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
Arsonist Tried To Represent Himself, Failed, and Sought Habeas Relief
Post number 5357
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/he-who-acts-his-own-lawyer-has-idiot-client-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-d4bwc, See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Karacson’s Arson for Profit Attempt Required Skill & Experience to Succeed
In Steve Ellis Karacson v. David Shaver, Warden, No. 25-1089, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit (May 20, 2026) Steve Karacson was convicted in Michigan state court of arson and insurance fraud after evidence showed he burned his own insured home. Investigators found multiple points of origin, gasoline odor, and evidence tying him to the scene, including cell-phone location data and a receipt showing he had purchased a gas can and gloves shortly before the fire.
FACTS
Karacson initially had appointed counsel, but his relationships with both appointed attorneys ...
Foolish to Repeatedly Disobey Court Orders
All That Remains For Trial Is Plaintiff’s Damages On Each Of These Claims And Establishing Proximate Causation Of Those Damages.
Post number 5348
See the full video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus 5300 posts.
In Linh Wang v. Esurance Insurance Company, No. C24-0447-JCC, United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle (May 1, 2026) John C. Coughenour, United States District Judge, found that throughout this case, culminating with its briefing on Plaintiff’s renewed motion and that Defendant has subjected Plaintiff to unnecessary motion practice for clearly discoverable information and made dubious representations (including to the Court).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
This case involves an underinsured/uninsured motorist insurance bad faith claim arising from a 2017 motor vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Linh Wang, alleges that Esurance Insurance ...
The Right to Negotiate with Insurer is Not an Assignment of Claims
Post number 5347
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/ambiguous-contract-repair-assignment-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2xppc, see the full video at https://rumble.com/v79is1s-ambiguous-contract-to-repair-not-an-assignment.html and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Nebraska Requires an Actual Assignment to Allow Contractor to Sue Insurer
In Millard Gutter Company, a corporation doing business as Millard Roofing and Gutter v. Farmers Mutual Insurance Company of Nebraska, also known as Farmers Mutual Insurance, also known as Farmers Mutual, No. A-24-818, Court of Appeals of Nebraska (May 5, 2026) Millard sued Farmers as an assignee of Jane Anzalone who had hired Millard Gutter to repair the roof of her home and agreed to allow Millard Gutter to coordinate with her insurer, Farmers Mutual, concerning reimbursement for repairs authorized under her insurance policy.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
In ...
Qui Tam Case Without Evidence to Prove Fraud Fails
Post number 5369
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/qui-tam-insurer-contended-defrauded-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-pgfgc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5550 posts.
In People Of The State Of California Ex Rel. Heath & Yuen, APC v. Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC et al., B342847, California Court of Appeals, Second District, Eighth Division (June 5, 2026) Heath & Yuen, APC defended parties in an automobile collision case involving a McLaren and a tour van. After that case settled for $25,000, the firm filed a qui tam action under California’s Insurance Frauds Prevention Act (IFPA) against Silver Bird Auto Leasing, LLC, X-Law Group, PC, and Filippo Marchino. The firm alleged three fraudulent acts in the underlying litigation:
1. the complaint falsely stated the McLaren was making a “legal turn,”
2. respondents produced a fraudulent repair bill/estimate, and
3. respondents failed to disclose Marchino’s GEICO insurance and its payment for repairs....
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
Full Faith and Credit Act Controlled
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/evHXiiFE and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post number 5368
Posted on June 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
In Prime Insurance Company, Inc. v. Medicab Transportation, LLC, Jason Rhodes, and Dale Johnson v. Prime Insurance Company, Inc and Prime Property & Casualty Insurance, Inc. No. 2:24-cv-421-SPC-KRH, United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division (June 3, 2026) Medicab, a paratransit company, bought two policies in 2021: a Business Auto Policy from PPCI and a Commercial Liability Policy from Prime. Both policies, as originally written, appeared to cover injuries arising from loading and unloading patients from Medicab vans.
After a patient, Margaret St. Aubin, fell while being unloaded from a van and suffered injuries, her Estate made a $1 million demand. Prime and its claims administrator concluded that the Commercial Policy’s loading/unloading language had been included by mutual mistake, because...
