Serial Fraudster Loses Request to Shorten Supervised Release
Post 4976
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gC-PVpVZ, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gQmG4Tx5 and at https://lnkd.in/g9XHGMVk and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 4950 posts.
Defendant Frank Capozzi, acting as his own lawyer, filed a letter-motion requesting early termination of his supervised release approximately 18 months into his 36-month term of supervised release.
In United States Of America v. Frank J. Capozzi, No. 3:16-CR-347, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (January 13, 2025) the USDC rejected the motion.
ANALYSIS
The primary purpose of supervised release is to facilitate the integration of offenders back into the community rather than to punish them. Congress has provided the sentencing court with the authority to terminate a defendant’s term of supervised release early pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e).
The factors the court must consider include:
1. the nature and circumstances of the offense and the defendant’s history and characteristics;
2. the need to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct, protect the public from further crimes of the defendant, and provide him with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner;
3. the kinds of sentence and sentencing range established for the defendant’s crimes;
4. pertinent policy statements issued by the United States Sentencing Commission;
5. the need to avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been found guilty of similar conduct; and
6. the need to provide restitution to any victims of the offense.
In the present case, on September 11,2019, Defendant Capozzi pleaded guilty to Counts 1 and 7 of the Indictment, specifically Conspiracy to Defraud the Government with Respect to Claims and Aggravated Identity Theft and Aiding and Abetting the same.
Conspiracy to Defraud the Government with Respect to Claims and Aggravated Identity Theft and Aiding and Abetting the same.
Capozzi’s convictions included his involvement in an extensive scheme from 2010 to 2014 to defraud the Department of the Treasury through the filing of false income tax returns. The falsified tax returns often used the identities of individuals, many of whom were incarcerated, who had no knowledge that returns were being filed in their name.
Since the age of 19 the most recent convictions prior to the commencement of the instant case in 2016 include a state court conviction in 2013 for “Fraud in Completing Insurance Claims; Insurance Fraud; Theft by Deception; and Conspiracy – Theft by Deception” due to Capozzi’s submission in 2011 of false employment information to Allstate Insurance to receive disability benefits to which he was not entitled.
On September 9, 2020, the USDC sentenced Capozzi to a term of incarceration of 70 months, to be followed by a term of supervised release of 3 years. Capozzi began his three-year term of supervised release in mid-2023 and has now served approximately 20-months of his supervised release term. Capozzi moved for early termination of his supervised release.
Capozzi presented little evidence that “new or unforeseen circumstances” have arisen warranting the early termination of Defendant’s supervised release.
Capozzi’s history and characteristics, and in particular his history of engaging in various types of fraudulent activity since 2010, as evidenced by his convictions in the current action as well as those in 2013 and 2014, weigh against early termination of his supervised release and demonstrate a need for continued supervision.
Defendant Capozzi’s letter-motion requesting early termination of his supervised release was denied.
ZALMA OPINION
Mr. Capozzi was a seasoned fraudster whose schemes cheated the government, the public and the insurance industry out of millions of dollars. His last conviction put him in jail for 70 months and 36 months of Supervised Release (parole). He asked the court to let him free of the supervised release but without sufficient evidence. He was a serious criminal and every time he was jailed he came out and committed more fraudulent crimes and sought mercy without any hope he will not commit more fraud.
(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
Happy Law Day
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-may-1-2026-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2tywc, see the video at at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year and is written by Barry Zalma.
DOJ Creates National Fraud Enforcement Division
Will the Feds Take on Insurance Fraud? Possibly as Part of a National Anti-Fraud Effort
On April 7, 2026, the Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, issued a memorandum establishing the Department of Justice National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED). The memo describes an ambitious, but perhaps redundant, vision for this ...
When Abalone Died As a Result of Multiple Causes The Efficient Proximate Cause Requires Payment
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/efficient-proximate-cause-doctrine-saves-claim-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-yndlc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In American Abalone Farms, LLC v. Star Insurance Company et al., H052643, California Court of Appeals, Sixth District (April 27, 2026) the Court of Appeals dealt with an insurance coverage issue that required application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine.
FACTS
American Abalone Farms, LLC ("American Abalone" ) operates an aquaculture farm in Santa Cruz County, California, raising abalone in tanks. In August 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex Fires led to a prolonged power outage and road closures near the farm. As a result, the farm’s water pumps failed, causing the death of most of the ...
Breach of a Specific Condition Precedent Is a Complete Defense
See the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In United Services Automobile Association and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Anthony Wenzell, 2026 CO 25 (Colo. Apr. 27, 2026) Anthony Wenzell was rear-ended in a car accident. He had a significant prior 2014 accident that required back surgery.
Wenzell claimed underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits under three policies: (1) the tortfeasor’s liability policy, (2) his own primary UIM policy with State Farm, and (3) an excess UIM policy issued by USAA (under his brother’s policy, which contained an “other insurance” clause making USAA’s coverage excess over any collectible insurance).
After receiving the claims, both USAA and State Farm repeatedly requested that Wenzell execute comprehensive medical-release authorizations so they could obtain his full medical records and ...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.
A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...
