Posted by 101livescan on 9/11/13 9:54pm
Msg #484303

PegiT/MN, think you're on to something w SCHEME TO DEFRAUD

This is from the US Attorney's US Attorneys Criminal Resource Manual

NY, PA and FL have all enacted this in their criminal codes. Las Vegas has something too, I remember, since there is so much flim/flam business going on their. I know that if ANS operated in this fashion in SB, our own DA Joyce Dudley would be on ANS like a three piece suit.

> USAM > Title 9 > Criminal Resource Manual 944
prev | next | Criminal Resource Manual

944

Proof of Scheme and Artifice to Defraud

To sustain a conviction the government must prove the existence of a scheme; it is not required, however, to prove all details or all instances of allegedly illicit conduct. See, e.g., United States v. Stull, 743 F.2d 439, 442 n. 2 (6th Cir. 1984) ("It is well established that proof of every allegation is not required in order to convict; the government need only prove that the scheme to defraud existed."), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1062 (1985); United States v. Halbert, 640 F.2d 1000, 1008 (9th Cir. 1981) ("[T]he Government need not prove every misrepresentation charged conjunctively in the indictment."); United States v. Jordan, 626 F.2d 928, 930 (D.C. Cir. 1980) ("The Government is not required to prove the details of a scheme; it is, however, required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt . . . that the defendant . . . willfully and knowingly devised a scheme or artifice to defraud . . . .") (quoting with approval the trial court's instruction on § 1341); United States v. Amrep Corp., 560 F.2d 539, 546 (2d Cir. 1977) ("A scheme to defraud may consist of numerous elements, no particular one of which need be proved if there is sufficient overall proof that the scheme exists."), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1015 (1978); Anderson v. United States, 369 F.2d 11, 15 (8th Cir. 1966) (all instances of illicit conduct need not be proved to sustain a conviction), cert. denied, 386 U.S. 976 (1967).

"All that is required is that [the defendant has] knowingly and willingly participated in the scheme; she need not have performed every key act herself." United States v. Maxwell, 920 F.2d 1028, 1036 (D.C. Cir. 1990). The "evidence need only show that defendant was a 'knowing and active participant' in scheme to defraud and that scheme involved interstate wire communications." Id. (quoting United States v. Wiehoff, 748 F.2d 1158, 1161 (7th Cir. 1984)).

Reply by Lisa Cirillo on 9/12/13 7:57am
Msg #484326

This is what NYS Penal Law states:

§ 190.60 Scheme to defraud in the second degree.
1. A person is guilty of a scheme to defraud in the second degree when
he engages in a scheme constituting a systematic ongoing course of
conduct with intent to defraud more than one person or to obtain
property from more than one person by false or fraudulent pretenses,
representations or promises, and so obtains property from one or more of
such persons.
2. In any prosecution under this section, it shall be necessary to
prove the identity of at least one person from whom the defendant so
obtained property, but it shall not be necessary to prove the identity
of any other intended victim.
Scheme to defraud in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor.

§ 190.65 Scheme to defraud in the first degree.
1. A person is guilty of a scheme to defraud in the first degree when
he or she: (a) engages in a scheme constituting a systematic ongoing
course of conduct with intent to defraud ten or more persons or to
obtain property from ten or more persons by false or fraudulent
pretenses, representations or promises, and so obtains property from one
or more of such persons; or (b) engages in a scheme constituting a
systematic ongoing course of conduct with intent to defraud more than
one person or to obtain property from more than one person by false or
fraudulent pretenses, representations or promises, and so obtains
property with a value in excess of one thousand dollars from one or more
such persons; or (c) engages in a scheme constituting a systematic
ongoing course of conduct with intent to defraud more than one person,
more than one of whom is a vulnerable elderly person as defined in
subdivision three of section 260.30 of this chapter or to obtain
property from more than one person, more than one of whom is a
vulnerable elderly person as defined in subdivision three of section
260.30 of this chapter, by false or fraudulent pretenses,
representations or promises, and so obtains property from one or more
such persons.
2. In any prosecution under this section, it shall be necessary to
prove the identity of at least one person from whom the defendant so
obtained property, but it shall not be necessary to prove the identity
of any other intended victim, provided that in any prosecution under
paragraph (c) of subdivision one of this section, it shall be necessary
to prove the identity of at least one such vulnerable elderly person as
defined in subdivision three of section 260.30 of this chapter.
Scheme to defraud in the first degree is a class E felony.

If any of the defrauding took place in NYS, I'm thinking they can be charged in that state. Worth checking into. It would be great to get them on the felony charge.

Good luck

Reply by PegiT_MN on 9/12/13 9:17am
Msg #484341

Thank you so much for posting this Cheryl. I want people to understand that this is more than business is slow and we can't pay our notaries. The owners of this company have a very lengthy criminal history and I find it very suspicious that they just started operating earlier this year and have nothing but complaints about non-payment in Signing Central.

I also want people to understand that collection agencies, the better business bureau, and small claims court are nothing to these types of people. They are criminals and should be treated as such. Law enforcement will be very interested in their activities, especially since this is the mortgage industry and it is so highly regulated. These people have purposely hired us to facilitate part of a mortgage transaction and have not paid us. They have also defrauded people in other states so it makes it a federal crime.

Reply by Marazz/AZ on 9/12/13 12:33pm
Msg #484363

Another suggestion for you; I've never had to go after someone for non-payment but in all my readings of the fine print of RESPA, I can't see how this isn't a blatant violation. I'd report them to HUD, OCC, and write letters to the compliance officer at the lender (even if you can't find an exact name, write "Attention Compliance Officer"). Especially if there was a line on the HUD1 showing they paid a notary or signing service. Good luck.

Reply by 101livescan on 9/12/13 2:52pm
Msg #484389

AND to the compliance officer of the title company, in this case Title 365 headquartered in Newport Beach, CA. Title365.com.

Reply by Shekelia Stokes on 9/12/13 8:12pm
Msg #484435

Hey! How do you get into the live scan????