Lamas testified, however, that her income was not nearly that high when she obtained her SunTrust loans. Furthermore, she had not provided Humaira with any supporting documents to that effect. A wire transfer of those loan proceeds from a SunTrust account in Atlanta to a bank in Fairfax formed the basis of the wire fraud charge in Count 4 against Raza.
His SunTrust loan file contained a bank statement and an earnings statement supporting those false assertions. Valdez confirmed at trial that he was not a dentist. Valdez admitted that his SunTrust loan application vastly overstated his income and assets, and that he had not provided the false documents found in his SunTrust loan file.
- Active Outstanding Warrants.
- where do i find ip address on computer.
- Search form;
- Southern District of New York;
- Un Pacto con el Diablo | Queen of The South Wiki | FANDOM powered by Wikia;
Those documents — a false earnings statement and a false W-2 form — had been prepared by Ranjit Singh. Humaira — working with Raza — had assisted Harwinder Singh in completing the SunTrust loan application. The loan application reflected that Mrs. Her loan file contained earnings and bank statements corroborating those false numbers.
Harwinder Singh and his spouse had never banked with Wachovia, and neither of them gave Humaira any false documents.
A wire transfer of those loan proceeds from SunTrust in Atlanta to a bank in Fairfax formed the basis for the wire fraud charge in Count 6 against Raza. His SunTrust loan file contained false earnings statements prepared by Ranjit Singh.
Angela swepston valdez was booked in brazos county tx
When Valdez-Mejia applied for his SunTrust mortgage loans, he was actually working hourly wage jobs — as a cook and as a manual laborer. He had never advised Raza that he worked as an area manager for a restaurant or that he earned such a monthly income. A wire transfer of those loan proceeds from a SunTrust account in Atlanta to a bank in Fairfax formed the basis for the wire fraud charge in Count 7 against Raza and Haider. Hashmi had secured his initial mortgage loan in from another lender.
He thereafter sought to refinance with SunTrust because he was behind on his bills. Hashmi had never worked at AA Motors, and he had not told Haider otherwise. His SunTrust loan file contained a false pay stub prepared by Ranjit Singh. The prosecution presented additional conspiracy and fraud scheme evidence by calling several other former SunTrust borrowers.
Francy Castillo had obtained mortgage loans from SunTrust in Castillo confirmed at trial that, when she obtained her SunTrust loans, she was actually working two hourly jobs — as a waitress and as a caretaker. Khalid Yousaf obtained a mortgage loan from SunTrust in and refinanced just a year later. Her SunTrust loan application — prepared by Raza — reflected that she earned nearly that much monthly.
Yanez was actually a laborer earning hourly wages. He was actually working as a Pizza Hut cook and as a cab driver. As Daloia explained, SunTrust sometimes contracted with investment banks to sell its originated mortgage loans by way of secondary sales agreements. Pursuant thereto, SunTrust agreed to repurchase any such loans that failed to comply with its underwriting guidelines. Thus, if such a secondary market purchaser discovered that a SunTrust loan it had purchased had been procured by fraud, SunTrust was obliged to repurchase the fraudulent loan.
Daloia had reviewed all the loan files used by the prosecution at trial. SunTrust would thus retain two separate liens on each of those properties, with a first lien being retained on the larger eighty percent loan.
- sevier county tn courthouse phone book.
- class e felony mandatory penalty massachusetts.
- mississauga private investigator no background check.
- Statistics & Other Data.
- 100 Years of Inmate Admissions;
The second lien would be retained on the smaller loan. Daloia explained that SunTrust would sell only the larger loan — with the first lien — and would always hold for itself the smaller loan and the second lien. In sum, Daloia emphasized the significance to SunTrust of the information required on its loan applications. All of that is important on the application. The defendants also sought to prove that the fraud scheme did not present any substantial risk of injury to SunTrust.
None of the defendants testified. Such a business model focused on new mortgage loans and deemphasized the collection of interest. According to Dougherty, SunTrust aggressively sought to originate mortgage loans in order to sell them on the secondary mortgage market.
Dougherty believed this business model encouraged SunTrust employees to prioritize economic metrics that attracted secondary loan purchasers — such as good credit scores of borrowers — and to disregard other information on the SunTrust loan applications. Dougherty also maintained that SunTrust supervisors would sometimes override her decisions to defer action on loan applications and to request additional supporting documents. MacLaverty believed that secondary market purchasers deemed credit scores of borrowers to be one of the most important economic metrics in their evaluations of loan acquisitions.
After the parties rested and made their closing arguments, the district court instructed the jury. Several of the instructions were contested. The jury was required to find that — as part of the scheme to defraud — the defendants had made and caused to be made materially false statements and representations to SunTrust.
The defendants sought to have the court define material false statements in a subjective manner. On February 3, — after three days of deliberations — the jury returned its verdict. The jury convicted each of the defendants on Count 1, which charged conspiracy to commit wire fraud. As for the wire fraud offenses, the jury convicted Raza on three of six charges. That is, Raza was convicted on Counts 3, 4, and 6.
Humaira was convicted on Count 3. The court sentenced Raza to twenty-four months in prison, Humaira Iqbal to fifteen months, and both Farukh Iqbal and Haider to a year and a day. The defendants thereafter noted these appeals.
Historical Prison Register - M
We possess jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U. The defendants have been granted bond pending appeal. In their appeals, the defendants jointly present three issues concerning the jury instructions. They first maintain that the court committed reversible error on two aspects of the wire fraud offense, that is, materiality and intent to defraud. The defendants also contend that the court abused its discretion by failing to instruct the jury prior to deliberations that it had to individually assess the guilt of each defendant as to each count. No other issues concerning the conduct of the trial or the propriety of the sentences are presented.
Jefferson, F. Rahman, 83 F. If an instruction on an offense element is improper, and if an objection was preserved, we review for harmless error. See Neder v. Bartko, F. Artson, F. Prior to its deliberations in this trial, the district court instructed the jury that, in order to convict a defendant on a wire fraud offense, it was obliged to find five elements beyond a reasonable doubt. By way of background, the federal courts have historically identified two statutory elements of a wire fraud offense.
That is, such an offense can be proved if a defendant 1 devised or intended to devise a scheme to defraud, and 2 used a wire communication in furtherance of the scheme. In , the Supreme Court identified a common law element of materiality as applicable to mail, wire, and bank fraud offenses. Additionally, an intent to defraud has consistently been treated as an element of such fraud offenses.
Daily News Release
See United States v. Wynn, F. Notably, the defendants proposed an instruction that the wire fraud offenses required proof of the five elements specified above, and the court tracked that instruction in its jury charge. Based on those instructions, the defendants argue that the jury could have convicted them on the basis of false statements that an objective, reasonable lender might have considered material, but that SunTrust itself did not deem to be material in the circumstances.
The defendants support their contention of error with several court decisions that assess materiality in the fraud context.
People Search
The defendants contend on appeal — and argued at trial — that those decisions required that the jury be instructed on a subjective standard of materiality. Although the federal courts have generally applied an objective test to the materiality element in fraud schemes targeting private lenders, the defendants argue that a recent Supreme Court decision — post-dating this trial — clarified the applicable standard in their favor.
More specifically, they contend that the Court, in Universal Health Services v. United States ex rel. Escobar, confirmed that the applicable test is subjective for materiality in a fraud prosecution such as theirs. See S. They point in particular to the evidence of witnesses Dougherty and MacLaverty, who opined that SunTrust had engaged in reckless lending practices and disregarded false information in loan applications.
- ALSO IN THIS SECTION;
- Girlfriend of man shot by park police officer says boyfriend was unarmed, never attacked officer.
- Most Popular;
- Esther Valdez in California | Records Found | Spokeo;
- Francisco Valdez;
- Angela swepston valdez was booked in brazos county tx;
- USA v. Reynaldo Martinez, No. 12-41272 (5th Cir. 2013).
As a consequence, according to the defendants, they would not have been convicted of wire fraud if the jury had been properly instructed on the materiality element. The government counters that the trial court did not err in its materiality instructions and that the jury was advised of the applicable legal principles. The prosecutors contend that the Supreme Court and the courts of appeals — consistent with the instructions here — have endorsed an objective test of materiality for lender fraud such as that underlying this prosecution.
In Neder, for example, the Supreme Court endorsed an objective, reasonable person standard for materiality in the context of wire fraud against private lending institutions. See U. Furthermore, we recently decided, in United States v. As a boy, Reynaldo Valdez spent many summers roaming its subtropical woods and fishing its streams. The group stayed two days and headed back.
They had driven a little more than a mile when they were hijacked on a dirt road. Reynaldo Valdez and Ashley Lynn Dininger , of Lantana, Fla, were shot in the head execution-style by armed men who took off with the minivan down a dirt road, according to reports. The gunman spared the life of Vanessa Burgos, a visibly pregnant year-old, who told authorities the killers spared her because of her unborn child.
Texas Obituary and Death Notice Archive II - Page
She led police to three men. The suspects, found with the minivan, confessed. Last month, more than four years after the murders, Paula Valdez was notified that all three men had been sentenced.