Committing Insurance Fraud & Forgery While on Probation Requires Jail Time
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gfeBFRAi and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4150 posts.
Posted on April 22, 2022 by Barry Zalma
Dustin Jungvirt, appealed the sentence imposed following his guilty plea to insurance fraud, claiming the district court failed to properly consider which sentencing option would best rehabilitate him. In State Of Iowa v. Dustin Jungvirt, No. 21-1130, Court of Appeals of Iowa (April 13, 2022) the Iowa Court of Appeals resolved the dispute.
BACKGROUND FACTS
The State charged Jungvirt with insurance fraud, claiming he filed false claims with his insurance carrier. Jungvirt was alleged to have committed the offense while on probation for child endangerment causing bodily injury. The State later added a charge for fraudulent practice. After Jungvirt’s arrest, he was released to the Iowa Department of Corrections for supervision.
In May 2020, Jungvirt was arrested for assault while displaying a dangerous weapon. Due to the arrest, the court revoked Jungvirt’s pretrial release. Jungvirt entered a plea agreement on September 11, admitting to the probation violation and pleading guilty to insurance fraud. He also entered a plea of guilty to four counts of forgery in a separate case. As part of the plea agreement, the State agreed to recommend Jungvirt for a residential treatment facility if Jungvirt was deemed appropriate for placement in the facility. If Jungvirt was denied a placement in a residential facility, the State could recommend any legal sentence.
The court received a presentence investigate report (PSI) which recommended probation and placement in a Davenport residential correctional facility (RCF).
Jungvirt failed to appear for sentencing, resulting in the court issuing a bench warrant for his arrest. He was not apprehended until May 2021. Due to his absconding, the RCF would not approve him for placement.
Jungvirt, after being charged with new crime and returning to the court, expressing chutzpah, asked for probation, highlighting as mitigating factors his desire to see family, his limited criminal history, mental-health and substance-abuse issues, and progress he had made toward his education. The State urged the court to impose a prison sentence.
The court sentenced Jungvirt to a prison term of five years for insurance fraud, to run consecutively to the two-year sentence for Jungvirt’s forgery convictions.
DISCUSSION
Jungvirt contended the district court abused its discretion when it sentenced him to a prison term rather than probation. He ignored the reasoning of the sentencing court who, during the sentencing hearing, the court explained its reasoning as follows:
In every case, my duty under the law is to review what is available to me in terms of community resources and to determine what the appropriate rehabilitative plan for you would be, but to always remember first and foremost that the public must be protected.
In doing so, I look at the seriousness of the crimes, the effect the crimes have upon members of the community, your willingness to accept change and treatment, and what’s available within the community to assist you in this process.
The first thing that jumps out at me in looking at the file is that you had a plea agreement for probation. You were at the RCF and something happened and you were out to warrant, then, from October 22nd to May 30th. You knew at that time you pled guilty. You knew you had to take care of these matters and you made no effort to do so, which tells me that you were absconding from your responsibilities and obligations for the crimes you committed.
It’s not completely inconsistent with your criminal history. While these charges are more serious than maybe what you had in the past, you do have a history of failing to appear and a history of violating terms of probation.
I do consider as mitigating any substance abuse or mental health issues that you have.
What’s also concerning to me is that looking at the file, case number 312, you were on probation with a sentencing date of July 19th, 2018, and then comes the insurance fraud case that you’re here on today that happened after that, and it appears while you were on probation . . . .
And then, while you were awaiting trial on pretrial release in that matter, you pick up all the forgery charges that you’ve pled to in 505.
So each time when you committed a crime, before you resolved it, while you were still on some form of probation, you committed another crime. To me, that warrants incarceration.
The Court of Appeals concluded, faced with the clear and logical statement made by the sentencing court, properly considered the defendant’s chances of reform, criminal history, mitigating factors such as mental health and substance abuse, the resources available to the defendant, the effect Jungvirt’s crime had on the community, and what punishment would best protect the public. In particular, the court emphasized Jungvirt’s consistent pattern of engaging in illegal activity while on probation or pretrial release. The court determined incarceration was necessary.
A district court is not bound by the recommendations in a PSI. Due to its consideration of the relevant factors, the total lack of respect for the court system, the criminal actions when on probation, it became obvious that the district court did not abuse its discretion concerning Jungvirt’s sentence. Accordingly, the court affirmed the sentence.
ZALMA OPINION
It is time that trial and appellate courts stop coddling insurance fraud criminals with probation and half-way-houses and deter the crime with real prison time. That Dustin Jungvirt had the unmitigated chutzpah, on such a ling series of criminal conduct, to claim the court improperly sentenced him to prison was an amazing waste of the time of two courts and should have been condemned with more than affirming the sentence and the addition of serious sanctions.
(c) 2022 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to service as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, insurance bad faith and insurance fraud almost equally for insurers and policyholders. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims handling lawyer and more than 54 years in the insurance business. He is available at http://www.zalma.com and [email protected].
Subscribe to Zalma on Insurance at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.local.com/subscribe.
Subscribe to Excellence in Claims Handling at https://barryzalma.substack.com/welcome.
Write to Mr. Zalma at [email protected]; http://www.zalma.com; http://zalma.com/blog; daily articles are published at https://zalma.substack.com.
Go to the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma; Follow Mr. Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library/
Insurance Expert May Not Testify to Speculative and Contains Unsupported Conclusions.
Posted on September 18, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fmifw-expert-may-only-testify-to-what-experience-supports.html
In Michele A. Over, and The Estate Of Paul R. Over v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, and State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, Civil Action No. 23-cv-02243-PAB-STV, United States District Court, D. Colorado (September 14, 2026) Michele and Paul Over sued State Farm Fire and State Farm Auto over hail-damage and stolen-vehicle claims.
The operative dispute concerned State Farm Auto’s motion to exclude or limit opinions from plaintiffs’ insurance-industry expert, Aaron Castillo. Castillo.
Law
The proponent of expert testimony must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that an expert is qualified and that the opinions are helpful, sufficiently grounded, and reliably derived and applied. Experience-based opinions must explain how the...
150 Months in Prison for Tax Fraud
Post 4846
Posted on September 17, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g8rh3JBX and https://lnkd.in/gmkdy-9C, In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
In United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, United States Of America v. Thomas Addaquay, Nos. 25-10609, 25-10611, United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit (September 9, 2026) the Eleventh Circuit affirmed all challenged convictions, the 150-month aggregate sentence, and the challenged $4,123,474.55 restitution award.
FACTS
Thomas Addaquay controlled United Consolidated Accounting and Business Services (UC), nominally a check-cashing business.
The government proved a three-stage tax-refund scheme that converted the resulting refund checks into usable funds through ...
Major Fraud Perpetrator Asserts Fifth Amendment Privilege to Avoid Prosecution
Post 5489
Posted on September 14, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraudster Refuses to Answer Questions About His Alleged Fraud
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr and at https://lnkd.in/gvicAMDr
In Great American Insurance Co. v. Gemstone Property Management, LLC, et al., No. 23-cv-9100 (LJL), United States District Court, S.D. New York (September 8, 2026) Great American Insurance Company alleged that it was defrauded through a scheme in which Subin Associates, LLP recruited individuals to stage construction-site injuries, arranged unnecessary medical treatment and litigation funding, and pursued fraudulent personal-injury claims.
Luis Manuel Garcia Salcedo, resulted in a $6 million settlement. Non-party Jose Hernandez allegedly worked as an assistant manager at Subin, operated Hernandez Associates, and owned litigation-funding companies that shared office space with Subin and provided services to its clients.
After Great American ...
Employee Report of Fraud Results in Damages Suit After Qui Tam Suit Settled
No Statutory Hearing Right Arose Because No Dental Commission Complaint License Suspension, Revocation, Or Sanction Occurred.
Post 4855
Posted on October 2, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Abbas Mohammadi et al. v. William M. Tong et al., No. AC 47598, Court of Appeals of Connecticut (September 29, 2026) Abbas Mohammadi owned and operated Columbia Dental, P.C., which provided dental services through multiple Connecticut offices; Columbia Oral Maxillofacial Imaging, LLC served as the billing entity.
From April 2012 to February 27, 2013, Columbia Dental employed Brittany Ames Mahoney as a dental assistant. During her employment, Mahoney claimed to have discovered certain billing irregularities, including, but not limited to, false and fraudulent reimbursement claims submitted to the Department of Social Services for services rendered to Medicaid beneficiaries. Mahoney filed a complaint and an affidavit in the United States District Court for the District of...
Another Anniversary for Barry Zalma, Inc
Posted on October 1, 2026 by Barry Zalma
From October 1, 1979 – 2026
Post 4854
Read the full issue of ZIFL at https://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2026/09/ZIFL-10-01-2026.pdf Forty seven years ago today I left the world of the employed and became an entrepreneur by opening my own law firm. The law practice was incorporated shortly thereafter as Barry Zalma, Inc.
When I opened for business on October 1, 1979, I had no clients and no certainty that I would have any in the future. I had borrowed money from the bank to carry me through the first six months and was concerned about my ability to pay the loan with my third child about to be born.
Much to my surprise and pleasure, on October 1, 1979, at 8:10 a.m., the best claims handler in the London market, Alan Warboys, called from London and provided me with my first case as an independent lawyer to represent Certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London. He, and the Lloyd’s Underwriters he represented, showed faith in me as a lawyer and insurance expert. Alan is now, although ...
Defendants Successfully Moved for Summary Judgment
Post 4854
Posted on September 30, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Jeffrey Wayne Phillips v. Creative Website Studios, et al., No. 5:23-CV-568-BO-BM, United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Western Division (September 28, 2026) the Court needed to rule on the order and memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”) of the Magistrate.
Jeffrey Wayne Phillips had contracted with Creative Website Studios and SR Telecommunications for website and hosting services. He alleged that defendants repeatedly billed him for hosting periods he had already paid for and later took down his website. Phillips claimed the outage prevented him from bidding on U.S. government security contracts and sought roughly $300 million in consequential damages.
LAW
Under North Carolina law, fraud requires a false material representation or concealment, intent and effect of deception, resulting damage, and reasonable reliance. Obtaining property by false pretenses similarly requires an ...