Fraudster Tries to Reduce His Sentence by Continuing His Fraud
Post number 5267
Read the full article at https://lnkd.in/gn6SUUqV, see the video at https://lnkd.in/g4PiYrAp and at https://lnkd.in/giHCPFAw, and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5250 posts.
In Spite of Defendants Claims He Will Spend Serious Time in Prison
In United States Of America v. Henry Ford, Criminal Action No. 23-130, United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania (January 5, 2026) Henry Ford (no relation to the creator of the Model T), also known as “Cleothus Lefty Jackson,” was indicted and pled guilty to one count of securities fraud and aiding and abetting, along with seven counts of wire fraud.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Defendant falsely represented to victims that a business he controlled, Fallcatcher, had “pilot approvals in writing” with two large insurance companies and that several states “want the [Fallcatcher] technology” [Count Five]. In reality, Fallcatcher did not have any pilot programs with insurance companies and the Letter Of Intent was not a legitimate document.
Ford founded and operated several Fallcatcher entities, holding various executive roles, and purportedly used some of the funds to promote the business and hire employees.
Ford orchestrated a fraudulent investment scheme involving the sale of securities tied to companies he controlled, collectively known as “Fallcatcher.” The scheme defrauded 61 victims out of nearly $5 million. The SEC recovered and returned a portion of the funds, but over $2 million in restitution remains outstanding.
Approximately sixty-one (61) investor victims invested $4,964,775.79 in Fallcatcher, in return for shares of Fallcatcher’s common stock at a price of $.50 per share. These investments constituted the purchase of securities. And although Defendant did not have access to the investment proceeds located in Fallcatcher bank accounts, bank records reflected that Defendant and his wife received approximately $493,000 in payments from Fallcatcher after the proceeds were in the accounts.
The Present Criminal Case
In the instant criminal case a grand jury returned an eight-count Indictment against Defendant. On May 13, 2025, Defendant pled guilty to all charges in the Indictment, pursuant to a written plea agreement. The parties agreed, pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure 11(c)(1)(C), that a sentence of imprisonment between forty-six (46) and seventy-eight (78) months is the appropriate disposition of this case.
Legal Issues & Sentencing
The sentencing in this case centers on the calculation of “loss” under § 2B1.1 of the United States Sentencing Commission Guidelines. The court clarified that “loss” means the actual harm suffered by victims. This means that any money recovered and returned to victims should be deducted from the loss calculation.
Analysis/Discussion
First, the money recovered by the SEC and returned to victims was deducted from the loss calculation, as only the net loss actually suffered by victims is relevant to a sentencing court.
Second, the court rejected the argument that funds not returned but used for “legitimate business purposes” should be excluded from the loss calculation. The rationale is that such expenditures, even if ostensibly for business operations, do not offset the loss suffered by victims, as the funds were obtained through fraud.
Fraud Loss Calculation in the Presentence Report
In the Presentence Report (“PSR”), the Probation Officer set the applicable fraud loss at $4,964,775.79. Since the loss exceeded $3,500,000, but was less than $9,500,000,” eighteen (18) offense levels were added.
Defendant Ford objected to the loss amount. The Court found that under § 2B1.1 of the Sentencing Guidelines: (1) the money returned to the victims by the SEC is not included in the amount of “actual loss”; and (2) the remainder of investment funds apparently used for “legitimate business expenses” are not excluded from “actual loss.”
The Government argued that because Defendant’s misrepresentations successfully resulted in investors transferring approximately $4.9 million to Fallcatcher Inc., Defendant caused “actual loss” in that amount once the funds were out of the victims’ possession.
Since the $2,095,480.38 balance was actually lost by the victims, he received no credit. The defendant has clearly demonstrated acceptance of responsibility for the offense. Accordingly, the offense level is decreased by two levels. The defendant has assisted the authorities in the investigation or prosecution of the defendant’s own misconduct by timely notifying authorities of the intention to enter a plea of guilty. Accordingly, the offense level is decreased by one additional level.
Total Offense Level: 24
In conclusion the court concluded that at Offense Level of 24, with a Criminal History Category of II, the guideline range for imprisonment is fifty-seven (57) to seventy-one (71) months.
ZALMA OPINION
Fraudsters, even when arrested and convicted with a guilty plea insist on drawing courts into lengthy opinions to support the serious sentence the fraud perpetrator using a famous person’s name as his own, will be sentenced – contrary to his objections, between 57 and 71 months in prison for his fraud.
(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.
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 ...
Denial Of Mental Health Diversion And Probation Condition Were Affirmed
Posted on October 9, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Post 4860
In The People v. Nicholas Daniel Stiles, A173483, A173646, California Court of Appeals, First District, Second Division (September 29, 2026) Nicholas Daniel Stiles pleaded no contest to one count of insurance fraud arising from his purchase of automobile insurance after a June 2021 collision, and to grand theft arising from an April 2024 incident at a 7-Eleven.
In both cases, the trial court suspended imposition of sentence and placed him on two years’ probation. Before the pleas, Stiles sought mental health diversion in both matters and filed a written motion seeking substitute appointed counsel. The diversion applications were denied, and the court never held a hearing on the motion.
LAW
Penal Code section 1001.36 permits pretrial mental health diversion when a defendant is eligible and suitable and the proposed treatment will meet the defendant’s specialized needs; denial is reviewed for ...
If Grounds For Dismissal Are Apparent From The Face Of The Complaint, A Court May Also Dismiss The Case on The Court’s Own Motion
Posted on October 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Pro Se Plaintiff Failed to Make a Short and Plain Statement
Post 4856
In Tak Lun Ng v. United Financial Casualty Company, No. 26-cv-03136-LJC, United States District Court, N.D. California (September 28, 2026) Tak Lun Ng, proceeding pro se, sued United Financial Casualty Company over a March 2, 2021 automobile accident and the insurer’s March 24, 2021 refusal to pay him.
He appeared to assert breach of contract, fraud, negligence, premises liability, product liability, and related theories. United removed the action from state court and moved to dismiss.
Ng missed that deadline but later filed several documents, including a motion for leave to amend, all of which the court reviewed.
LAW
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must provide a short and plain statement containing enough factual matter to state a facially plausible...
If Grounds For Dismissal Are Apparent From The Face Of The Complaint, A Court May Also Dismiss The Case on The Court’s Own Motion
Posted on October 5, 2026 by Barry Zalma
Pro Se Plaintiff Failed to Make a Short and Plain Statement
Post 4856
In Tak Lun Ng v. United Financial Casualty Company, No. 26-cv-03136-LJC, United States District Court, N.D. California (September 28, 2026) Tak Lun Ng, proceeding pro se, sued United Financial Casualty Company over a March 2, 2021 automobile accident and the insurer’s March 24, 2021 refusal to pay him.
He appeared to assert breach of contract, fraud, negligence, premises liability, product liability, and related theories. United removed the action from state court and moved to dismiss.
Ng missed that deadline but later filed several documents, including a motion for leave to amend, all of which the court reviewed.
LAW
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a complaint must provide a short and plain statement containing enough factual matter to state a facially plausible...
