Daniel Carpenter Guilty of $30 Million Fraud Out of Prison and Fights Collection of Judgment
Keeping the Proceeds of Fraud Refused by Tenth Circuit
Post 4966
Universitas Education, LLC sued to recover funds it lost in an elaborate insurance fraud scheme perpetrated by convicted felon Daniel Carpenter. The underlying litigation occurred in the Southern District of New York, leading to a civil judgment against multiple defendants. Among the corporate entities allegedly used to perpetrate the fraud was Avon Capital, LLC and several of its affiliates located in Oklahoma, Nevada, and Wyoming. Universitas sought to garnish a $6.7 million insurance portfolio held by SDM Holdings, which Avon owns, located in Oklahoma.
In Universitas Education, LLC v. Avon Capital, LLC, Nos. 23-6125, 23-6167, 23-6126, 23-6168, 24-6066, 24-6033, United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit (December 31, 2024), after registering the judgment in Oklahoma, Universitas sought summary judgment on its entitlement to the funds.
The district court entered summary judgment for Universitas and authorized a receivership over Avon and SDM. Avon and SDM appealed, claiming a myriad of procedural defects and disputes on the merits. After an adverse appellate decision the court again entered judgment in favor of Universitas after Universitas re-registered the New York judgment. The district court re-entered summary judgment in its favor, and reauthorized the receivership over Avon and SDM. Avon and SDM challenged that ruling, claiming the district court lost jurisdiction over the claims and that Universitas did not properly revive them as required by Oklahoma law.
BACKGROUND
Fraud Resulted in Criminal Conviction of Daniel Carpenter
Carpenter had devised and carried out an insurance fraud scheme that, among other wrongdoing, defrauded Universitas of $30 million in life insurance proceeds. The fraud was uncovered, and Mr. Carpenter was convicted for his crimes.
In its efforts to recover losses, Universitas sued in the Southern District of New York, naming as defendants a group of Mr. Carpenter’s corporate entities. One of those entities was Avon Capital, LLC, a Connecticut company.
Universitas eventually secured a judgment in that suit for $30.6 million in 2014, of which $6.7 million was against Avon Capital, LLC. Each of these Avon entities was ninety-nine percent owned by Carpenter Financial and one percent owned by Caroline Financial-both of which were controlled by Daniel Carpenter.
The district court referred cross-motions for summary judgment, along with follow-on evidentiary motions, to the magistrate judge, who issued a 73-page Report and Recommendation finding that the entities were “one and the same for purposes of their liability to Universitas.” The magistrate judge also determined that, because Avon-WY fraudulently acquired the SDM insurance portfolio using stolen funds (provided by Avon-NV), the insurance portfolio was subject to garnishment.
The district court agreed and granted summary judgment to Universitas over the objections of Avon and SDM. The district court traced the fraudulently transferred funds to Avon-WY’s acquisition of SDM Holdings life insurance portfolio and pierced Avon-WY’s corporate veil to allow Universitas to execute the judgment against the insurance portfolio.
In an order issued February 11, 2021, the district court enjoined Avon-WY from transferring or disbursing any of its interests in SDM and placed it into a receivership under Oklahoma law.
ANALYSIS
Avon and SDM raised a combined cascade of nineteen issues on appeal.
JURISDICTION AFTER THE MANDATE
Receivership
Avon and SDM argued that the district court erred by reappointing a receiver over Avon Capital-WY and its interests in SDM Holding. The appointment of the receiver rests on interpretation of an authorizing statute, the district court’s interpretation was reviewed and found to be proper.
CONCLUSION
In 2008, Mr. Carpenter stole $30 million worth of life insurance proceeds that were meant for Universitas. Universitas received its arbitration judgment against Mr. Carpenter and his entities, including Avon, in 2012. That judgment is valid for twenty years. Mr. Carpenter has been tried and convicted for his fraudulent business activities twice. See generally, United States v. Carpenter, 405 F.Supp.2d 85 (D. Mass. Dec. 15, 2005); United States v. Carpenter, 190 F.Supp.3d 260, 274 (D. Conn. June 6, 2016).
He has been sentenced and even fully served out those sentences in the years since Universitas first received its judgment.
While Mr. Carpenter’s debt to society may have been repaid, his entities’ debts to Universitas certainly have not and the judgment may be collected from the receivers.
ZALMA OPINION
Insurance fraud perpetrators, like Mr. Carpenter, prefer to spend time in jail rather than pay the victims of his crime by multiple motions, trials, appeals and obfuscation. This case put to rest Mr. Carpenter’s attempts to avoid payment to the victim of his fraud, Universitas and the lawyers will be forced to deal with the need to pay Universitas $30 million plus interest..
(c) 2025 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Please tell your friends and colleagues about this blog and the videos and let them subscribe to the blog and the videos.
Subscribe to my substack at https://barryzalma.substack.com/subscribe
Go to X @bzalma; Go to Newsbreak.com https://www.newsbreak.com/@c/1653419?s=01; Go to Barry Zalma videos at Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/account/content?type=all; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg
Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://lnkd.in/gwEYk
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 ...
If Grounds For Dismissal Are Apparent From The Face Of The Complaint, A Court May Also Dismiss The Case on The Court’s Own Motion
Posted on October 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Pro Se Plaintiff Failed to Make a Short and Plain Statement
Post 4856
In Tak Lun Ng v. United Financial Casualty Company, No. 26-cv-03136-LJC, United States District Court, N.D. California (September 28, 2026) Tak Lun Ng, proceeding pro se, sued United Financial Casualty Company over a March 2, 2021 automobile accident and the insurer’s March 24, 2021 refusal to pay him.
He appeared to assert breach of contract, fraud, negligence, premises liability, product liability, and related theories. United removed the action from state court and moved to dismiss.
Ng missed that deadline but later filed several documents, including a motion for leave to amend, all of which the court reviewed.
LAW
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must provide a short and plain statement containing enough factual matter to state a facially plausible...
If Grounds For Dismissal Are Apparent From The Face Of The Complaint, A Court May Also Dismiss The Case on The Court’s Own Motion
Posted on October 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Pro Se Plaintiff Failed to Make a Short and Plain Statement
Post 4856
In Tak Lun Ng v. United Financial Casualty Company, No. 26-cv-03136-LJC, United States District Court, N.D. California (September 28, 2026) Tak Lun Ng, proceeding pro se, sued United Financial Casualty Company over a March 2, 2021 automobile accident and the insurer’s March 24, 2021 refusal to pay him.
He appeared to assert breach of contract, fraud, negligence, premises liability, product liability, and related theories. United removed the action from state court and moved to dismiss.
Ng missed that deadline but later filed several documents, including a motion for leave to amend, all of which the court reviewed.
LAW
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must provide a short and plain statement containing enough factual matter to state a facially plausible...
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...
