Guilty Verdict of Mortgage Fraud Scheme Stands
Post 5010
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-epidemic-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-6kldc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v6q873m-fraud-is-epidemic.html and at https://youtu.be/8EOUxLFggc0, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5000 posts.
People Who Commit Fraud Have no Respect and Compelled the Trial Court to Deal With Dozens of Ineffective Motions
People Who Commit Fraud Have no Respect and Compelled the Trial Court to Deal With Dozens of Ineffective Motions
A jury convicted Defendant Jeffrey Young-Bey on twelve counts related to a mortgage-fraud scheme he perpetrated in the District of Columbia. Young-Bey moved for a judgment of acquittal and for a new trial. The USDC, in United States Of America v. Jeffrey M. Young-Bey, Criminal Action No. 21-661 (CKK), United States District Court, District of Columbia (February 28, 2025) found the verdict was based on convincing evidence and denied his motion.
FACTS
A mortgage-fraud scheme in the District of Columbia resulted in the conviction of Jeffrey Young-Bey on twelve counts related to the scheme, including Conspiracy to Commit Mail Fraud and Bank Fraud, Mail Fraud, Bank Fraud, Conspiracy to Launder Monetary Instruments, Expenditure Money Laundering, and Aggravated Identity Theft.
Young-Bey orchestrated a scheme to steal the title to two properties in Washington, D.C. and convinced a bank to loan money against those properties. He created fake deeds, forged signatures, and tricked the D.C. Recorder of Deeds into memorializing the fraudulent ownership. Using these fraudulent deeds, Young-Bey and his co-defendant, Martina Jones, secured loans from Hard Money Bankers.
At trial, the Government proved that Young-Bey orchestrated a scheme to steal the title to two properties in Washington, D.C. and convince a bank to loan money against those properties.
Using the fraudulent deed, Young-Bey and Jones worked together to strike a deal with Hard Money Bankers (“Hard Money”), a real-estate financier. Young-Bey and Jones lied to Hard Money, telling them that Jones had inherited the Bryant Street property and that Jones was renting it to a non-existent tenant. With the fake deed and a fake lease in hand, Young-Bey and Jones convinced Hard Money to lend Jones $350,000 against the Bryant Street Property. When Jones received the money, she wired half of it to Young-Bey at his direction. And Young-Bey used these proceeds to buy a BMW with a cashier’s check.
The jury found him guilty of conspiring to commit, and committing, frauds and confidence schemes. The entire purpose of the conspiracy and the frauds was to make forged documents and lies appear as legitimate as possible.
LEGAL STANDARD
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 permits a defendant to move for a post-verdict judgment of acquittal if the evidence presented at trial cannot sustain a conviction. The Court must presume, when considering such a motion, that the jury has properly carried out its functions of evaluating the credibility of witnesses, finding the facts, and drawing justifiable inferences.
MOTION FOR ACQUITTAL
A rational jury could have concluded that, with fraudulent documents in hand, Young-Bey felt no need to lie or obscure his identity. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, a rational jury could have concluded that Young-Bey acted knowingly and with the intent to defraud.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, and for all the reasons stated, the Court denied Young-Bey’s Motion for Acquittal.
MOTIONS DENIED
In sum, Young-Bey is not entitled to a new trial because has not shown any error that was substantial and not harmless that affected his substantial rights.
The court’s decision was based on the sufficiency of the evidence presented at trial, which showed that Young-Bey knowingly participated in the fraudulent scheme with the intent to defraud. The court also addressed various legal standards and arguments presented by Young-Bey, ultimately finding no basis for acquittal or a new trial.
Accordingly, the Court denied Young-Bey’s Motion for a New Trial and Motion for Judgement of Acquittal.
ZALMA OPINION
I’m tired of reading cases taking up the time of courts across the USA to try, convict, argue, appeal and just annoy the legal process. Mr. Young-Bey was convicted in a fair trial before a jury of his peers of crimes relating to fraudulent actions damaging lenders to live well, profit and purchase expensive automobiles. His conviction, as described in a multi-page opinion of the USDC was founded in convincing evidence that a rational jury could only find him, as it did, guilty. May he enjoy his time in prison.
(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
Jury’s Findings Interpreting Insurance Contract Affirmed
Post 5105
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gPa6Vpg8 and at https://lnkd.in/ghgiZNBN, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc. (“Madelaine Chocolate”) appealed the district court’s judgment following a jury verdict in favor of Great Northern Insurance Company (“Great Northern”) concerning storm-surge damage caused by “Superstorm Sandy” to Madelaine Chocolate’s production facilities.
In Madelaine Chocolate Novelties, Inc., d.b.a. The Madelaine Chocolate Company v. Great Northern Insurance Company, No. 23-212, United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit (June 20, 2025) affirmed the trial court ruling in favor of the insurer.
BACKGROUND
Great Northern refused to pay the full claim amount and paid Madelaine Chocolate only about $4 million. In disclaiming coverage, Great Northern invoked the Policy’s flood-exclusion provision, which excludes, in relevant part, “loss or damage caused by ....
Failure to Name a Party as an Additional Insured Defeats Claim
Post 5104
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gbcTYSNa, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/ggmDyTnT and at https://lnkd.in/gZ-uZPh7, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Contract Interpretation is Based on the Clear and Unambiguous Language of the Policy
In Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. v. Sentinel Insurance Company, Ltd., No. 23-CV-10400 (MMG), United States District Court, S.D. New York (June 16, 2025) an insurance coverage dispute arising from a personal injury action in New York State Supreme Court.
The underlying action, Eduardo Molina v. Venchi 2, LLC, et al., concerned injuries allegedly resulting from a construction accident at premises owned by Central Area Equities Associates LLC (CAEA) and leased by Venchi 2 LLC with the USDC required to determine who was entitled to a defense from which insurer.
KEY POINTS
Parties Involved:
CAEA is insured by Associated Industries Insurance Company, Inc. ...
Exclusion Establishes that There is No Duty to Defend Off Site Injuries
Post 5103
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/geje73Gh, see the full video at https://lnkd.in/gnQp4X-f and at https://lnkd.in/gPPrB47p, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5100 posts.
Attack by Vicious Dog Excluded
In Foremost Insurance Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan v. Michael B. Steele and Sarah Brown and Kevin Lee Price, Civil Action No. 3:24-CV-00684, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (June 16, 2025)
Foremost Insurance Company (“Foremost”) sued Michael B. Steele (“Steele”), Sarah Brown (“Brown”), and Kevin Lee Price (“Price”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Foremost sought declaratory relief in the form of a declaration that
1. it owes no insurance coverage to Steele and has no duty to defend or indemnify Steele in an underlying tort action and
2. defense counsel that Foremost has assigned to Steele in the underlying action may withdraw his appearance.
Presently before the Court are two ...
ZIFL Volume 29, Issue 10
The Source for the Insurance Fraud Professional
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gK_P4-BK and at https://lnkd.in/g2Q7BHBu, and at https://zalma.com/blog and at https://lnkd.in/gjyMWHff.
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 29th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year by ClaimSchool and is written by Barry Zalma. It is provided FREE to anyone who visits the site at http://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-2/ You can read the full issue of the May 15, 2025 issue at http://zalma.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/ZIFL-05-15-2025.pdf
This issue contains the following articles about insurance fraud:
Health Care Fraud Trial Results in Murder for Hire of Witness
To Avoid Conviction for Insurance Fraud Defendants Murder Witness
In United States of America v. Louis Age, Jr.; Stanton Guillory; Louis Age, III; Ronald Wilson, Jr., No. 22-30656, United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit (April 25, 2025) the Fifth Circuit dealt with the ...
Professional Health Care Services Exclusion Effective
Post 5073
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/g-f6Tjm5 and at https://lnkd.in/gx3agRzi, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5050 posts.
This opinion is the recommendation of a Magistrate Judge to the District Court Judge and involves Travelers Casualty Insurance Company and its duty to defend the New Mexico Bone and Joint Institute (NMBJI) and its physicians in a medical negligence lawsuit brought by Tervon Dorsey.
In Travelers Casualty Insurance Company Of America v. New Mexico Bone And Joint Institute, P.C.; American Foundation Of Lower Extremity Surgery And Research, Inc., a New Mexico Corporation; Riley Rampton, DPM; Loren K. Spencer, DPM; Tervon Dorsey, individually; Kimberly Dorsey, individually; and Kate Ferlic as Guardian Ad Litem for K.D. and J.D., minors, No. 2:24-cv-0027 MV/DLM, United States District Court, D. New Mexico (May 8, 2025) the Magistrate Judge Recommended:
Insurance Coverage Dispute:
Travelers issued a Commercial General Liability ...
A Heads I Win, Tails You Lose Story
Post 5062
Posted on April 30, 2025 by Barry Zalma
"This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud that explains why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is designed to help everyone to Understand How Insurance Fraud in America is Costing Everyone who Buys Insurance Thousands of Dollars Every year and Why Insurance Fraud is Safer and More Profitable for the Perpetrators than any Other Crime."
Immigrant Criminals Attempt to Profit From Insurance Fraud
People who commit insurance fraud as a profession do so because it is easy. It requires no capital investment. The risk is low and the profits are high. The ease with which large amounts of money can be made from insurance fraud removes whatever moral hesitation might stop the perpetrator from committing the crime.
The temptation to do everything outside the law was the downfall of the brothers Karamazov. The brothers had escaped prison in the old Soviet Union by immigrating to the United...
