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.
Happy Law Day
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/zalmas-insurance-fraud-letter-may-1-2026-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-2tywc, see the video at at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
THE SOURCE FOR THE INSURANCE FRAUD PROFESSIONAL
ZIFL – Volume 30, Issue 9 – May 1, 2026
Zalma’s Insurance Fraud Letter (ZIFL) continues its 30th year of publication dedicated to those involved in reducing the effect of insurance fraud. ZIFL is published 24 times a year and is written by Barry Zalma.
DOJ Creates National Fraud Enforcement Division
Will the Feds Take on Insurance Fraud? Possibly as Part of a National Anti-Fraud Effort
On April 7, 2026, the Acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, issued a memorandum establishing the Department of Justice National Fraud Enforcement Division (NFED). The memo describes an ambitious, but perhaps redundant, vision for this ...
When Abalone Died As a Result of Multiple Causes The Efficient Proximate Cause Requires Payment
Post number 5345
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/efficient-proximate-cause-doctrine-saves-claim-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-yndlc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In American Abalone Farms, LLC v. Star Insurance Company et al., H052643, California Court of Appeals, Sixth District (April 27, 2026) the Court of Appeals dealt with an insurance coverage issue that required application of the efficient proximate cause doctrine.
FACTS
American Abalone Farms, LLC ("American Abalone" ) operates an aquaculture farm in Santa Cruz County, California, raising abalone in tanks. In August 2020, the CZU Lightning Complex Fires led to a prolonged power outage and road closures near the farm. As a result, the farm’s water pumps failed, causing the death of most of the ...
Breach of a Specific Condition Precedent Is a Complete Defense
See the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
In United Services Automobile Association and State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Anthony Wenzell, 2026 CO 25 (Colo. Apr. 27, 2026) Anthony Wenzell was rear-ended in a car accident. He had a significant prior 2014 accident that required back surgery.
Wenzell claimed underinsured-motorist (UIM) benefits under three policies: (1) the tortfeasor’s liability policy, (2) his own primary UIM policy with State Farm, and (3) an excess UIM policy issued by USAA (under his brother’s policy, which contained an “other insurance” clause making USAA’s coverage excess over any collectible insurance).
After receiving the claims, both USAA and State Farm repeatedly requested that Wenzell execute comprehensive medical-release authorizations so they could obtain his full medical records and ...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
It is Fraud to Make the Same Claim Twice
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/fraud-make-same-claim-twice-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-c4g8c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Chutzpah: After Being Paid for a New Roof Insured Makes Second Claim For Same Damages
Post number 5347
No One is Entitled to be Paid for the Same Loss Twice
In Mohammed Ali Khalili v. State Farm Lloyds, No. 14-25-00611-CV, Court of Appeals of Texas (April 30, 2026) Khalili maintained a State Farm Lloyds homeowners insurance policy for decades. In 2008 he filed a roof-damage claim; State Farm paid him to replace the entire roof (shingles and gutters). Khalili never replaced the roof and repeated his claim.
BACKGROUND
In 2021 he filed a second roof claim. State Farm’s inspectors found the roof “very old” with extensive non-storm-related damage. The claim was denied because (1) the damage did not exceed the deductible and (2) State Farm had already paid for a full roof replacement.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
State Farm filed motion for summary...
What Must be Done after Notice of a Claim is Received by the Insurer
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gzvvdkMZ and at https://zalma.com/blog.
Below you will read from this post until you reach the the end of this blog post as the free part of an Excellence in Claims Handling post. To read the full article and receive all articles for members of Excellence in Claims Handling you should consider joining as a paid member to get full access to articles for members only, to our news, analysis, insurance coverage, claims, insurance fraud and insurance webinars, by clicking at the subscription link below.
A first party property policy does not insure property: it insures a person, partnership, corporation or other entity against the risk of loss of the property. Before an insured can make a claim for indemnity under a policy of first party property insurance the insured must prove that there was damage to property the risk of loss of which was insured by the policy. The obligation imposed on the insured ...
