence: 78 months)
Action Date: January 9, 2010
Location: New York, NY
On January 7, 2010, Jose Franklin Duarte
was sentenced in federal court in New York City to 78 months in prison
for his role in a scheme to fraudulently obtain millions of
dollars in federal tax refund checks and then to steal the checks
from the U.S. mail.
According to the Superseding Information filed in
Manhattan federal court, to which Duarte previously pleaded
guilty, as well as other documents filed in the case and
statements made during his guilty plea and sentencing proceedings, DUARTE was charged as part of a two-year investigation
by law enforcement into a scheme to use stolen Social Security
numbers and other identity information to submit fraudulent state
and federal tax returns. As part of the scheme, members of the
conspiracy electronically filed tens of thousands of fraudulent
federal tax returns, and fraudulently obtained tens of thousands
of dollars of tax returns and stimulus checks. The co-
conspirators targeted Social Security numbers assigned to
residents of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico because residents of
Puerto Rico whose income derives solely from Puerto Rican sources
were generally not required to file federal tax returns with the
Internal Revenue Service ("IRS"). This minimized the risk that a
legitimate federal tax return was already filed by the owner of
the Social Security number.
In 2008, DUARTE recruited a co-conspirator ("CC-1"),
who was a letter carrier employed by the U.S. Postal Service who
delivered mail in the Bronx, to participate in the scheme and to
give DUARTE addresses to which fraudulently obtained tax refund
checks could be addressed. From August 2008 to February 2009, DUARTE's co-conspirators filed over 9,000 U.S. Individual Income
Tax Returns (Forms 1040) for tax years 2007 and 2008 with the IRS
that contained information connected to the stolen Social
Security numbers of Puerto Rican residents. These returns were
filed electronically from the Dominican Republic. The false
returns sought refunds totaling over $91 million dollars to be
sent in the form of U.S. Treasury checks via U.S. mail. The
checks were to be sent to addresses on CC-1's route and began to
arrive in the fall of 2008.
Throughout the later part of 2008, DUARTE and/or co-
conspirators paid CC-1 cash in exchange for the mail containing
the fraudulently-obtained U.S. Treasury checks addressed to the
buildings on CC-1's route. DUARTE and others were arrested in
February 2009 after law enforcement agents placed "decoy" checks
in CC-1's mail. The actual amount of tax refund checks stolen by
DUARTE and his co-conspirators during tax year 2008 was over
$807,000.
DUARTE was also ordered to pay restitution of over
$807,000 to the IRS. This case is being prosecuted by the Office's Complex
Frauds Unit. Assistant United States Attorney DANIEL W. LEVY is
in charge of this prosecution.
Tax Fraud
Teddy Gatamba (Sentence: 81 months)
Romeo Mwambutsa
Action Date: January 9, 2010
Location: Dallas, TX
On January 7, 2010, Teddy Gatamba was sentenced in federal court in Dallas, TX, to 81 months in federal prison following his conviction in September 2009.
Specifically, Gatamba was convicted on four counts of a superseding indictment charging conspiracy to defraud the government with respect to claims, two counts of wire fraud, and one count of aggravated identity theft. That indictment also charged Romeo Mwambutsa with the conspiracy and related charges; Mwambutsa remains a fugitive.
“It is our hope that this sentence will send a strong message that tampering with the integrity of our nation's tax system can result in jail time. This is also a good time to remind taxpayers that they should be very careful when choosing a return preparer,” said Bridget Marchetta, Acting Special Agent in Charge, IRS-Criminal Investigation-Dallas Field Office. “Use the same high standards you would in selecting a doctor or lawyer. It is important to know that even if someone else prepares your return, you are ultimately responsible for all the information on the tax return.”
According to an order entered by the Court in May 2009 detaining Gatamba, evidence showed that Gatamba is a citizen of either Rwanda or Burundi, and was ordered deported in 1999. At the time of his arrest, Gatamba was in possession of two fake driver’s licenses, a fake passport, and multiple credit cards issued to persons other than himself.
At trial, the government presented evidence that Gatamba, who used the names of Grand Place Management, UST Tax Service, and Dendy Tax Service to obtain electronic filing identification numbers, obtained the names and social security numbers of numerous individuals and used that personal information to prepare false income tax returns, without the knowledge or consent of the individuals. Gatamba prepared the returns using bogus employer names and making bogus claims of overpayment of taxes, and then filed the returns electronically. Refund Anticipation Loans, in the form of checks and Refund Anticipation Value Cards, were issued, based on the false income tax returns, in the names of the individuals on the bogus tax returns. Gatamba and others cashed the checks and withdrew funds from ATMs using the Refund Anticipation Value Cards. Evidence presented at trial showed that there was an intended loss of more than $2 million.
The case was investigated by the IRS - Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI) and prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Errin Martin and Steve Fahey.
Government Contractor Fraud
Genevieve Coley (Sentence: 15 months)
Action Date: January 9, 2010
Location: Richmond, VA
On January 8, 2010, Genevieve Coley was sentenced to 15 months in prison for mail fraud committed in connection with her business.
According to court documents, in 2002, Coley incorporated as GAD Associates, Inc., a Virginia corporation, for the purpose of wholesaling industrial supplies to the United States as a minority-owned business under the small business set aside program. Coley was the corporate President, Treasurer, and Secretary. GAD would obtain the supplies from Blackmer, a corporation which contracts a portion of its government business with minority owned businesses. In acting as a Blackmer’s sales representative to the U.S. Government, GAD bid on federal contracts needing Blackmer products. Coley handled all correspondence with, to, and from the Government. This business was conducted via internet bids, telephone discussions, wire transfers, and the United States mail.
Blackmer would ship pumps and other products directly to the Government based on GAD’s successful bids and contracts. Pursuant to GAD’s contract with Blackmer, the Government, via Defense Finance & Accounting Services (DFAS), would pay GAD directly via wire transfer into GAD’s bank account. GAD was to then pay Blackmer according to the terms of their contract. In the mail fraud scheme, by letter and other communications, Coley falsely represented to employees of Blackmer, that the Government had not paid for the goods yet so funds could not be sent to Blackmer for the goods delivered to GAD. Blackmer relied on these false representations and continued to support Coley’s internet bids for products that Blackmer supplied. Prior to its discovery, the scheme netted Coley $1,192,322.47 in defrauded funds that were due to Blackmer, and which Coley wrongfully withheld and dissipated.
This case was investigated by United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Assistant United States Attorney S. David Schiller prosecuted the case on behalf of the United States.
Mail Fraud
Arya Neal Behgooy
Chastity Lynn Faulkner
Michael Blaine Faulkner
Jennifer Jo Gilliland
Brian Patrick Haney
Ricky Keele
Eric Byron Littlejohn, III
Nathan Todd Shafer
Christopher Sigler
Dmitri Siiatski
Matthew Norman Simpson
Alicia Smallwood
Valerian James Stock
Logan Vig
Milos Vujanic
William Michael Watts
Jason Carter Watts
Marcus Wentrcek
Casimir A. Wojciechowski
Action Date: January 9, 2010
Location: Dallas, TX
On January 8, 2010, a federal grand jury in Dallas returned a superseding indictment charging 19 defendants in a massive cybercrime conspiracy. This indictment supersedes a September 2, 2009, indictment that charged nine of the defendants in the conspiracy.
The following 19 defendants are each charged with one count of conspiracy to commit wire and mail fraud. Defendants (3) through (7), who were charged in the original indictment, have made their initial appearances in federal court and, with the exception of defendant (6), are on pretrial release. Defendant (6) remains in custody. Defendants (10) through (15) and (18) and (19) were either arrested or have surrendered to federal authorities this week. Defendants (16) and (17) are outside of the United States.
Defendants (1), (2), (8) and (9) are believed to have fled the United States to avoid prosecution. One anonymous internet report suggested that Michael Faulkner was killed attempting to reenter the U.S. from Mexico. This report has not been confirmed.
(1) *Chastity Lynn Faulkner, 34, of Southlake, Texas (fugitive)
(2) *Michael Blaine Faulkner, 36, of Southlake, Texas (fugitive)
(3) *Brian Patrick Haney, 36 of Plano, Texas
(4) Eric Byron Littlejohn, II, 19, of Desoto, Texas
(5) Nathan Todd Shafer, 31 of Irving, Texas
(6) *Matthew Norman Simpson, 25, of Red Oak, Texas
(7) *Alicia Nicole Cargill Smallwood, 28, of Midlothian, Texas
(8) *Jason Carter Watts, 32, of Plano, Texas (fugitive)
(9) *William Michael Watts, 38, of Plano, Texas (fugitive)
(10) *Logan L. Vig, 22, of Dallas, Texas
(11) *Arya Neal Behgooy, 33, of Plano, Texas
(12) *Christopher Wayne Sigler, 27, of Roanoke, Texas
(13) *Marcus William Wentrcek, 29, of Frisco, Texas
(14) *Valerian James Stock, 42, of New Orleans, Louisiana
(15) *Ricky J. Keele, 55, of Coppell, Texas
(16) *Dmitri Siiatski, 22, of Canada
(17) *Milos Vujanic, 29, of Eastern Europe
(18) Jennifer Jo Gilliland, 29, of Phoenix, Arizona
(19) Casimir A. Wojciechowski, a/k/a Casey, 56, of Illinois
The eight-count indictment also charges 15 of the defendants (*) with fraud and related activity in connection with electronic mail and aiding and abetting. Michael Blaine Faulkner is also charged with one count of obstruction - threatening a witness or informant; one count of obstruction - hiding assets; one count of obstruction - destruction of evidence; and one count of false registration of a domain name. Matthew Norman Simpson is also charged with one count of obstruction - destruction of evidence and one count of false registration of a domain name. Logan L. Vig and Milos Vujanic area also each charged with one count of obstruction - destruction of evidence. The indictment also includes a forfeiture allegation which would require that the defendants, upon conviction, forfeit any proceeds obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of the offense.
The indictment alleges that from March 2003 through July 2009, the defendants conspired to defraud various telecommunications companies, including AT&T; Verizon; XO Communications; SMARTnet VOIP; Waymark Communications; the lessors of properties at 2020 Live Oak, 2323 Bryan Street and 1950 Stemmons Freeway, in Dallas; various financial institutions; leasing companies and creditors, including Wells Fargo, AT&T Capital Services, and the credit reporting agencies; and various other service providers, such as power companies, insurance companies, air-conditioning companies, web site developers, and others for goods and services amounting to more than $15 million.
The indictment further alleges, that as part of the conspiracy, the conspirators made false representations to obtain goods, such as computer and telecommunications equipment and infrastructure, to include racks to hold computer equipment, generators to provide power for the equipment, and office space to install the equipment, as well as services related to the operation and use of computers and telecommunications. The conspirators created, purchased and used shell companies to hide the true identity of the owners or operators of the companies, or the relationships between the companies. They also established P.O. Boxes, commercial remailer services, shell offices, apartments, or other physical locations to hide owners’ or operators’ identity or the relationships between the companies. They assumed multiple fake identities to hide true ownership of the shell companies and made materially false representations to their victims, by mail, fax, telephone, email, or other communications, to obtain goods and services from them.
A series of search warrants were conducted by FBI agents in March and April 2009 at Chastity and Michael Faulkner’s residence in Southlake, and at a Faulkner business, Crydon, located at 1950 Stemmons Freeway in Dallas. Searches were also conducted at Core IP, located at 2323 Bryant Street in Dallas, and at other related businesses.
Assistant U.S. Attorney C.S. Heath is in charge of the prosecution.
Mortgage Fraud
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
Foreclosure Document Mills
Action Date: January 7, 2010
Location: West Palm Beach, FL
(Part 4 of a Series on Mortgage Fraud and Foreclosure Document Mills) On January 7, 2010, the New York Times and Bloomberg News reported that the Federal Reserve Bank of New York told AIG to withhold details from the public about more than $62 billion AIG paid to banks at the height of the 2008 financial crisis. California Republican Congressman Darrell Issa released emails showing the intervention of the New York Fed. According to these reports, AIG said in a draft of a regulatory filing that it paid banks, including Goldman Sachs Group and Societe Generale SA, 100 cents on the dollar for credit-default swaps they bought from AIG. The New York Fed supposedly directed AIG to delete this information, to limit public anger when the banks were paid $62.1 billion, essentially creating a bailout of the banks through the AIG payments. Even thought the banks cashed in on their insurance policies, essentially for policy limits, no bank was required to assign its interest in the underlying real estate - mostly residential mortgages - that were secured by the AIG policies. So the banks received their money from AIG and other insurers in turn, after AIG received its money from the American taxpayer. One of the first questions a homeowner must ask in a foreclosure action is whether the bank has already made a 100% recovery from a financial guaranty insurance policy. If the banks were properly regulated, and there was proper oversight of the bailout funds, this burden would not fall upon homeowners in foreclosure actions. Without such regulation and oversight, banks are free to pursue foreclosure actions and essentially recover twice for the same loss. In many foreclosure cases, the foreclosing bank cannot even produce the minimal documentation to prove its right to foreclose, but relies instead on fabricated documents from foreclosure mills. One indicator of a fraudulent Assignment is the date of the Assignment. Did the alleged Assignment occur over 100 days after the loan was already in default - perhaps even AFTER the foreclosure action was initiated? This is the question that some judges have asked (see, e.g., the decisions of NY Supreme Court Judge Arthur Schack) and others must ask to prevent further unjust enrichment of banks in foreclosure actions. Courts COULD require every foreclosure complaint to be filed with an Affidavit that the subject property is not part of any Trust that has also received financial guaranty insurance payments.
Mortgage Fraud
DOCX
Action Date: January 6, 2010
Location: Alpharetta, GA
Fraud Digest Editors are seeking copies of any mortgage-related documents prepared by DOCX, a mortgage services provider in Alpharetta, Georgia.
Please email such documents to szymoniak@mac.com.
Nothing in this request is meant to imply that DOCX or any employees thereof have engaged in any fraudulent practices.
Mortgage Fraud
Deutsche Bank National Trust Company
Foreclosure Document Mills
Action Date: January 6, 2010
Location: West Palm Beach, FL
(Part 3 of a Series on Mortgage Fraud and Foreclosure Document Mills)
HOW DID MY MORTGAGE BECOME PART OF A DEUTSCHE BANK TRUST?
Many homeowners in foreclosure actions find that they have been sued for foreclosure by Deutsche Bank National Trust Company (or another bank), as "Trustee for the Certificate Holders" of a Home Loan Trust. In such cases, the bank/trustee filing the foreclosure complaint may not be known to the homeowner. The very first time most homeowners learn that their home was part of a publicly-traded home loan trust - that their mortgage has been "SECURITIZED" - is when they are served with the foreclosure complaint. As it relates to mortgages, securitization is the process of transforming a group of mortgages into an investment entity regulated by the Securities & Exchange Commission. Investors can buy shares of a home loan trust. Such a trust often has approximately 8,000 - 10,000 mortgage loans worth $1 BILLION DOLLARS or more.
The Trust has a Pooling and Servicing Agreement (PSA). The PSA sets forth what happens after the 10,000 mortgages are bundled together. The Originator sells the bundle of mortgages to an entity known as a "depositor." (Financial Asset Securities Corporation is one of the largest such company.) The depositor then sells the bundle of mortgages to an "Underwriter" - the company that issues the certificates that show that the investors hold a beneficial interest in the trust (created by the Pooling Agreement.)
In short, the mortgage has gone from the Originator, to the Depositor to the Underwriter to the Trust. WHERE IS THE FRAUD? Deutsche Bank, as Trustee, claims repeatedly in foreclosure actions that it has acquired the loan from the Originator - never mentioning the intervening transfers - or proving that such transfers occurred.
WHY DOES THIS MATTER TO THE HOMEOWNER? In the rush to create these trusts and sell shares to investors, Assignments were never prepared, filed and recorded (even though the PSA usually has such a requirement). This means that the entity seeking to foreclose cannot prove the chain of ownership. (There may also be a violation of federal law as most lenders are supposed to notify the homeowners that their mortgage and note have been transferred within 15 days of the transfer. See, 12 U.S.C. §2605.
WHY DOES THE CORRESPONDENCE STILL FLOW FROM THE ORIGINAL BANK TO THE HOMEOWNER? In most cases, the originator retains the right to service the loans for a fee. The homeowner has no idea that it is corresponding and negotiating with a mortgage loan servicer instead of a mortgage loan owner.
Recently, several good articles have been written on the creation of these trusts. One of the best articles is "The Securitization Process" by Prof. Ian Giddy of New York University's Stern School of Business. Another excellent article, "Mortgage Securitization, Servicing and Consumer Bankruptcy," by O. Max Gardner, III in the September 2005 Issue of Law Trends and News, ABA General Practice, Solo and Small Firms Division. Also, because these trusts are publicly-traded and rated, information about the trust assets is available online and from the SEC.)
|
|
|
|
|