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.
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Anti-Public Adjuster Clause Is Effective in New York
Post number 5301
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/public-adjusters-attempt-represent-insured-subject-zalma-esq-cfe-rubfc, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Insurers May Contractually Prevent an Insured from Hiring a Public Adjuster
In Peter Barbato & North Jersey Public Adjusters Inc. v. Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, et al, No. 25-cv-5312 (JGK), United States District Court, S.D. New York (December 15, 2025) the plaintiffs, Peter Barbato and North Jersey Public Adjusters, Inc. (“NJPA”), filed suit against several insurance companies, including Interstate Fire & Casualty Company, Independent Specialty Insurance Company, and certain Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London.
FACTS
NJPA is a New Jersey-based public adjusting firm licensed in New York. The dispute centers on ...
Proof of Highly Contaminated Water is Required for Extra Payments
Post number 5300
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/acting-your-own-lawyer-foolish-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-mbg0c, see the video at and at and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Acting as Your Own Lawyer is Foolish
Evidence of Breach of Contract Survives Dismissal of All Other Charges
In Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu v. State Farm Fire And Casualty Company, C. A. No. N24C-09-020 CLS, Superior Court of Delaware (February 27, 2026) a claim to State Farm who paid approximately $61,000 after assessments but denied coverage for additional items including ceramic tiles, the kitchen floor ceiling, underlayment plywood, and numerous personal property items resulted in suit by the Hsu’s acting in pro per.
Facts
Lee Lifeng Hsu and Jane Yuchen Hsu (“Plaintiffs”) purchased a homeowners’ insurance policy from State Farm Fire...
Insurance Condition Requires Following the Intent of the Parties
Post number 5307
Principles of Contract Interpretation Compels Reading Contract as Written
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/portable-storage-containers-buildings-barry-zalma-esq-cfe-fkg1c and at https://zalma.com/blog.
In Eastside Floor Supplies, Ltd. v. SCS Agency, Inc., Hanover Insurance Company, et al., No. 2024-01501, Index No. 609883/19, 2026 NY Slip Op 01488, Supreme Court of New York, Second Department (March 18, 2026)
In May 2019, a fire damaged business personal property belonging to the plaintiffs, which was stored in portable storage containers at their Manhattan premises. At the time of the fire, the plaintiffs were insured under a businessowners insurance policy (BOP) issued by the defendant Hanover Insurance Company which provided general coverage for business personal property, and which included a specific extension for “Business Personal Property Temporarily in Portable Storage Units” (the portable storage ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...
ERISA Saves Fraudulent Claims Suit
Post number 5306
Read the full article at https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/failure-provide-well-pled-facts-defeats-most-action-zalma-esq-cfe-b4zuc and at https://zalma.com/blog plus more than 5300 posts.
Allegations of Fraudulent Insurance Billing Must be Pleaded with Specificity
In Genesis Laboratory Management LLC v. United Healthcare Services, Inc. and Oxford Health Plans, Inc., No. 21cv12057 (EP) (JSA), United States District Court, D. New Jersey (March 13, 2026) Genesis Laboratory Management LLC (“Genesis”), a New Jersey-based molecular diagnostic and anatomic pathology laboratory, provided COVID-19 related testing services and submitted claims for reimbursement as an out-of-network provider to United Healthcare Services, Inc. (“United”) and Oxford Health Insurance, Inc. (“Oxford”). Metropolitan Healthcare Billing, LLC (“Metropolitan”), owned by the same individual as Genesis, handled the billing for Genesis.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
United and Oxford, who administer both ERISA and ...