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
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 ...
Psychiatrist Who Was Convicted of Fraud Asked the First Circuit to Reduce his Punishment
Post 4851
Posted on September 24, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Fraud to Private and Public Health Insurers Doesn’t Pay
In United States v. Gustavo Kinrys, Nos. 24-1592, 24-1716, United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit (September 21, 2026) Gustavo Kinrys, a Massachusetts psychiatrist, submitted fraudulent claims to private and public health insurers from 2015 through 2018, including bills for more than 1,000 sessions when he or the purported patient was outside the country. When insurers requested supporting records, he delayed through a fictitious office manager and created false documentation.
A jury convicted Kinrys on fourteen counts. The district court imposed a 99-month sentence, calculated intended loss at slightly more than $19 million based on billed amounts, ordered $6,537,309.59 in restitution, and ordered $6,527,391.19 in forfeiture.
At sentencing, the district court calculated Kinrys’s base offense level to be ...
The Collateral-Source Rule is a Narrow Exception to the Prohibition Against Double Recovery
Post 4850
Posted on September 23, 2026 by Barry Zalma
A Surety Stands In The Principal’s Shoes And May Assert The Principal’s Defenses.
In Hudson Insurance Company v. Archer Western Federal, JV, No. 1:24-cv-544 (PTG/IDD), United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Alexandria Division (September 18, 2026) Archer Western Federal, JV (“AWF”), the prime contractor for a new fire station at Marine Corps Base Quantico, subcontracted roofing work to Eastern General Contractor, Inc. (“EGC”) for $456,330.
Hudson Insurance Company (“Hudson”) issued payment and performance bonds, each with a $456,330 penal sum.
AWF later sought recovery under both bonds.
LAW
Under Virginia law, the collateral-source rule is a narrow exception to the prohibition against double recovery. A surety stands in the principal’s shoes and may assert the principal’s defenses. Liability under the bonds required EGC’s ...
Defendants May Not Enjoin a Suit Alleging They Defrauded the Plaintiffs
Plaintiffs, automobile insurers, sued medical professionals and healthcare entities, alleging a scheme to submit fraudulent personal injury protection (PIP) bills and supporting documentation for services that were not performed or were medically unnecessary. The complaint asserted common-law fraud, violations of the New Jersey Insurance Fraud Prevention Act (IFPA), aiding and abetting fraud, unjust enrichment, and declaratory relief.
While the action was pending, Plaintiffs moved to stay and enjoin related PIP arbitrations. A magistrate judge recommended denial. in State Farm Guaranty Insurance Company v. Tri-County Chiropractic And Rehabilitation Center P.C., Civil Action No. 22-4852, United States District Court, D. New Jersey (September 15, 2026)
After the New Jersey Supreme Court decided Allstate New Jersey Insurance Company v. Carteret Comprehensive Medical Care, P.C., the federal court reopened the case and considered the parties’ supplemental...
