Fraud Perpetrator’s Attempt to Avoid Jail Fails
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gQ5tFc7C and see the video at https://lnkd.in/gAFhHHTv and at https://lnkd.in/gkt8idGF and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4250 posts.
After being convicted of multiple counts of fraud Ejaz Shreef was sentenced to a term of imprisonment for 48 months on each count, concurrent, followed by two years of supervised release.
In Ejaz Shreef v. United States of America, Nos. 3:18-cr-157-RJC-DCK-2, 3:22-cv-78-RJC, United States District Court, W.D. North Carolina, Charlotte Division (July 8, 2022) resolved his motion to reduce his sentence.
BACKGROUND
A federal grand jury indicted Shreef, along with three coconspirators, with conspiracy to commit wire and bank fraud (Count One); and conspiracy to commit money laundering (Count Two). As to Count One, the Indictment charged that, “[f]rom in or about April 2009 through in or about April 2018, … [Shreef and the coconspirators] did knowingly, conspire to commit offenses against the United States, including violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 (wire fraud) and 1344 (bank fraud).”
Shreef proceeded to a jury trial and the jury convicted him on both counts. On direct appeal, Shreef argued that the insurance fraud scheme supporting the wire fraud object of the conspiracy concluded prior to the running of the statute of limitations and, even if the charge was timely, insufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict; evidence of prior bad acts was inappropriately admitted against him; and trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a “reliance-on-expert” jury instruction.
On April 9, 2021, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the Court’s Judgment and declined to address the ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
Shreef, unwilling to accept the Fourth Circuit’s decision, filed a Motion to Vacate. Shreef argued:
prosecutorial misconduct for the Government submitting 18 U.S.C. §§ 1343 and 1344 to support Shreef’s conviction “without submitting such statutes to the grand jury;” and
ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel for failing to adequately investigate the case; and
allowing the Government to convict or maintain a conviction unconstitutionally.
DISCUSSION
Shreef argued that the Government “overreach[ed]” and the Verdict Form submitted to the jury mirrored the charges set forth in the Indictment. Consistent with the Indictment, the jury found that “wire fraud,” and “bank fraud,” were objects of the conspiracy.
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the accused the right to the assistance of counsel for his defense. To show ineffective assistance of counsel, Shreef must establish a deficient performance by counsel and, second, that the deficient performance prejudiced him.
Courts are required to recognize the strong presumption that counsel’s conduct falls within the wide range of reasonable professional assistance. Furthermore, in considering the prejudice prong of the analysis, the Court can only grant relief if the result of the proceeding was fundamentally unfair or unreliable.
Shreef bears the burden of showing that there is a reasonable probability that but for counsel’s failure to raise an issue on appeal, the result of the proceeding would have been different; i.e., that he would have prevailed on appeal.
The court concluded that there was no deficient performance by Shreef’s trial or appellate counsel for their failure to raise or attempt to support a frivolous argument. Moreover, Shreef failed to allege or shown any prejudice.
Therefore, Shreef’s Motion to Vacate was dismissed and denied.
ZALMA OPINION
Insurance fraud perpetrators do not expect to be caught. Experience shows that a very small percentage of fraud perpetrators are caught, even smaller groups are prosecuted and even smaller groups are convicted. Those who are convicted, like Mr. Shreef, believe that the only reason they were caught and convicted had to be the fault of someone else and claim prosecutorial misconduct and inadequacy of counsel. Since their crimes, but for the conviction, were probably successful, they have funds to support appeals and motions to keep themselves out of jail. Mr. Shreef’s second attempt properly failed.
Just published
Random Thoughts on Insurance Volume XIV: A Collection of Blog Posts from Zalma on Insurance —
(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 and receive videos limited to subscribers of Excellence in Claims Handling at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.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/
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 ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Policy Limits Demand Accepted Settles Claim
Post 5434
Posted on August 26, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-ZtsSgK and at https://lnkd.in/ghMBdYWR
A Contingent Offer Accepted Ends the Dispute
In Farmers Insurance Exchange, a California Reciprocal Insurance Exchange, The Superior Court For The County Of San Bernardino, Kathleen Ann Wood, E087128, California Court of Appeals, (July 9, 2026) Farmers Insurance Exchange insured Doyle Archer under an automobile policy with bodily injury limits of $15,000 per person and $30,000 per accident.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Archer rear-ended Kathleen Ann Wood at a red light, causing Wood to assert a bodily injury claim against him. Wood’s counsel sent Farmers a pre-litigation settlement demand offering to resolve Wood’s claim for the available policy limits, stating that if the $100,000 demand exceeded the policy, the offer was for the policy limits.
Farmers timely responded in writing, agreed to pay Wood the $15,000 per-person policy limit, and provided the requested ...
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional, and ACE’s retained expert concluded that gasoline had been poured in multiple areas and ignited. ACE retained coverage and subrogation counsel, National Subrogation Services, and a cause-and-origin expert ...
Arson for Profit is Ground to Deny Claim
Posted on September 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Communications with Arson Investigation is Privileged
Post 5488
ACE Was Not Required To Produce Any Disputed Document Because Each Was Protected By The Attorney-Client Privilege, or The Work-Product Doctrine.
See the full video at and at https://rumble.com/v7fbzvo-arson-for-profit-is-ground-to-deny-claim.html
In Rubesne Resources LLC, a Colorado Limited Liability Company v. ACE Property And Casualty Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Civil Action No. 1:24-cv-02300-DDD-SBP, United States District Court, D. Colorado (August 30, 2026) Rubesne Resources LLC sought insurance coverage from ACE Property and Casualty Company after a January 5, 2024 fire destroyed its business.
South Metro Fire Rescue classified the ignition as intentional.
After reviewing the disputed documents in camera, the court found that each was protected.
LAW
Colorado Revised Statutes § 10-4-1003 requires ...
Referral of Claims to its SIU Is Not Bad Faith
Post 5487
Posted on September 10, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In WIZ Collision, LLC, on behalf of itself and as assignee of Jawara Small, Chester Street LLC, and Aziz Brooks v. GEICO Corporation, No. 25-cv-4201 (KAM)(JAM), United States District Court, E.D. New York (August 28, 2026) Wiz Collision, a New York City auto-body shop, regularly repaired vehicles and submitted insurance claims for customers. It alleged that GEICO repeatedly approved claims and repairs, then referred certain claims to its Special Investigations Unit, stopped issuing payments, and delayed resolution despite ultimately finding no fraud.
Wiz Collision sued on its own behalf and as purported assignee of three customers, asserting contract, good-faith, consumer-protection, and injunctive claims. GEICO removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
LAW
Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint must plead facts supporting a facially plausible claim. Article III standing requires a concrete injury, ...
