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
The Largest Residential Burglary of All Time
Post 5407
Fraud & the Fear of Bad Faith Suits
Posted on July 22, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the full video at https://lnkd.in/gWQQEySW and at https://lnkd.in/gyhdK6wv
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help 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.
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help 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.
After ...
Chutzpah is not Enough
Post 5397
Posted on July 20, 2026 by Barry Zalma
See the video and at https://lnkd.in/gNUs2XzT and at https://lnkd.in/g2MawyzX
Magistrate Issues a Search Warrant if there is a Fair Probability that Contraband or Evidence of a Crime will be Found in a Particular Place.
In United States Of America v. Frank Suess, et al., CRIMINAL No. 3:24-308, United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania (July 16, 2026) a federal grand jury indicted Frank Suess, Melissa Driscoll, and others in a 55-count health care fraud and anti-kickback prosecution arising from an alleged scheme involving medically unnecessary prescription “foot baths.”
As part of the investigation, the FBI obtained an August 19, 2022 warrant to search Driscoll’s Sterling Pharmacy Yahoo email account for emails from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2020. Driscoll moved to suppress the resulting evidence, arguing that the warrant lacked probable cause, was overbroad, and rested on material misstatements and omissions.
LAW:
The ...
Fraud Shouldn’t Pay
Post 5396
See the video and at https://rumble.com/v7ctgmq-the-great-jewel-theft.html at https://youtu.be/aRbQ2sJfGwA
This is a Fictionalized True Crime Story of Insurance Fraud explaining why Insurance Fraud is a “Heads I Win, Tails You Lose” situation for Insurers. The story is one of a collection designed to help 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.
The Insured purchased, for the first time in his life, a policy of Personal Articles Floater Insurance (PAF) scheduling $125,000 worth of ladies jewelry. He advised the insurer that the jewelry was always kept in a class E safe at his residence. He also told the insurer that he was employed full time as the owner of a gasoline service station and that he had never been canceled or suffered a previous loss.
One month after the policy was ...
Day Care Owner Loses Subsidies Because She Criticized State
Post 5421
Posted on August 11, 2026 by Barry Zalma
First Amendment Right Will be Allowed to Go to Trial
In Betsey J. Grant v. Maine State Department Of Heath And Human Services, No. 1:25-cv-00490-JAW, United States District Court, D. Maine (August 6, 2026), Betsey J. Grant, a licensed childcare provider and operator of Tiny Tikes Daycare in Trenton, Maine, sued Maine DHHS and several employees after she publicly criticized DHHS before Maine’s Government Oversight Committee and alleged that officials retaliated against her.
She claimed DHHS imposed and extended a conditional license, published stigmatizing information, interfered with subsidies and program funding, removed her from a food program, rescinded an expansion grant, and used biased or falsified evidence in licensing proceedings. Following the March 10, 2023, GOC testimony, Ms. Grant alleges that foster children's subsidies (approximately $30,000) were withheld; she was removed from the ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units. After an underlying personal injury action was filed, Union Mutual determined that the property actually contained three apartment units and rescinded the policies on the ground that the defendants had made a material misrepresentation in the applications.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true ...
Rescission for Material Misrepresentation
Post 5418
Posted on August 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
An Insurer May Rescind An Insurance Policy Where The Applicant Made A Material Misrepresentation In The Application.
In Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, et al. No. 2024-10359, Index No. 602824/22, 2026 NY Slip Op 04789, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (July 29, 2026) Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company issued commercial insurance policies to 844 Knickerbocker, LLC, and Sanjaya Mallick based on applications stating that the insured property contained two apartment units.
LAW:
A misrepresentation is material if the insurer would not have issued the same policy, or would have issued it only on different terms, had the true facts been disclosed. To establish materiality as a matter of law, the insurer must submit documentation of its underwriting practices, such as manuals, guidelines, bulletins, or rules addressing similar risks.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
As a result, the...
