Hi, How Can We Help You?

Category Archives: 43A Fraudulent Schemes Pre-Charge Victories

NOT CHARGED | FEDERAL RICO/MONEY LAUNDERING/BANK and WIRE FRAUD ($300,000) NOT CHARGED – State v. Mr. R. (DMC No. 6695) (U.S. Secret Service/United States Attorney’s Office Investigated): Mr. R. was employed as a Telemarketer for a company in which he was to handle the funds that were deposited into a Wells Fargo Bank account.  During the course of the sales, the individuals would provide credit card numbers for purchase.  Mr. R. and his group were accused of posing as Account Holders in order to authorize electronic transfers for a higher dollar amounts.   Total loss was estimated to be $300,000.  Mr. R. was not the primary target of the Secret Services investigation, and a “cooperative deal” was negotiated in which no charges were brought against Mr. R.  Originally he was facing a lengthy stay in the Federal Bureau of Prisons.


NOT CHARGED | FRADULENT SCHEMES/MORTGAGE FRAUD ($289,000) FORGERY – State v. Mr. D. (DMC No. 8662) (Private Law Firm Investigated): Mr. D. owned an investment company and had Power of Attorney for a client that he had been friends with for approximately 7 years.  The client was out of the country and had Mr. D. sign off for the client on various home loan documents.  Unfortunately, Mr. D. signed the client’s name itself, instead of signing his name as Power of Attorney.  When the housing market turned, the client attempted to back out of all his loans by claiming that he had no knowledge that Mr. D. had signed the documents on his behalf (even though his wife and children all lived inside the house).  A private law firm became involved and threatened ligation and criminal prosecution.  We were able to point out that the alleged victim’s claims were ridiculous because he lived in the house and would have obviously known that financial documents would have been signed and that a transaction took place.  Even though the house went into foreclosure and there was over $289,000 in loses, no criminal prosecution was brought and all civil lawsuits were shut down.

NOT CHARGED | FRAUDULENT SCHEMES ($200,000) BANK and WIRE FRAUD, MONEY LAUNDERING, and THEFT of MEANS of TRANSPORTATION ($85,000) NOT CHARGED due to CIVIL SETTLEMENT – State v. Mr. G. and Mrs. G. (DMC No. 6372 and 6373) (IRS and JP Morgan Chase Bank Investigated): Mr. and Mrs. G. discovered that the bank had placed $100,000 in their checking account on two successive days by mistake.  This total of $200,000 was perceived to be a “wind fall”.  Mr. and Mrs. G. immediately transferred the money out and began spending it.  When the mistake was discovered, the bank and legal authorities began to investigate.  We were able to step in and negotiate a “civil settlement” with a payment schedule, and no charges were brought against Mr. and Mrs. G.  Originally they were facing a potential of decades in prison.


NOT CHARGED | FRAUDULENT SCHEMES/INSURANCE FRAUD and THEFT ($158,000) – State v. Mr. S. (DMC No. 9815) (Scottsdale Police Department Investigated Contact No. ID14617/Allstate Insurance Company Investigated): Mr. and Mrs. S. were going through a contentious divorce, when Mrs. S. reported the theft of 16 paintings, numerous sterling silver items and other valuables stolen from her house.  She told the Detectives that she suspected that her husband had done it, as they were going through a divorce.   Her husband vehemently denied these claims, and an insurance claim was filed for $158,000. Allstate Insurance Company began investigating and we became involved in the case.  We were able to show that Mrs. S. had been seen by numerous witnesses selling paintings and other valuables to unknown parties around the Phoenix area.  In addition, there were no signs that Mr. S.’s bank account had increased, or any indicia of him committing the theft.  Ultimately, no charges were brought against Mr. S.

FRAUDULENT SCHEMES ($150,000 with Prior Conviction) NOT CHARGED – State v. Mr. W (DMC No. 6732) (Tempe Police Department and Meridian Bank Investigated): Mr. W worked for an air conditioning company in which he was the controller. Over the course of 3 years he wrote numerous checks to himself for an amount of $150,000. When his fraud was discovered, it was reported to the Tempe Police Department and to the air conditioning company’s bank. Mr. W contacted us, and we immediately began having negotiations with the air conditioning company. Because their main concern was to recoup their money, they agreed to release and waive all claims if they received full restitution in a short period of time. We also negotiated with the Detective and reached an agreement that if the monies were paid back pursuant to a waiver and release of all claims (which we drafted), then he would not file charges. This was accomplished and all monies were paid back. Although Mr. W had a prior for Fraudulent Schemes several years earlier, because of the amount of money taken he would have been facing well over 10 years of mandatory prison time if he had been charged and convicted.

EMBEZZLEMENT ($150,000) and FRAUDULENT SCHEMES NOT CHARGED – State v. Ms. F (DMC No. 6773) (Quest Communications Investigated): Ms. F worked for Quest Communications (now Cox Communications) in the marketing department. She developed a credit card processing and marketing company separate from Quest. She was then accused of routing contracts from Quest to her other company without informing them that she owned the other company. This “Vendor Platform” resulted in her making a profit of $150,000 over the course of a year. When this was discovered, Quest attorneys claimed that there was a Conflict of Interest and that they had been defrauded and embezzled from.

We met with their corporate legal counsel and were able to show that this separate vendor company potentially saved them $5,000,000 in transition costs by switching to her platform. We also informed them that they would have to use some other company (whether it was Ms. F’s company or someone else) and that the fees charged were not excessive in any way. We ultimately negotiated a “Consulting Agreement” in which Ms. F had been terminated from the company, but was paid to stay on for several months in order to transfer the credit card processing to a different vendor. No charges were brought against Ms. F, even though she was originally facing mandatory prison time.

EMBEZZLEMENT/FRAUDULENT SCHEMES ($120,000), MONEY LAUNDERING, THEFT, FORGERY and VULNERABLE ADULT ABUSE all NOT CHARGED –State v. Ms. A (DMC No. 9212) (Apache Junction Police Department DR No. 090819003/Pinal County Attorney’s Office Investigated): Ms. A had become the care taker of a 93 year old woman for the last 8 years of her life. While she was working for the woman, she was given a car, and was also authorized to write checks for a total of $120,000 to herself. In addition, the woman had transferred title of her house to Ms. A’s name. Approximately 1 year after she had passed away, the relatives began looking in to all of the woman’s finances and found out that she had dementia. They claim that Ms. A had taken advantage of a Vulnerable Adult and had stolen all of her possessions.

When Apache Junction Police Department became involved, we immediately had Ms. A take a polygraph test. She passed with flying colors. We ultimately secured an agreement that the title of the house would be transferred back into the relatives’ names, and that the relatives would not be challenging the $120,000 or car that Ms. A had received as compensation for 7 years of care giver services. Ultimately, the Pinal County Attorney’s Office turned down all charges.

NOT CHARGED | FRAUDULENT SCHEMES ($84,000) THEFT and EMBEZZELMENT – State v. Ms. M. (DMC No. 8709) (Tempe Police Department DR08-094786): Ms. M. was involved in a family business with her sister and her mother.  Over the course of 12 years, the mother increased Ms. M.’s percentage of the profits, and had her conduct bookkeeping and sign “K1’s” for tax purposes.  It was discovered that Ms. M.’s mother owed Ms. M. and her sister upwards of $250,000, and they filed a civil lawsuit against their mother.  The mother then claimed that Ms. M. and her sister had been embezzling from her, and there was no agreement to increase percentages of the profit over the previous 12 years.  We conducted a “free talk” with Tempe Police Department, and claimed a polygraph was conducted on Ms. M. (in which she passed).  In addition, we dealt with a civil attorney who was working on Ms. M.’s behalf, and we were able to present additional evidence regarding Ms. M.’s innocence.  Although she was facing prison for allegedly embezzling $84,000, no charges were ever brought against Ms. M.


INSURANCE FRAUD ($59,000) AND FRAUDULENT SCHEMES NOT CHARGED – State v. Mr. G. (DMC No. 5236) (Arizona Department of Insurance/Arizona Attorney General’s Office Investigated): Mr. G. and his wife owned a company that installed glass for store front windows. Their controller had begun writing personal checks and embezzling from their company. She was doing this by forging Mr. G’s signature. Mr. and Mrs. G ultimately terminated the employee and filed claims with their insurance company. The insurance company and the Attorney General’s Office began investigating Mr. and Mrs. G because the checks had appeared to have been signed by them. In addition, the former Controller was falsely claiming that Mr. and Mrs. G had signed the checks and that they were committing fraud.

We were able to begin an investigation in which we went back to the Controllers former employers and ex-husband. They all indicated that she had stolen in the past and was a “thief” and “liar”. We also brought in a hand writing expert who proved that Mr. and Mrs. G had not signed the checks. This was all presented to the Department of Insurance and the Arizona Attorney General’s Office, and no charges were brought against Mr. and Mrs. G. Their former Controller, however, was charged with multiple crimes.

NOT CHARGED | FRAUD SCHEMES ($54,000) NOT CHARGED – State v. Mr. L. (DMC No. 5603) (AHCCS Investigated): Mr. L. elderly father had a stroke, and needed healthcare.  Mr. L. had his elderly father sign over a quick claim deed for his house to himself, and then his elderly father applied for benefits.  Because there were allegations that Mr. L.’s father was not truly indigent, AHCCS began investigating him.  We were able to work out a civil resolution, and no charges were ever brought against Mr. L.  If he were charged, he would have been facing years in prison.


Call Now Button