Rhode Island Attorney Admits to Mortgage Ponzi Scheme

A Rhode Island attorney faces as much as seventy years in prison after pleading guilty to charges he operated a mortgage Ponzi scheme that duped clients out of hundreds of thousands of dollars.  David L. Spector, of Needham, Rhode Island, pled guilty to three counts of wire fraud and one count of money laundering in connection with the scheme, having previously surrendered his license to practice law.  In addition to the prison sentence, Spector also faces up to $1 million in criminal monetary penalties.

According to authorities, Spector conducted real estate closings between April 2007 and August 2007 for properties in Massachusetts and Rhode Island.  As is customary, Spector had funds transferred from the proceeds of mortgages obtained by his clients to his attorney escrow account, which were to be used to pay off existing mortgages and other closing costs.  Instead, Spector used these proceeds for personal expenses and to pay off mortgages from previous closings that he had failed to pay off.  Spector was able to conceal his wrongdoing by filing change-of-address forms so that mortgage bills for the unpaid mortgages would be sent to a post office box that he controlled.  

Spector is scheduled to be sentenced August 8, 2012.  He may also be ordered to pay restitution to his victims.

Two Guilty in $12 Million Ponzi Scheme

A federal jury returned a guilty verdict in the case of two New York residents accused of operating a Ponzi scheme that defrauded 150 investors out of approximately $12 million.  Andrew S. Mackey, 62, and Inger L. Jensen, 54, both of Cedarhurst, New York, were indicted in July 2010 on seventeen charges, including wire fraud, mail fraud, and conspiracy to commit wire fraud and mail fraud.  After deliberating for five hours, the jury convicted the pair of fifteen of the seventeen counts.  Each could receive a maximum of thirty years in prison, along with a fine of up to $1,000,000, for each count of conviction.

From 2003 to 2007, Mackey and Jensen owned and operated ASM Financial Funding Corporation in Valley Stream, New York. Representing themselves as experienced financial experts, they solicited investors promising returns of up to 20% per month.  Mackey and Jensen also employed intermediaries who were paid commissions for steering new investors to the scheme.  The pair solicited investors for ASM's "Wealth Enhancement Club", which collected over $12 million from 150 investors.  These investors were led to believe that they were earning substantial monthly returns through monthly statements and forms filed with the IRS.  However, these documents were fictitious, and in reality, the pair invested less than a third of investor funds.  The remainder was used to make purported interest payments to investors, to pay business expenses, and to sustain a lavish lifestyle.  

As funds began to dwindle in early 2006, investors stopped receiving monthly interest payments.  After the scheme unraveled, Mackey claimed that the scheme should be governed by the laws of Rigo, Latvia, as investors had signed an "Attestation" in which they agreed the scheme would be governed by the laws of Latvia.  

Sentencing is scheduled for August 21, 2012.

A copy of an administrative proceeding by the Securities Commissioner of Maryland is here.

New York Tax Preparer Charged With $4.6 Million Ponzi Scheme

New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman announced the owner of a well-known Bronx tax-preparation agency with operating a Ponzi scheme that scammed investors out of nearly $5 million.  Robert H. Van Zandt was charged with two charges of money laundering, two counts of Scheme to Defraud in the First Degree, two counts of Securities Fraud, and 29 counts of Grand Larceny.  If convicted of the most serious offense, Van Zandt faces up to twenty-five years in prison.

According to the unsealed indictment, Van Zandt operated the Van Zandt Agency, a well-known tax preparation agency, for decades.  However, beginning in 2007 Van Zandt began using his position as a manager of a tax preparation business to solicit clients to entrust him with their retirement funds and savings.  This was facilitated through Van Zandt's unique access to each client's financial situation.  In return, Van Zandt provided investors with promissory notes or shareholder agreements promising guaranteed rates of return. Van Zandt promised to place investor funds in lucrative securities, including real estate projects that were impossible to build.  

In total, Van Zandt raised over $4.6 million from investors from February 2008 through January 2011.  However, rather than invest in 'lucrative securities', Van Zandt never invested any of these funds.  Instead, he commingled investor funds and misappropriated them for his own personal and business use.  

Van Zandt is currently being held on $500,000 bond, and has been ordered to surrender his passport. 

A press release from the office of the New York Attorney General is here.

Texas Attorney Indicted for Running $2.8 Million Ponzi Scheme

A Texas attorney was arrested and charged with operating a Ponzi scheme that allegedly duped investors out of nearly $3 million.  Kelly G. Rogers, of Frisco, Texas, was indicted on five charges, including two counts of money laundering, two counts of theft of stolen property, and one count of securities fraud.  The charges stem from Roger's apparent solicitation of investors for an oil and gas venture that promised investors lavish returns.  Rogers, an attorney, is also accused of failing to disclose to investors that he was currently facing lawsuits alleging continuing violations of state and federal securities laws, and had previously been involved in a lawsuit brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC") in connection with another Ponzi scheme.

From August 2007 to February 2009, Rogers represented to investors that they could purchase shares in Falcon Energy LLC that promised lucrative returns.  In total, more than twenty investors purchased nearly $3 million in shares, including the purchase of nearly $1 million in shares by a single investor.  Instead, as alleged by Texas authorities, Rogers misappropriated the funds "in a manner that made recovery of said property by said owners unlikely."  

Investors in Rogers' scheme were not told that, in July 2007, he was sued by the SEC for essentially operating as a 'feeder fund' to a Ponzi scheme that raised nearly $10 million from investors. Rogers, through Level Par Investments, LLC, directed investor funds to Global Finance & Investments, Inc., which promised returns of 25 percent per month to 90 percent per week.  Investors were assured that their funds were secure due to the fact that the funds would be held in an escrow account maintained an attorney.  Kelly ended up settling with the SEC and agreeing to disgorge $100,000 of his ill-gotten gains, along with a civil monetary penalty of $50,000 and an injunction barring future violations of securities laws.  Rogers was also sued in February 2007 for alleged violations of state and federal securities laws in connection with the sale of investments in a Louisiana oil and gas venture.  Rogers also failed to disclose that he had filed personal bankruptcy in 2009.

According to the Texas State Securities Board, Rogers is currently scheduled to stand trial in a Collin County state district court in June 2012 on an earlier indictment relating to the misappropriation of property in an energy venture.  

A copy of the 2007 SEC indictment is here.

The indictment is here.

Stanford Judge OK's Claims Process; Victims Have Until September 1 to File Proof of Claim

A federal judge has approved a request to establish a claims process for victims of R. Allen Stanford's $7 billion Ponzi scheme, paving the way for victims to recoup some of their losses since Stanford's scheme was uncovered in February 2009.  The court-appointed receiver, Ralph Janvey, had initially filed papers seeking to establish a claims process in late 2011. At that time, Janvey indicated that the Receivership currently had approximately $114.5 million in cash on hand, which would represent a fractional return to investors.  While the establishment of a claims process is a significant step towards returning money to investors, it could still be months or even years before a first distribution could be sent out.

With the ruling of United States District Judge David Godbey, victims must submit a completed Proof of Claim form by September 1, 2012.  The Receivership established a website, www.stanfordfinancialclaims.com, which contains instructions pertaining to the process and provides a downloadable Proof of Claim form here.  Victims who have already filed a claim in connection with the Antiguan liquidation proceeding must still file a Proof of Claim to preserve their right to any return of funds recovered by the U.S. Receivership.

A review of the Proof of Claim form suggests that the Receivership's financial records relating to the scheme may be incomplete or lacking.  For example, investors are asked to detail each deposit they made with Stanford, along with any withdrawal they made before the scheme was uncovered.  This information is required to calculate an investor's "net investment amount" that is in turn used to determine an investor's allowed claim. In other schemes where this information is available to the Receiver, investors have often been given the Receiver's determination of their "net investment amount" in the initial proof of claim form and then asked whether the investor is in agreement with that calculation.  If so, additional information is usually unneeded.  However, if an investor disagrees with the Receiver's calculation, documentation supporting the investor's figure is then requested.  

While the Receiver may simply be seeking verification of already-calculated figures, this could also suggest that records of investor contributions/withdrawals may be incomplete or lacking.  Moreover, investors are required to submit documentation supporting their claim calculation, or provide an explanation for its absence.  Inevitably, some investors may not have kept meticulous records of their investment activity, which could complicate the process to calculate the claim amount.  

Investors expecting to see a distribution check soon could be disappointed.  The time between the close of the claims process and the issuance of distribution checks could be lengthy, especially considering that Janvey and his team will be combing through large amounts of supporting documentation.  Additionally, many investors will be asked to address discrepancies or omissions in their initial proof of claim form, which can take time.  Once all claims are received, the Receiver must then make determinations whether to allow or deny each claim.  Following this, the Receiver must obtain court approval of his determinations, and an objection period is typical to allow investors with a denied claim an opportunity to contest that determination.  Finally, the Receiver will seek court approval to make a first distribution.  In short, a distribution in 2012 seems unlikely.  

The website established for investors to file a claim is here.  Investors may file their Proof of Claim electronically on the website, or submit their completed Proof of Claim form by mail, fax, or email.  

The Proof of Claim Form is available here.