REALTOR SUED FOR $17 MILLION ALLEGING FAILURE TO GIVE EMPLOYEES BACK PAY, VIOLATION OF STATE MINIMUM WAGE AND OVERTIME LAWS
FACTS
The California Department of Industrial Relations alleges that over a four-year period, ZipRealty paid its real estate agent employees “less than the minimum wage and no premium for overtime hours worked” because the real estate brokerage improperly classified its agents as outside contractors. The lawsuit requests at least $7.5 million in wages, $1.25 million in overtime and $9 million in penalties.
ZipRealty replied by denying the charges and stated, "The company believes that its sales agents, whose job duties consisted exclusively of selling residential real estate, were properly classified as 'outside salespersons' and were compensated accordingly in compliance with California law."
The suit stems partly from evidence in a recent Kern County case in which a judge found that ZipRealty frequently failed to pay agents even though they were employees entitled to minimum wage. The Bakersfield case originally went to the Labor Commissioner, which awarded the agents $75,000. ZipRealty appealed to the Kern County Superior Court, which quadrupled the amounts previously awarded to more than $330,000 in damages and interest. ZipRealty argued that its agents were exempt "outside salespersons," but the judge concluded the agents were not exempt because they worked less than 50% of the time away from their office. (ocreg92911b3latimes92711bakersfield.com92611)
MORAL
How many of you remember me discussing this with you and drawing up viable contracts and procedures to keep proper records to prove the more than 50% issue. Now I bet you are very glad you came to me to do it.
THE 10 MOST COMMON VIOLATIONS FOUND BY THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE DURING AN AUDIT
FACTS
The top 10 common violations are listed below. The recommended procedures that you can follow to ensure compliance with these laws and regulations are set forth. Therefore, a word to the wise. While for the last 20 years we have been protecting brokers and their license to earn a good living, it is far better to make sure you do not commit any of the following violations by doing a self-audit.
1-B & P Code Section 10148 - Retention of Records
Business and Professions Code Section 10148(a) states that a real estate broker shall retain for three years copies of all listings, deposit slips, canceled checks, trust records, and other documents executed by him or her or obtained by him or her in connection with any transactions for which a real estate license is required. After notice from the DRE, the books, accounts, and records shall be made available for examination, inspection, and copying by the commissioner or his or her designated representative during regular business hours; and shall, upon the appearance of sufficient cause, be subject to audit without further notice, except that the audit shall not be harassing in nature.
A broker who fails to keep transaction files, canceled checks or front and back of check copies, deposit slips or other records prepared or obtained for a period of three years may be cited for violation of this section. Some brokers cited for violation of this section have simply failed to provide records after reasonable attempts by the Department to examine them. Other brokers cited have lost control of or destroyed records that should have been maintained. Review the record retention for your office to make sure you are keeping the records for three years. In this attorney's opinion the reason for the three year retention is that the DRE with limited exception only has three years to bring an action for violation commonly referred to as a statute of limitations. See B&PC Section 10101
2-Regulation 2731 - Use of False or Fictitious Name
Commissioner's Regulation 2731 states a licensee shall not use a fictitious name in the conduct of any activity for which a license is required under the Real Estate Law unless the licensee is the holder of a license bearing the fictitious name. You should periodically check your license status with the Department to be sure that the license bears the fictitious name(s) you are using. Many brokers believe that having the dba registered with the county is sufficient to allow them to use it in their real estate business. Other brokers who are cited for this violation state that they had the fictitious name on their license at one time but may have had their license lapse for a brief period of time and failed to add the dba back on to their license. Check to be sure. Remember if the DRE finds use of a fictitious name it did not authorize it is an open invitation to have them come out and audit.
3-Regulation 2831 - Trust Fund Records To Be Maintained
The broker or designated officer if you are operating in corporate form must maintain, in columnar form, a record of all trust funds received and deposited. At a minimum, the following information must be indicated in columnar form in chronological order: date funds received; name of payee or payor; amount received; date of deposit; amount paid out; check number and date; and the daily running balance of the trust account. If any of these columns are not present, then it is a violation. If your trust account is not “overly active you can use the paper format of DRE form RE 4522 which can be found on the DRE website.
The DRE violates brokers many times for violation of this regulation because the broker did not maintain any trust fund records. If trust fund records were maintained, they were either not in columnar form or a column was missing (usually I have found it to be the “Date Received” column).
4-Regulation 2831.1 - Separate Trust Record for Each Beneficiary or Transaction
The broker or designated officer if a corporate licensee must maintain, in columnar form, a separate record of trust funds for each beneficiary or transaction accounting for all funds which have been deposited into a trust account, his record in chronological order and in columnar form has the date of deposit, amount of deposit, name of payee or payor, check number, date and amount, and running balance of the separate record after each transaction on any date. It is just like the columnar record except there is no date received column.
This violation occurs due to one or more of the following reasons:
• The broker did not maintain separate records for each beneficiary.
• Separate records were maintained, but the broker was cited because information was missing.
• Separate records were maintained, but the broker was cited because the items posted were not accurate.
• Separate records were maintained, but a daily running balance for each record was not maintained or it was not accurate. Brokers must always keep a daily balance for each separate record.
5-Regulation 2831.2 - Trust Account Reconciliation
The total of all Separate Beneficiary or Transaction Records maintained must be reconciled with the balance of the Record of All Trust Funds Received and Paid Out required by Regulation 2831 (number 3 above), at least once a month except when the bank account does not have any activities.
The Record of All Trust Funds Received and Paid Out must be reconciled first with the bank account statements as of a certain cut-off date. This is commonly known as bank reconciliation. A cut-off date is the calendar date (usually end of the month) when no transaction or activity thereafter is considered. This process is completed once all adjustments and corrections of any reconciling items have been made to the ending balance on each record to arrive at an adjusted cash balance. In other words, the balance of the record of all trust funds received and paid out has to equal the adjusted cash balance.
Next compare and reconcile the total of all beneficiary or transaction records with the adjusted cash balance as of the cut-off date of the bank reconciliation. The objective is to determine whether all trust funds held on behalf of others are on deposit in the corresponding trust account. Another purpose is to be sure that there is no unidentified overage or broker's funds in excess of $200 in the trust account. Any discrepancy must be corrected. The broker is required to maintain a record of the trust account reconciliation showing the name of the bank account and number, date of the reconciliation, account number or name of the principals, beneficiaries or transactions and the amount of trust funds held by the broker for each of the principals, beneficiaries or transactions.
6-Regulation 2832.1 - Trust Fund Handling for Multiple Beneficiaries (Trust Fund Shortage)
The real estate broker must obtain written consent from every owner of the trust funds in the bank account prior to each disbursement if the disbursement will reduce the balance of the funds in the bank account to an amount less than the existing trust fund liability of the broker to all owners of the funds. A trust fund shortage exists when the following conditions are present: The balance of the bank account is less that the total trust fund liability of the broker to all owners of the funds and there is no written authorization from all owners of the trust funds allowing this.
Failure to record a disbursement, or understating the amount of a check disbursed, or overstating the amount of a deposit on the beneficiary ledger/record will cause the beneficiary ledger to show a balance that is larger than the true amount owed to the individual beneficiary. This overstated balance on the ledger is more likely to be paid and, consequently, the beneficiary will be paid more than what is due. The end result is a trust fund shortage.
7-B & P Code Section 10145/ Regulation 2832 - Trust Fund Handling
A broker must place trust funds accepted on behalf of another into the hands of the owner of the funds, into a neutral escrow depository or into a trust fund account in the name of the broker, or in a fictitious name if the broker is the holder of a license bearing such fictitious name, as trustee at a bank or other financial institution not later then three business days following receipt of the funds by the broker or by the broker's salesperson.
Two of the most common violations found by the DRE are: Failure to designate accounts receiving trust funds as trust fund accounts in the name of the broker or broker's dba as trustee and failure to deposit trust funds received by a broker or broker's employee into a trust fund account within three business days.
Some broker's use an improper interest-bearing account {Regulation 2832(b)}, failure to place checks received from an offeror into a neutral escrow depository or trust fund account in a timely manner following acceptance of an offer {Regulations 2832(c & d)} and failure of a BROKER ACTING AS AN ESCROW HOLDER IN A TRANSACTION IN WHICH THE BROKER IS PERFORMING ACTS FOR WHICH A REAL ESTATE LICENSE IS REQUIRED TO PLACE TRUST FUNDS RECEIVED AS REQUIRED NOT LATER THAN THE NEXT BUSINESS DAY following receipt of the funds {Regulation 2832(e)}.
8-Regulation 2834 - Trust Account Withdrawals
Withdrawals may be made from a trust fund account of an individual broker only upon the signature of the broker or one or more of the following persons if specifically authorized in writing by the broker:
A salesperson licensed to the broker.
A person licensed as a broker who has entered into a written agreement with the broker.
An unlicensed employee of the broker with fidelity bond coverage at least equal to the maximum amount of trust funds to which the employee has access at any time. If there is a deductible then the bond requirement is not met since the bond is short by the amount of the deductible.
Withdrawals may be made from a trust fund account of a corporate broker only upon the signature of:
An officer through whom the corporation is licensed; or
One of the persons enumerated in Regulation 2834(a), provided that specific authorization in writing is given by the officer through whom the corporation is licensed and the officer is an authorized signatory of the trust fund account.
Remember a broker or broker-officer is responsible and liable for the handling of trust funds regardless of the existence of any authorization given regarding signature authority.
The most common violations found in audits are:
Failure of the broker or designated officer to be a signatory on the trust account.
Presence of an unlicensed signatory on the trust account who does not have fidelity bond coverage.
Fidelity bond coverage inadequate in amount and/or has a deductible.
The failure of the broker or designated officer to give specific written authorization permitting a salesperson, broker or unlicensed person to sign on the trust account.
The DRE finds this quite a bit and I find it almost every single time I audit a broker, almost without exception. The point? The DRE looks for this specifically because it is almost a given certainty they will find the violation 99% of the time in this attorney's opinion.
9-B & P Code Section 10145/ Regulation 2835 – Commingling
A broker shall not commingle with his or her own money or property the money or property of others which he or she receives and holds. Common causes of this violation are the deposit of trust funds received into the broker's general business account or maintenance of over $200 in broker funds in a trust account holding trust funds.
A common example of this violation is when a broker deposits credit report fees and/or appraisal fees received into his or her general bank account instead of a trust account when he or she has not yet paid the bill.
Remember, receiving the bill or having the credit reporting company bill you directly is not sufficient. When you deposit the money in your general account, the bill MUST HAVE BEEN PAID FIRST.
10-B & P Code Section 10240 – Written Mortgage Loan Disclosure Statement
Brokers must provide a borrower with a mortgage loan disclosure statement within three business days after receipt of a completed loan application or before the borrower becomes obligated on the note, whichever is earlier. Real estate brokers often fail to provide the Mortgage Loan Disclosure Statement (Borrower) or, in a federally regulated residential mortgage loan transaction, fail to comply with Section 10240(c). Other brokers fail to maintain completed copies for their files.
Remember, the Good Faith Estimate is not compliance unless there are magic words on it which you would have to put there yourself.
MORAL
This is the DRE violation list of what they find more often than not. Therefore, the auditors specifically look for these violations. As I have said over the last 20 years of auditing and defending mortgage brokers, I have found these same violations at least 98% of the time. So my findings agree with the DRE. Read the above VERY CAREFULLY AND AUDIT YOUR OWN COMPANY. MAKE SURE YOU ARE IN COMPLIANCE.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE CHANGING THE TRUST ACCOUNT RULES AGAIN
FACTS
1- You all remember the Mortgage Alert from last week where I discussed the trust accounts being audited and how the audits of various companies are triggered. Well now the regulations on trust accounts are being changed again to the point they will cost you more money if you have in-house escrow trust accounts.
MORAL
For the exact text of the new proposed regulations and for the exact language to be given to each person involved in the escrow go to the DRE website.
I submit there will be numerous violations of this new 2950 regulation if passed as proposed. I recommend seriously you consider whether conducting the escrows and running the risk is worth the return when you consider the potential profit from the escrow fees. Remember to put in the signature lines for the parties to the escrow or you may forget and thereby put your license at risk. These two new regulations are estimated to add to the cost of the broker of 1%-3% of the amount of the fidelity bond. So if the bond is for $250,000 the cost to the broker for the premium can be from $2,500 to $7,500 per year. You can multiply that by four if you intend to have $1 million in the escrow at any given time.
SIX SACRAMENTO AREA RESIDENTS INDICTED FOR MORTGAGE FRAUD
FACTS
On Sept. 28, a federal grand jury indicted ANGELA SHAVLOVSKY, VITALIY TUZMAN, ALEXANDER KOKHANETS, BORIS MURZAK, ZINAIDA MURZAK and VALERI MYSIN, for conspiracy to commit mail fraud.
According to the indictment, Shavlovsky recruited straw buyers who purchased homes at inflated prices using fraudulent loan applications. The indictment alleges that Kokhanets, the Murzaks and Tuzman inflated the prices of homes they sold by allegedly signing fake invoices for improvements and repairs.
The sellers then diverted proceeds from the inflated sales to themselves or to businesses that they and their associates controlled, the indictment said. The homes later went into foreclosure. If convicted, each faces up to 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine (sacbee93011)
MORAL
Remember, an indictment is just a charge. The six are presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I have been repeatedly informing everyone that the federal agents are very heavy into the enforcement of mortgage fraud and they are not done yet. There are still ongoing investigations throughout the United States and especially in California, Nevada and Arizona, in this attorney's opinion in that order of priority. If anyone is involved with loans that occurred from 2005 to the present, then see your attorney now because that appears to be the area of concentration.
Separately, a federal grand jury returned an indictment CHARGING VALERI MYSIN, ANGELA SHAVLOVSKY, NIKOLAY KATINSKIY, MICHAEL KENNEDY, ALEXANDER KOKHANETS, BORIS MURZAK, ZINAIDA MURZAKAND VITALIY TUZMAN with conspiracy to commit mail fraud in connection with a mortgage fraud scheme involving the purchase of seven homes. Katinsky and Kennedy were also charged with money laundering in connection with the scheme. Shavlovsky, Katinskiy, and Kennedy were arrested by FBI agents and Kokhanets, Boris Murzak, and Zinaida Murzak were issued a summons.
According to court records, the mortgage fraud scheme involved purchasing homes at prices substantially higher than the homes were worth in order for the defendants to receive cash at the close of escrow. The indictment alleges that Shavlovsky recruited Katinsky and Kennedy to act as straw buyers and finance 100 percent of the artificially inflated purchase price of homes by submitting fraudulent loan applications to lenders, which falsely represented Katinsky's and Kennedy's employment, income, and intent to occupy the homes as their primary residence.
According to the indictment, Mysin, a licensed California real estate agent, prepared the phony applications and attempted to disguise his involvement with these fraudulent loans BY MAKING IT APPEAR THAT ANOTHER LOAN OFFICER IN HIS OFFICE HAD HANDLED THEM. Kokhanets, Boris Murzak, Zinaida Murzak, and Tuzman were homeowners who allegedly sold their properties as part of this scheme. In order to artificially inflate the sales price of their homes, Kokhanets, Tuzman, and the Murzaks are alleged to have signed fake invoices falsely claiming that repairs or improvements had been completed on their properties. After the lenders funded the fraudulent loans, the defendants diverted a portion of the proceeds from the inflated sales price directly to themselves and to businesses controlled by the defendants and others. All seven properties were foreclosed, resulting in more than $1.8 million in losses for mortgage lenders.
If convicted, the defendants face a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison for conspiracy to commit mail fraud, 10 years in prison for money laundering, and a $250,000 fine. (usattyed93011)
MORAL
I have been informing everyone for over a year to see their attorneys forthwith if they were involved with “creative” loans. Especially the SISA and NINA loans. The federal agents were working 2003, then 2004 and now the releases appear to be working the 2005 loans.
AND YET EIGHT MORE INDICTED IN SAN FRANCISCO FOR $10 MILLION MORTGAGE FRAUD SCHEME
FACTS
On Sept. 27, a 25-count indictment that charges eight individuals with conspiracy to commit financial institution fraud and wire fraud was unsealed. The alleged crimes took place between 2006 and 2007 in the greater San Francisco Bay Area. The indictment alleges that Jacob MOYNIHAN, GERALD MOYNIHAN, JOHN GRECO, RAYMOND FOAKES, DESIREE MACLEAN, JOSH LEO JOHNSON, JERRY MAYS, AND JUSTIN BATEMON also committed money laundering, conspiracy to maintain drug-involved premises, and possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance.
According to the indictment, some of the defendants hold leadership positions in, and are members of the Hells Angels Motorcycle Club. ONE OF THE PRIMARY DEFENDANTS IN THE CASE, JACOB MOYNIHAN, WAS A LOAN OFFICER IN SAN FRANCISCO. JACOB MOYNIHAN OWNED XANADU GLOBAL INVESTMENT, LLC and, during the relevant timeframe, worked at UNIVERSAL MORTGAGE AND SALES INC., ONYX CAPITAL PROPERTY AND INVESTMENT INC., AND ACCELERATED FUNDING AND REALTY INC.
The indictment alleges that the defendants conspired with one another and others to procure a series of fraudulent mortgage loans and refinancing loans for pieces of real property in and around the Bay Area. The scheme initially involved recruiting straw buyers to obtain mortgage loans in exchange for money. It was accomplished by generating falsified bank statements, fictitious employment history and false income information for client-borrowers. In many cases, bank statements were physically altered to reflect inflated balances and deposit activity. These falsified documents were then submitted to mortgage lenders to obtain mortgage loans, some in excess of $1 million, on terms that the lenders would otherwise not have funded. The properties underlying those loans were subsequently foreclosed upon. The total amount of fraudulent loans was in excess of $10 million.
The maximum statutory penalty for each count of conspiracy to commit financial institution fraud and wire fraud is 30 years in prison and a fine of $1 million or twice the loss. The maximum statutory penalty for each count of wire fraud is 20 years in prison and a fine of $250,000 or twice the loss. The maximum statutory penalty for each count of money laundering is 10 years in prison and a fine of $250,000 or twice the loss. The maximum statutory penalty for each count of conspiracy to maintain a drug-involved premise is 20 years in prison and a fine of $500,000. The maximum statutory penalty for possession with intent to distribute 100 or more marijuana plants is 40 years in prison and a $5 million fine; the mandatory minimum penalty is five years in prison. (usattyndca92811Case #: 11 CR 624 WHA)
MORAL
They are innocent until proven guilty but when you add up all the potential maximum years and maximum fines you get 120 years and $7 million plus asset forfeiture.
TWO SAN FRANCISCO REAL ESTATE INVESTORS TO PLEAD GUILTY TO CONSPIRACY TO RIG BIDS AT FORECLOSURES SALES
FACTS
Two California real estate investors agreed to plead guilty for their roles in a conspiracy to rig bids and to commit mail fraud at public real estate foreclosure auctions in Northern California, the Department of Justice announced. CHARGES WERE FILED IN U.S. DISTRICT COURT IN OAKLAND AGAINST ERIC LARSEN AND TIMOTHY POWERS for their participation in bid-rigging and mail-fraud conspiracies at public real estate foreclosure auctions in Contra Costa and Alameda counties, Calif. Powers is charged with participating in the conspiracy in Contra Costa County from as early as May 2009 until about December 2010, and Larsen is charged with participating in the conspiracy in Alameda County from as early as February 2009 until about January 2010.
The department said that the primary purpose of the conspiracies was to suppress and restrain competition and to conceal payoffs in auction records in order to obtain selected real estate offered at public foreclosure auctions in Alameda and Contra Costa counties at noncompetitive prices. When real estate properties are sold at these auctions, the proceeds are used to pay off the mortgage and other debt attached to the property, with remaining proceeds, if any, paid to the homeowner.
According to court documents, Larsen and Powers conspired with others not to bid against one another, but instead designate a winning bidder to obtain the title to selected real estate offered at public real estate foreclosure auctions in Contra Costa and Alameda counties. Larsen and Powers also were charged with conspiracies to use the mail to carry out a fraudulent scheme to divert money to co-conspirators away from mortgage holders and others by holding private auctions open only to members of the conspiracy and awarding the selected real estate to the conspirators who submitted the highest bids. These private auctions took place at or near the courthouse steps where the public auctions were held. The department said that Larsen and Powers also took steps to conceal the payoffs to conspirators for not bidding competitively and caused false and misleading statements to be made on records of public auctions regarding the total purchase price of the selected real estate.
Each violation of the Sherman Act carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison and a $1 million fine for individuals. Each count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud carries a maximum sentence of 30 years in prison and a $1 million fine. The maximum fine for the Sherman Act charges may be increased to twice the gain derived from the crime or twice the loss suffered by the victim if either amount is greater than the $1 million statutory maximum. (usdoj93011)
SAN DIEGO MAN PLEADS GUILTY TO TWO COUNTS IN MORTGAGE FRAUD CASE
FACTS
On Sept. 22, JOHN J. BORZELLINO, ALSO KNOWN AS JOHN ROSS, a real estate consultant, pleaded guilty to two counts in San Diego federal court involving a multimillion dollar mortgage fraud conspiracy case.
Borzellino is a self-proclaimed real estate consultant with business ventures throughout the nation, fraudulently induced lenders to fund millions of dollars in mortgages to buy houses in Florida, Georgia and California from 2006 to 2007. The scheme entailed buying the homes at prices above the sellers' asking prices, with the understanding that the money paid above the asking price, which he characterized as “commissions or consulting fees,” would be funneled to an entity that Borzellino controlled.
Borzellino admitted that to get the loans he made numerous FALSE AND MISLEADING STATEMENTS ABOUT THE PROPERTIES BEING HIS PRIMARY RESIDENCE; the borrowers' income and employment history; past residence history; and false documents to justify the commissions. He also admitted assuming a number of false identities to conceal his role in the transactions and his receipt of the funneled loan proceeds.
Using such deceptions, Borzellino defrauded lenders into making more than $7.5 million in mortgage loans to purchase houses in the name of his wife, SHARON ROSS, and several other straw purchasers said. Borzellino also pleaded guilty to TAX EVASION for not declaring nearly $1 million in income, which he obtained through his scheme. Borzellino, is scheduled to be sentenced Dec. 9 and faces maximum penalties of 25 years in prison and $350,000 in fines. (sandiegobusinessjournal92311)
MORAL
Note the loans that the federal agents are chasing are those in 2005 forward. It appears they have stopped checking 2004 and earlier.
EIGHTY-THREE YEAR OLD CONNECTICUT MAN DRAWS FIVE YEARS IN FEDERAL PRISON FOR MORTGAGE FRAUD
FACTS
On Sept. 26, MORRIS OLMER, 83, of New Haven, was sentenced by Chief United States District Judge Alvin W. Thompson in New Haven to 60 months of imprisonment, followed by three years of supervised release, for his involvement in an extensive mortgage fraud conspiracy that defrauded lenders of more than $4.4 million. On April 12, a jury found OLMER guilty of one count of conspiracy to defraud the United States, eight counts of wire fraud and four counts of making false statements.
Between approximately August 2006 and May 2010, SYED BABAR OF NEW LONDON led a mortgage fraud scheme during which participants obtained approximately $10 million in residential real estate loans, including loans insured by the FHA, through the use of sham sales contracts, false loan applications, and fraudulent property appraisals. As part of the scheme, Babar arranged for straw buyers to purchase houses they did not intend to occupy at fraudulently inflated prices and to apply for loans in the amount of the fraudulently inflated prices. The loans were supported by fraudulent appraisals and a variety of fraudulent information about the buyer, including information about his or her occupation, income, assets, liabilities, and intention to occupy the house as a primary residence. Babar and his co-conspirators also created a fictitious construction company called “Sheda Telle Construction, LLC”—which trial testimony revealed means “ring the bell and run” in Babar's native language—in order to divert fraud proceeds to it and, in some cases, to falsely justify the artificially inflated sales price of houses based on renovations purportedly made to the property that, in fact, did not occur. Babar and his co-conspirators then split the fraud proceeds generated from the scheme. The scheme involved approximately 29 properties in New London, New Haven and other locations in Connecticut.
OLMER, A FORMER ATTORNEY, was paid by Babar to conduct the closings for many of the fraudulent real estate transactions, which resulted in more than $1 million in fraudulent proceeds being sent by wire and check to Sheda Telle Construction, LLC. Prior to his participation in this conspiracy, OLMER had surrendered his law license because of his involvement in other fraudulent transactions. However, OLMER continued to maintain his law office in New Haven, which he shared with other practicing attorneys.
The investigation revealed that OLMER was involved in the execution or attempted execution of 17 fraudulent property transactions. In October 2009, after OLMER conducted a fraudulent closing on one of the properties, 211 Lloyd Street in New Haven, he failed to provide the keys to the straw purchaser of the property. Instead, OLMER rented out the property and instructed his tenant to send the rent payments to his New Haven office. (usattyct92611)
MORAL
Olmer can celebrate his 90th birthday when released. The judge just shows no respect for age or age does not excuse criminal conduct. Take your pick.
THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE.
AN ATTORNEY SHOULD BE CONSULTED IF YOU DESIRE LEGAL ADVICE
