When You Do the Crime You Must Do the Time
Post 5224
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/ghNVD-f9, see the video at https://lnkd.in/gPCxMn5T and at https://lnkd.in/ga6ZVGDz, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5200 posts.
When a Person is Convicted of a Crime The Hardship Inflicted on His Family is the Result of His Actions Alone
In United States v. Tarek Abou-Khatwa, CRIMINAL No. 18-cr-67 (TSC), United States District Court, District of Columbia (October 24, 2025) after Defendant Tarek Abou-Khatwa was convicted in November 2019 on 22 counts related to a sophisticated health insurance fraud scheme as head of an insurance-brokerage firm, initially Tarek was sentenced to 70 months in prison.
Home Confinement:
After less than 16 months in prison, Tarek was placed on home confinement under the CARES Act. He was later remanded to prison for violating the conditions of his home confinement order.
Motion for Sentence Reduction:
Tarek filed for sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) based on Amendment 821 to the Sentencing Guidelines, which provides a two-point offense-level reduction for certain zero-point offenders.
Legal Analysis – Eligibility for Sentence Reduction
Both parties agreed Abou-Khatwa was eligible for a reduction under Amendment 821, which applies retroactively and would lower his guideline range from 70–87 months to 57–71 months. The court is required to consider the nature and (1) the nature and circumstances of the offense, (2) the history and characteristics of the defendant; (3) the need for the sentence imposed; (4) the kinds of sentences available; (5) the sentencing range established; (6) any Sentencing Commission policy statements; (7) the need to avoid sentencing disparities among defendants; and (8) the need to provide restitution. [18 U.S.C. § 3553(a).] The court noted that the 8 factors counsel strongly against a sentence reduction.
The court found the crimes were serious, motivated by greed, and involved a calculated scheme resulting in large losses to both a major insurer and small business clients. Defendant’s conduct during home confinement — his failure to disclose financial information, persistent complaints about restrictions, and lack of full accountability — counted against any reduction in his sentence.
The court acknowledged Abou-Khatwa’s low risk of recidivism and hardships faced by his family. The court also noted that these factors were already considered at sentencing and did not outweigh the seriousness of the offense. However, the court concluded that Abou-Khatwa’s crimes were serious and motivated by greed.
Despite making “a handsome living” and “enjoy[ing] a life of great privilege,” Defendant engaged in a years-long, calculated scheme to line his pockets with millions of fraudulently obtained dollars.
CONCLUSION
Although eligible for a sentence reduction, the court found it unwarranted given the facts and law. The court ordered the original sentence to stand.
It is important to note that hardships for defendants and their families are common in criminal cases. The existence of hardships on Tarek and his family they were not particularly compelling in Tarek’s case because the hardships do not outweigh the seriousness of the Defendant’s crimes and his inappropriate conduct while on home confinement.
ZALMA OPINION
The USDC for the District of Columbia recognized the seriousness of health insurance fraud that made Abou-Khatwa tons of money hurting individuals and insurers for his handsome living that allowed him to enjoy a life of great privilege. He was caught, tried and convicted and showed contempt for the system by abusing home confinement. He will, therefore, serve his entire sentence in prison and is responsible for the hardships incurred by his family not the prosecutors or the court.
(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 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 InsuranceClaims 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...
