FACTS
Starting this year and following, you must issue 1099’s to anyone you pay over $600 cumulatively during the year. Previously this did not apply to corporations. Now it does. If you pay your office supply company, your business landlord rent, any and all vendors paid over $600, then at year-end you must send them and file the appropriate 1099. Failure to do so cannot only mean a minor ($50) as it has in the past, the IRS can also refuse to allow you the tax deduction you claim for payment of that business expense if you do not issue the business you paid the 1099. The penalties for willful failure can go as high as $250,000 in some cases and an intentional disregard penalty of 10% in addition to that penalty. (ladj12910p6)
MORAL
If you are not sure whether you should or should not give a vendor, corporate or otherwise a 1099 for 2011 payments, send them one. It is better to be safe, than to be sorry and have to pay a penalty for not doing it.
FRAUD WARNING REGARDING LAWSUIT MARKETERS REQUESTING UPFRONT FEES FOR SO-CALLED “MASS JOINDER” OR CLASS LITIGATION PROMISING EXTRAORDINARY HOME MORTGAGE RELIEF
BY WAYNE S. BELL
CHIEF COUNSEL, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE
I. HOME MORTGAGE RELIEF THROUGH LITIGATION (and “Too Good to Be True” Claims Regarding Its Use to Avoid and/or Stop Foreclosure, Obtain Loan Principal Reduction, and to Let You Have Your Home “Free and Clear” of Any Mortgage).
This alert is written to warn consumers about marketing companies, unlicensed entities, lawyers, and so-called attorney-backed, attorney-affiliated, and lawyer referral entities that offer and sell false hope and request the payment of upfront fees for so-called “mass e mortgage relief.
The California Department of Real Estate previously issued a consumer alert and fraud warning on loan modification and foreclosure rescue scams in California. That alert was followed by warnings and alerts regarding forensic loan audit fraud, scams in connection with short sale transactions, false and misleading designations and claims of special expertise, certifications and credentials in connection with home loan relief services, and other real estate and home loan relief scams.
The Department continues to administratively prosecute those who engage in such fraud and to work in collaboration with the California State Bar, the Federal Trade Commission, and federal, state and local criminal law enforcement authorities to bring such frauds to justice.
On Oct. 11, 2009, Senate Bill 94 was signed into law in California, and it became effective that day. It PROHIBITED ANY PERSON, INCLUDING REAL ESTATE LICENSEES AND ATTORNEYS, from charging, claiming, demanding, collecting or receiving an upfront fee from a homeowner borrower in connection with a PROMISE TO MODIFY THE BORROWER’S RESIDENTIAL LOAN OR SOME OTHER FORM OF MORTGAGE LOAN FORBEARANCE. Senate Bill 94’s prohibitions seem to have significantly impacted the rampant fraud that was occurring and escalating with respect to the payment of upfront fees for loan modification work.
Also, FORENSIC LOAN AUDITORS must now register with the California Department of Justice and cannot accept payments in advance for their services under California law once a Notice of Default has been recorded. There are certain exceptions for lawyers and real estate brokers.
On Jan. 31, an important and broad advance fee ban issued by the Federal Trade Commission became effective and outlaws providers of mortgage assistance relief services from requesting or collecting advance fees from a homeowner. Discussions about Senate Bill 94, the federal advance fee ban, and the Consumer Alerts of the DRE, are available on the DRE’s website at
The advance fee ban issued by the Federal Trade Commission includes a narrow and conditional carve out for attorneys.
If LAWYERS MEET THE FOLLOWING FOUR CONDITIONS, THEY ARE GENERALLY EXEMPT FROM THE RULE:
1. They are engaged in the practice of law, and mortgage assistance relief is part of their practice.
2. They are licensed in the state where the consumer or the dwelling is located.
3. They are complying with state laws and regulations governing the “same type of conduct the [FTC] rule requires."
4. They PLACE ANY ADVANCE FEES THEY COLLECT IN A CLIENT TRUST ACCOUNT and comply with state laws and regulations covering such accounts. This requires that client funds be kept separate from the lawyers' personal and/or business funds until such time as the funds have been earned.
It is important to note that the exemption for lawyers discussed above does not allow lawyers to collect money upfront for loan modifications or loan forbearance services, which advance fees are banned by the more restrictive California Senate Bill 94. But those who continue to prey on and victimize vulnerable homeowners have not given up. They just change their tactics and modify their sales pitches to keep taking advantage of those who are desperate to save their homes. And some of the frauds seeking to rip off desperate homeowners are trying to use the lawyer exemption above to collect advance fees for mortgage assistance relief litigation.
THIS ALERT AND WARNING IS ISSUED TO CALL TO YOUR ATTENTION THE OFTEN OVERBLOWN AND EXAGGERATED “SALES PITCH(ES)” REGARDING THE SUPPOSED VALUE OF QUESTIONABLE “MASS JOINDER” OR CLASS ACTION LITIGATION.
Whether they call themselves Foreclosure Defense Experts, Mortgage Loan Litigators, Living Free and Clear experts, or some other official, important or impressive sounding title(s), individuals and companies are marketing their services in the State of California and on the Internet. They are making a wide variety of claims and sales pitches, and offering impressive sounding legal and litigation services, with quite extraordinary remedies promised, with the goal of taking and getting some of your money.
While there are lawyers and law firms which are legitimate and qualified to handle complex class action or joinder litigation, you must be cautious and BEWARE. And certainly check out the lawyers on the State Bar website and via other means, as discussed below in Section III.
II. QUESTIONABLE AND/OR FALSE CLAIMS OF THE SO-CALLED MORTGAGE LOAN DEFENSE OR “MASS JOINDER” AND CLASS LITIGATORS.
A. What are the Claims/Sales Pitches?
They are many and varied, and include:
1. You can join in a mass joinder or class action lawsuit already filed against your lender and stay in your home. You can stop paying your lender.
2. The mortgage loans can be stripped entirely from your home.
3. Your payment obligation and foreclosure against your home can be stopped when the lawsuit is filed.
4. The litigation will take the power away from your lender.
5. A jury will side with you and against your lender.
6. The lawsuit will give you the leverage you need to stay in your home.
7. The lawsuit may give you the right to rescind your home loan, or to reduce your principal.
8. The lawsuit will help you modify your home loan. It will give you a step up in the loan modification process.
9. The litigation will be performed through “powerful” litigation attorney representation.
10. Litigation attorneys are “turning the tables on lenders and getting cash settlements for homeowners."
In one Internet advertisement, the marketing materials say, “the damages sought in your behalf are nothing less than a full lien strip or in otherwords [sic] a free and clear house if the bank can’t produce the documents they own the note on your home. Or at the very least, damages could be awarded that would reduce the principal balance of the note on your home to 80% of market value, and give you a 2% interest rate for the life of the loan."
Please don’t be fooled by slick come-ons by scammers who just want your money. Some of the claims above might be true in a particular case, based on the facts and evidence presented before a court or a jury, or have a ring or hint of truth, but you must carefully examine and analyze each and every one of them to determine if filing a lawsuit against your lender or joining a class or mass joinder lawsuit will have any value for you and your situation. Be particularly skeptical of all such claims, since agreeing to participate in such litigation may require you to pay for legal or other services, often before any legal work is performed (e.g., a significant upfront retainer fee is required).
The reality is that litigation is time-consuming (with formal discovery such as depositions, interrogatories, requests for documents, requests for admissions, motions, and the like), expensive, and usually vigorously defended. There can be no guarantees or assurances with respect to the outcome of a lawsuit. Even if a lender or loan owner defendant were to lose at trial, it can appeal, and the entire process can take years. Also, there is no statistical or other competent data that supports the claims that a mass joinder and class action lawsuit, even if performed by a licensed, legitimate and trained lawyer(s), will provide the remedies that the marketers promise.
There are two other important points to be made here:
First, even assuming that the lawyers can identify fraud or other legal violations performed by your lender in the loan origination process, your loan may be owned by an investor—that is, someone other than your lender. The investor will most assuredly argue that your claims against your originating lender do not apply against the investor (the purchaser of your loan). And even if your lender still owns the loan, they are not legally required, absent a court judgment or order, to modify your loan or to halt the foreclosure process if you are behind in your payments. If they happen to lose the lawsuit, they can appeal, as noted above. Also, the violations discovered may be minor or inconsequential, which will not provide for any helpful remedies.
Second, and very importantly, loan modifications and other types of foreclosure relief are simply not possible for every homeowner, and the “success rate” is currently very low in California. This is where the lawsuit marketing scammers come in and try to convince you that they offer you “a leg up”. They falsely claim or suggest that they can guarantee to stop a foreclosure in its tracks, leave you with a home “free and clear” of any mortgage loan(s), make lofty sounding but hollow promises, exaggerate or make bold statements regarding their litigation successes, charge you for a retainer, and leave you with less money.
III. THE KEY HERE IS FOR YOU TO BE ON GUARD AND CHECK THE LAWYERS OUT
Know Who You Are or May Be Dealing With; Do Your Own Homework; Avoid The Traps Set by the Litigation Marketing Frauds
Before entering into an attorney-client relationship, or paying for “legal” or litigation services, ascertain the name of the lawyer or lawyers who will be providing the services. Then check them out on the State Bar's website, at www.calbar.ca.gov. Make certain that the State Bar of California licenses them. If they are licensed, see if they have been disciplined. Check them out through the Better Business Bureau to see if the Bureau has received any complaints about the lawyer, law firm or marketing firm offering the services (and remember that only lawyers can provide legal services). And please understand that this is just another resource for you to check, as the litigation services provider might be so new that the Better Business Bureau may have little or nothing on them (or something positive because of insufficient public input).
Check them out through a Google or related search on the Internet. You may be amazed at what you can and will find out doing such a search. Often consumers who have been scammed will post their experiences, insights, and warnings long before any criminal, civil or administrative action has been brought against the scammers. Also, ask them lots of specific, detailed questions about their litigation experience, clients and successful results. For example, you should ask them how many mortgage-related joinder or class lawsuits they have filed and handled through settlement or trial. Ask them for pleadings they have filed and news stories about their so-called successes. Ask them for a list of current and past “satisfied” clients. If they provide you with a list, call those people and ask those former clients if they would use the lawyer or law firm again. Ask the lawyers if they are class action or joinder litigation specialists and ask them what specialist qualifications they have. Then ask what they will actually do for you (what specific services they will be providing and for what fees and costs). Get that in writing, and take the time to fully understand what the attorney-client contract says and what the end result will be before proceeding with the services. Remember to always ask for and demand copies of all documents that you sign.
IV. CONCLUSION.
Mortgage rescue frauds are extremely good at selling false hope to consumers in trouble with regard to home loans. The scammers continue to adapt and to modify their schemes as soon as their last ones became ineffective. Promises of successes through mass joinder or class litigation are now being marketed. Please be careful, do your own diligence to protect yourself, and be highly suspect if anyone asks you for money up front before doing any service on your behalf. Most importantly, DON’T LET FRAUDS TAKE YOUR HARD EARNED MONEY. (From the DRE website 3-19-11)
MORAL
Some of you have called or e-mailed me regarding this mass tort litigation telling me the people you speak to are asking for money from $2,500 to about $5,000. If an attorney has mass litigation and a thousand clients, each paying $5000 then there should be about $5 million in the trust account less the costs and fees to date as the litigation progresses. Have you verified your money went into a trust account? I offer no opinon but to tell you to be careful. I have not seen a case that has reached the point where the defendant lenders have filed answers. A way to check the status is to look at the docket which lists the documents filed and by whom. It will give you an idea of the status of the lawsuit and if you have a person attorney, that attorney can explain the docket to you.
FLORIDA MOTHER AND SON INDICTED ON MORTGAGE FRAUD AND DRUG CHARGES
FACTS
On March 10, an indictment was unsealed charging MAXINE WILLIAMS-SALTER AND HER SON ANTORRIO WILLIAMS in two separate cases.
Maxine Williams-Salter is charged with wire fraud related to a mortgage application and loan, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343. If convicted on the charge, Williams-Salter faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in federal prison. The indictment also notifies Williams-Salter that the United States intends to seek a forfeiture money judgment against her, in the amount of $382,500, which represents the proceeds that she obtained as a result of such violation, or forfeiture of the real property located at 546 50th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, Fla., as a substitute asset for the forfeiture money judgment. (Not only do they indict you, but also they chase the money in whatever form you may have converted it to as in this case, a house)
According to the indictment, in October 2007, Williams-Salter devised a scheme and artifice to defraud SunTrust Mortgage for a mortgage loan in the amount of $382,500 to purchase a second home located in Lutz, Fla. The indictment alleges that Williams-Salter falsely inflated her income, sources of income, and assets to induce the mortgage loan lender into funding the mortgage loan. The indictment also alleges that the income information she provided to the mortgage company on her loan application was materially different from what was reported to the Internal Revenue Service on her income tax returns.
ANTORRIO WILLIAMS is charged with conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute 1000 kilograms or more of marijuana, in violation of Title 21, United States Code, Section 846. If convicted on the charge, Williams faces a minimum mandatory penalty of 20 years and up to a maximum of life in federal prison. The indictment also notifies Williams that the United States intends to seek forfeiture of two vehicles, a 2006 Infiniti Q56 and a 2003 Cadillac Escalade, which are alleged to be property used to facilitate the offense or to be traceable to proceeds of the offense. According to the indictment, Williams conspired with others, from 2001 until November 2010, to possess with intent to distribute 1,000 kilograms or more of marijuana in Pinellas County. (usattymdfl31011)
MORAL
The family that does things together stays together. Sometimes in prison if they are convicted.
CHICAGO MAN GETS 20 YEARS IN FEDERAL PRISON FOR MORTGAGE FRAUD
FACTS
On March 7, BOBBIE L. BROWN, JR., a Country Club Hills, Ill. man, was sentenced to 20 years in federal prison in one of the largest federal mortgage fraud prosecutions ever in Chicago. The defendant pled guilty last year to charges in two separate indictments, each alleging of mail, wire, and bank fraud. U.S. District JUDGE VIRGINIA M. KENDALL IMPOSED THE 20-YEAR PRISON TERM AND ORDERED BROWN TO PAY RESTITUTION IN EXCESS OF $32 MILLION AND TO FORFEIT IN EXCESS OF $24 MILLION AT A HEARING IN FEDERAL COURT.
According to the FIRST INDICTMENT, Brown, who operated several businesses, including CHICAGO GLOBAL INVESTMENTS, INC., B&M CUSTOMS HOMES, INC., BROWN TRUCKING, INC., AND WORLD WIDE INVESTMENTS, INC., AND 20 CO-DEFENDANTS were charged with fraudulently obtaining more than $95 million in loan proceeds from lenders for themselves and others. The victim lenders incurred losses totally approximately $24 million on the defaulted loans. The residences that were the subject of the alleged fraud scheme were located in various Chicago suburbs, including Country Club Hills, Flossmoor, Frankfort, Mokena, Woodridge, Elmhurst, Lemont, Orland Park, Addison, Homewood, Naperville, and Aurora.
The SECOND INDICTMENT alleged that between August 2006 and April 2007, Brown and 12 co-defendants fraudulently obtained approximately 32 home mortgage loans in this case on homes in Nevada and California, from which they obtained more than $16 million in loan proceeds. The victim lenders incurred losses totaling approximately $7 million on the defaulted loans.
In the Chicago scheme, 14 of the 21 defendants have been sentenced and the sentences ranged from probation to 66 months in custody in the Bureau of Prisons. The remaining seven defendants are scheduled for trial in June 2011. Ten of the 13 defendants have been sentenced in the NEVADA SCHEME, with sentences ranging from six to 45 months in custody in the Bureau of Prisons. The remaining three defendants in that case have pled guilty and are scheduled to be sentenced at a later date. (usattyndil3711)
MORAL
TWENTY YEARS is longer than Phil Spector sentence for the murder conviction he has since appealed.
MARYLAND MAN PLEADS GUILTY IN MORTGAGE FRAUD SCHEME
FACTS
On March 7, NOAH BLACK OF HYATTSVILLE pled guilty to federal charges of wire fraud and aggravated identity theft in connection with a mortgage fraud scheme. Black entered his guilty pleas in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The Honorable Judge Richard W. Roberts scheduled sentencing for June 16.
During May 2006, Black arranged a fraudulent real estate sale of a home in Upper Marlboro that at one time was owned in the name of one of his family members. Black pretended to be another individual, referred to in court as “D.S.,” in order to secure mortgage loans of approximately $700,000. He had obtained the identifying information of D.S. when Black, a Realtor, attempted to sell a different home to the victim. (Identity theft? Watch whom you hire to work for you as a broker. The broker in this case may have even been sued for allowing the Realtor to work for him)
In order to corroborate his alleged identity, Black had a fraudulent Maryland driver’s license created. The license combined Black’s own photo with the identifying information of the victim. He continued using the fraudulent identification when he obtained two motor vehicles by fraud later that year.
On or about May 18, 2006, as part of the settlement process on the home in Upper Marlboro and relying upon the defendant’s fraudulent representations, New Century Mortgage Corp., which is located in Reston, Va., sent a fax to Settlement Solutions, which is located in Maryland. After the sale was completed, the mortgage eventually went into default while it was listed as owned by D.S. (usattydc3711)
MORAL
If you do not vet the loan officers you hire and something goes wrong, you the owner may find you are sued along with the loan officer for the identity theft. It is cheaper to check them out first rather than to defend a lawsuit.
FORMER EMPLOYEE OF NEW JERSEY MORTGAGE RESCUE COMPANY SENTENCED TO FEDERAL PRISON
FACTS
On March 15, MICHAEL MARTINO, a Bloomfield, N.J., man was sentenced to a year and a day in prison for his role in a mortgage fraud scheme carried out by the owner and employees of ELITE FINANCIAL SOLUTIONS, a company based in Scotch Plains, N.J., which claimed to be a home foreclosure rescue company. Martino, who as an employee of Elite was responsible for recruiting straw buyers for properties in foreclosure, previously pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge William J. Martini to one count of wire fraud conspiracy.
Beginning in February 2005, Elite’s owner and operator STEPHEN FRENCH devised a scheme to fraudulently induce financial institutions to provide mortgage loans to unqualified borrowers, enabling French, Martino, and their co-conspirators to earn consulting fees from the sales of properties financed by the fraudulently induced loans.
French, Martino, and others at Elite targeted New Jersey homeowners who couldn’t make mortgage payments and were facing foreclosure. They would promise the homeowners that Elite would help them keep their homes and repair their damaged credit. The homeowners would be instructed to permit title to their homes to be put in the names of straw buyers for one or two years. French promised to improve their credit ratings during that time, help them obtain more favorable mortgages, and ultimately return title to their homes.
French, Martino, and others at Elite told the homeowners that equity withdrawn from their homes would be kept in escrow and used to pay the mortgages and expenses and to repair their credit. Instead, Elite took a “consulting fee” of $25,000 per property, and the remaining equity was deposited into bank accounts French controlled.
Martino admitted that he recruited straw buyers for the scheme. French, Martino, and others at Elite paid the straw buyers $10,000 for use of their names and credit histories in the transactions, and submitted fraudulent loan applications to mortgage lenders in the straw buyers’ names in order to ensure the loans would be approved.
In addition to the prison term, Judge Martini sentenced Martino to three years of supervised release and ordered him to pay $275,000 in restitution.
FRENCH OF SCOTCH PLAINS, N.J., previously pleaded guilty before Judge Martini to one count of wire fraud conspiracy, admitting he caused more than $1 million in losses through the scheme. He is currently scheduled to be sentenced on April 21.
TAMEKA BROADHURST OF PLAINFIELD, N.J., A SECRETARY AND LOAN PROCESSOR AT ELITE, PREVIOUSLY PLEADED GUILTY before Judge Martini to one count of wire fraud conspiracy and was sentenced on Nov. 4, 2010, to a day in prison followed by 18 months of supervised release. Martini also ordered Broadhurst to pay $355,000 in restitution. During her guilty plea, Broadhurst admitted that she recruited straw buyers for the scheme and submitted fraudulent loan applications to mortgage lenders in straw buyers’ names. (usattynj31511)
MORAL
Notice how the secretary was dragged into this mess. Now although no real prison time, she will have a difficult time finding a job and has to pay restitution of $355,000.
EFFECTIVE APRIL 1, NORTH CAROLINA AMENDS SELLER DISCOUNTS FOR USE OF AFFILIATED MORTGAGE LENDERS
FACTS
04 NCAC 03M .0602 SELLER DISCOUNTS FOR USE OF AFFILIATED MORTGAGE LENDER OR BROKER
(a) A mortgage lender or mortgage broker shall not originate a mortgage loan if the use of that mortgage lender or mortgage broker is a condition for the borrower to receive a discount or thing of value from a seller affiliated with the mortgage lender or mortgage broker, unless:
(1) the discount conditioned on the use of the mortgage lender or mortgage broker is disclosed separately from any other discount provided by the seller in a written document that informs the borrower that the choice of a lender not affiliated with the seller will not affect any other concessions or discounts separately offered to the borrower for the purchase of the home, other than the incentive offered for the use of the affiliated lender;
(2) the discount conditioned on the use of the mortgage lender or mortgage broker may be used to pay only the following:
(A) bona fide and reasonable closing costs associated with the loan as permitted under G.S. 24-8(d); and
(B) bona fide discount points, which are knowingly paid by the borrower for the purpose of reducing the interest rate below the market rate for that loan product and which in fact reduces the interest rate below the market rate for that loan product; and
(3) the discount does not exceed three percent of the final sales price.
(b) For any discount used as described in Part (a)(2)(B) of this Rule, the following documents must be maintained in the individual loan file:
(1) the disclosure required under Subparagraph (a)(1) of this Rule;
(2) the rate sheet used by the mortgage lender or mortgage broker to inform the borrower of the available interest rate of the loan; and
(3) the signed lock-in agreement that demonstrates the below-market rate chosen by the borrower.
(c) For any discount used as described in Part (a)(2)(B) of this Rule, the mortgage lender must maintain written policies and procedures related to the charging of discount points, which include the method of informing borrowers of the benefits and costs of discount points and a commercially-reasonable method for determining the amount by which the interest rate will be reduced for the payment of a discount point.
(d) The discount provided for in Paragraph (a) of this Rule shall not be applied in a manner that would exceed amounts which may be directly imposed under North Carolina or Federal law, regardless of whether a party affiliated with lender directly or indirectly pays for any portion of such charges.
History Note: Authority G.S. 53-244.111(1); 53-244.111(8), 53-244.118(a);
Eff. April 1, 2011
MORAL
If you do loans in North Carolina, you may be a masochist. But either way read this carefully so you stay out of trouble.
MORTGAGE FRAUD SCHEME INVESTIGATION SPREADS FROM SOUTH CAROLINA TO NEW JERSEY
FACTS
THE FEDERAL INQUIRY INTO A BANK FRAUD SCHEME IN SOUTH CAROLINA HAS SPREAD TO NEW JERSEY, according to a court document. With the cooperation of BLAIR WITKOWSKI a Bluffton man who was a former mortgage loan officer at Carolina First Bank on Hilton Head Island and who pleaded guilty in September 2010 to one count of felony conspiracy to commit bank fraud, authorities in New Jersey are prosecuting at least five other people, the document states. The New Jersey prosecutions were revealed in a motion seeking a variance from federal sentencing guidelines in the case of Blair Witkowski.
"As a result of Witkowski's cooperation, the United States Attorney's Office in New Jersey is prosecuting at least five of Witkowski's co-conspirators," according to a motion filed Tuesday by Witkowski's Charleston attorney, Bart Daniel.
Witkowski was to be sentenced the week of March 21, but that has been postponed for a month, according to Michael Rhett DeHart of the U.S. Attorney's Office in Charleston. Prosecutors say Witkowski used inflated appraisals to fraudulently arrange residential mortgages for straw purchasers. He then used the difference between the inflated mortgage proceeds and the actual value of the property to pay himself and others. Prosecutors say Witkowski received more than $495,000 in kickbacks for the sale of eight homes.
The scheme lasted from about 2005 to 2008 and cost Carolina First and other financial institutions between $2.5 million and $7 million. Most of the properties involved are in Beaufort County, DeHart has said.
Witkowski faces a maximum of 30 years in prison, five years of supervised release, a $1 million fine and a $100 special assessment, according to his plea agreement. He is unlikely to receive the full sentence, DeHart has said.
Witkowski wants to serve half his sentence in a supervised release program because he has "provided extraordinary help to the United States" and has "extraordinary family ties and obligations," according to the motion. Witkowski is the sole owner of a Beaufort auto sales business and the sole provider for his wife and seven children between the ages of 1 and 15, according to the motion. "Allowing Witkowski to serve a portion of his sentence in supervised release will enable him to continue to cooperate with the victim, Carolina First, and attempt to begin making restitution," the motion states.
The motion was accompanied by 16 letters from family, friends and others urging Senior U.S. District Judge Sol Blatt Jr. to show mercy in sentencing Witkowski. One of the letters was written by an attorney for one of the scheme's victims, TD Bank, which bought Carolina First last year. The bank's letter said Witkowski is "the only participant of many who has owned up to his role in the transactions." (islandpacket.com31811)
MORAL
I would opine that Witkowski had one good lawyer who knows how to present mitigating circumstances before the sentencing judge. Read and learn.
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE.
AN ATTORNEY SHOULD BE CONSULTED IF YOU DESIRE LEGAL ADVICE
