Mail Fraud

A crime in which the perpetrator develops a scheme using the mails to defraud another of money or property. This crime specifically requires the intent to defraud, and is a federal offense governed by section 1341 of title 18 of the U.S. Code. The mail fraud statute was first enacted in 1872 to prohibit illicit mailings with the Postal Service (formerly the Post Office) for the purpose of executing a fraudulent scheme.

Initially, courts strictly followed the mail Fraud statute's language and interpreted it narrowly. The early decisions required a connection between the fraudulent scheme and the misuse of the mails for a violation of the mail fraud statute. Since its enactment, application of the statute has evolved to include dishonest and fraudulent activities with only a tangential relationship to the mails.

Punishment for a conviction under the mail fraud statute is a fine or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both. If, however, the violation affects a financial institution, the punishment is more severe: the statute provides that "the person shall be fined not more than $1,000,000 or imprisoned not more than 30 years, or both."

Both the Supreme Court and Congress have consistently broadened the mail fraud statute since its enactment. Prior to a 1909 amendment, a violation of the mail fraud statute required proof, among other requirements, of either opening or intending to open correspondence or communication with another person. In 1909 Congress eliminated this requirement and replaced it with the language that the mails be used "for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice or attempting so to do." This amendment followed the Supreme Court's decision in Durland v. United States, 161 U.S. 306, 16 S. Ct. 508, 40 L. Ed. 709 (1896), which held that the mailing only needed to "assist" in the completion of the fraud. Although this amendment was the last significant change until 1988, the Supreme Court has struggled with the relationship between the mailing element and the execution of the fraud.

The Court's struggle with this relationship is illustrated by two of its decisions: United States v. Maze, 414 U.S. 395, 94 S. Ct. 645, 38 L. Ed. 2d 603 (1974), and Schmuck v. United States, 489 U.S. 705, 109 S. Ct. 1443, 103 L. Ed. 2d 734 (1989). In Maze, the defendant stole his room-mate's credit card and car and signed his room-mate's name to the charge vouchers to obtain food and lodging. The merchants mailed the invoices to a bank in Louisville, Kentucky. The Supreme Court held that this did not fall within the scope of the mail fraud statute because the mailings did not perpetuate the fraud. The Court held that the scheme did not depend on the mailings and that the fraud was completed once the defendant signed the vouchers. The Court refused to interpret the statute as merely a jurisdictional requirement and stated that "Congress could have drafted the mail fraud statute so as to require only that the mails be in fact used as a result of the fraudulent scheme."

However, in Schmuck, the Court did expand the mail fraud statute. In Schmuck, the defendant sold used cars to auto dealers in which he had rolled back the odometers to inflate the vehicles' value. The dealers sent title application forms to the state department of transportation to register the cars after the dealers sold them to individual purchasers. The Court held that the sale of the vehicles depended on the transfer of title and that, although the mailing of the registration may not have contributed directly to the scheme, it was necessary for the passage of title and perpetuation of the scheme.

In recent years Congress has amended the mail fraud statute twice. In 1988 Congress added section 1346, which states that the term "scheme to defraud" includes a scheme to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services. In 1994 Congress expanded the use of the mails to include any parcel that is "sent or delivered by a private or commercial interstate carrier." As a result of these amendments, the mail fraud statute has become a broad act for prosecution of dishonest and fraudulent activities, as long as those crimes involve the mails or an interstate carrier.

Further readings

Mail and Wire Fraud

Our firm has over twenty years  of experience defending people in many different types of federal fraud cases. We have helped clients win or successfully resolve mail and wire fraud charges in federal district courts across the United States.

Read about our firm’s success in federal criminal cases.

To learn more about what happens in a federal criminal case, watch our federal crimes video.

Here are some basic facts about federal mail and wire fraud charges.

Federal criminal law includes separate provisions for mail fraud, wire fraud, bank fraud, accounting fraud, securities fraud, and a host of other types of fraudulent conduct. Virtually any type of business activity may give rise to the potential for fraud. Fraud in heavily regulated industries and in businesses contracting with the government is an especially common source of criminal fraud prosecutions. While companies themselves may be the primary targets of a criminal fraud prosecution, business officers and employees—even in large corporations—are commonly charged individually with fraud violations.

Conviction for fraud of any kind typically requires proof that a defendant intentionally deceived another person for the purpose of unlawfully profiting from the other party’s loss. Fraud may involve accepting payment for services without any intention of providing them, accepting payment for goods while intending not to deliver them or to deliver goods materially different than as agreed upon. Fraud against the U.S. government may involve submitting false documents in connection with a government contract or tax return, among other things.

Federal Mail Fraud

Mail fraud is an offense that involves the use of the United States Postal Service to carry out any scheme which seeks to unlawfully acquire money or property. Some common forms of mail fraud include mortgage fraud, insurance fraud, check kiting, Ponzi schemes and pyramid schemes.

Courts have generally held that three elements must be proven to convict a defendant of mail fraud. The first is participation by the defendant in a scheme to defraud. The second is that the defendant used the mail in furtherance of the scheme. Finally, it must be proven that the defendant who participated in the scheme used or caused the use of the mail. This third element is proven when the use of the mail can reasonably be foreseen even if it is not intended. The mailing also does not have to be essential to the scheme. It is enough to prove this final element if the mailing was simply incidental. A conviction for mail fraud can result in a 20 year sentence and fine. If the scheme affects the solvency of a financial institution, a conviction can result in a 30 year prison sentence and a $1,000,000 fine.

Federal law also makes it a separate crime to use a false name when engaged in mail fraud. Specifically, it is unlawful for a person to use, assume, or request to be addressed by a fictitious or false title, name, or address while engaged in mail fraud. It is also unlawful for a person to receive a letter or package addressed to a fictitious or false name or address. A person convicted under this provision can be sentenced to 5 years in prison and receive a fine.

Federal Wire Fraud

Wire fraud relates to the use of electronic communications to carry out a scheme which seeks to unlawfully acquire money or property. Electronic communication usually refers to the use of telephone, fax, or internet. Generally, three elements must be proven in order to convict a defendant of wire fraud. First, it must be established that there was a scheme to defraud. Second, the defendant must have knowingly and willingly participated in the scheme with the intent to defraud. Third, it must be shown that interstate wire communications were used to further the scheme. Those convicted face 20 years imprisonment and a fine. If the scheme involved defrauding a financial institution, a conviction may result in a 30 year sentence and a $1,000,000 fine.

It is important to note that a victim does not need to actually be deprived of property or deceived for a conviction under the mail fraud or wire fraud statutes. Even the intent to deprive a victim of property will support conviction. It also generally does not matter if the property in question is tangible or intangible. Even an intention to deprive a person of his intangible right to control his assets can result in conviction. Each separate instance of wire communication or use of the mail in furtherance of a scheme generally constitutes a separate offense.

Because fraud cases often involve large amounts of highly complex financial and technical information and because proof of intent to defraud is a required element in a fraud prosecution, numerous legal strategies may be successfully used in defending against fraud charges. At the most fundamental level, a successful defense will challenge the basic elements of the government’s case. Unless the government can prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element of the specific types of fraud indicted, there can be no conviction.

The issue of intent is central to the definition of fraud and a defense attorney will typically argue good faith to challenge the government’s claim that a defendant intended to defraud. Good faith can be shown by demonstrating that the defendant acted in accordance with standard industry practices, that he sought legal or financial advice before he acted in reliance on that advice, that he cooperated with any law enforcement investigations, and that he corrected mistakes where he found them.

If a defendant participated in a fraudulent scheme without knowledge of the fraud he is not guilty under the law. Because the government will generally use circumstantial evidence to try to prove intent, if a defendant can show justification for a good faith belief that his actions were legal, it will be difficult for a jury to convict him for fraud.

Top Visited
 Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

Mail Fraud News

[Nov 19, 2018] Is Israel turning a blind eye as Israeli scammers swindle victims in France, US, elsewhere by Alison Weir

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... So if the US government is secretly releasing Federal prisoners, and if that is the case then American justice is on par with the Mexican penal system, where such occurrences are routine. ..."
Nov 19, 2018 | www.unz.com

The Israelis were extradited to the U.S., where the prosecutor described them as "a predatory group that targeted elderly people in the U.S., conning them into believing they were lottery winners. Preying on their victims' dreams of financial comfort, [they] bilked them out of substantial portions of their life savings." According to the U.S. Attorney's office :

"The defendants operated multiple boiler rooms that used the names of various sham law firms purportedly located in New York, including law firms named 'Abrahams Kline,' 'Bernstein Schwartz,' 'Steiner, Van Allen, and Colt,' 'Bloomberg and Associates," and 'Meyer Stevens.'

The defendants further used various aliases and call forwarding telephone numbers to mask the fact that the defendants were located in Israel. The defendants also possessed bank accounts in Israel, Cyprus, and Uganda, to which illegal proceeds were wired."

The ringleaders, Avi Ayache and Yaron Bar, were eventually convicted, and the U.S. prosecutor announced that they would "spend a substantial portion of their lives in prison." Ayache was sentenced in 2014 to 13 years in prison and Bar to 12. Yet, prison records indicate the two were released the next year. Other members of the ring also appear to have been released after extraordinarily little time. If these men did serve only a tiny portion of their U.S. sentences, as public records and phone calls and emails to the Bureau of Prisons indicate, this may be due to the fact that Israelis are allowed to be imprisoned in Israel instead of in the U.S. Their sentences then are determined by Israel and, as we will see below, are often far shorter than they would be in the U.S. Gery Shalon – hundreds of millions of dollars

In 2015 Gery Shalon and two other Israelis were charged with utilizing hacked data for 100 million people to spam them with "pump and dump" penny stocks, netting hundreds of millions of dollars.

The money was then laundered through an illegal bitcoin exchange allegedly owned by Shalon (more on bitcoin below). Shalon was considered the ringleader of what U.S. prosecutors called a " sprawling criminal enterprise. " He faced decades behind bars.

However, he was instead given a plea deal in which he escaped any prison sentence whatsoever. Worth $2 billion, Shalon was to pay a $403 million fine.

republic , says: November 19, 2018 at 6:05 pm GMT

...The ringleaders, Avi Ayache and Yaron Bar, were eventually convicted, and the U.S. prosecutor announced that they would "spend a substantial portion of their lives in prison." Ayache was sentenced in 2014 to 13 years in prison and Bar to 12. Yet, prison records indicate the two were released the next year. Other members of the ring also appear to have been released after extraordinarily little time.

So if the US government is secretly releasing Federal prisoners, and if that is the case then American justice is on par with the Mexican penal system, where such occurrences are routine.

Can anyone here verify if those two are in prison in Israel or free?

[Feb 25, 2018] The US Prison State - The Globalist

Notable quotes:
"... Sources: Washington Post, Prison Policy Initiative, The Globalist Research Center ..."
Feb 25, 2018 | www.theglobalist.com

. The United States is home to about 25% of the world's total prison population – over 5.5 times its share of the overall world population.

2. The United States incarcerates about 2.3 million people annually, as of 2016.

3. Many millions more pass through the system briefly for minor arrests or dismissed charges, and so on – often having to gather costly cash bail or face jail, even if they are innocent.

4. There are more than 1,700 state prisons, more than 100 federal prisons, more than 900 juvenile facilities and more than 3,100 local jails.

5. There are also a range of specialized short- and long-term holding centers, like military or indigenous prisons and immigrant detention centers.

6. These facilities – whether public or privately-operated – are a major economic hub, especially for jobs, in thousands of communities across the country.

7. That makes it politically difficult to promote detention and sentencing reform policies that would reduce the need for them.

8. Even in public prisons, staff jobs and contracts for food and laundry services become a local revenue stream that discourages reducing incarcerated populations.

9. Beyond the 2.3 million behind bars, there are also 3.7 million Americans on probation outside of jail, with various conditions, and 840,000 on parole.

Sources: Washington Post, Prison Policy Initiative, The Globalist Research Center

[Mar 22, 2017] Taibbi: Trump Pick Jay Clayton Will Be Most Conflicted SEC Chair Ever

Mar 22, 2017 | www.rollingstone.com

America's incoming top cop on finance is literally married to industry

Clayton is already an unusual choice, given that he's slated to be a primary regulator of Wall Street while a chunk of his family income will continue to come from Goldman Sachs, where his wife Gretchen works . Although he will have to recuse himself from enforcement cases involving Goldman, he will not have to sit out of a broad range of other regulatory decisions that affect the company. This is already notable.

But Public Citizen has stumbled onto some other oddities about Clayton's personal holdings.

In Clayton's absurdly baroque Form 278 financial disclosure – if you want to feel like your financial life is meager and uncomplicated, take a look at this staggeringly long list of income sources for the former Sullivan and Cromwell mainstay – he lists, under "other assets and income," a series of entries involving a company called WMB Holdings.

WMB Holdings, he explains in a verbose and unhelpful endnote, is a Delaware-based entity that provides "business, financial, and representational services."

According to Clayton, WMB secures business licenses, files UCC forms, creates special purpose vehicles (you might remember these little financial Frankensteins from the Enron story), engages in "compliance support services," secures data storage and helps with "anti-counterfeiting services," among other things.

This sounds harmless enough. But WMB, and a company called CSC – with which it appears to have a connection – is a company of a very particular type, known well to white-collar investigators.

"It's a corporate formation company," says Jack Blum , an expert on white-collar crime and money laundering who is best known for his investigation of the BCCI scandal. "You call them up, and 20 minutes later you've got a Delaware corporation. I'm exaggerating, of course, but that's what they do."

These firms can be used to create chains of legal entities, sometimes ending in offshore accounts, that make tracing financial transactions difficult, if not impossible. "They can make the ownership of anything completely impenetrable," says Blum, speaking generally and not necessarily about Clayton's firm. "If you want to launder money, evade tax or hide assets from a spouse, you can do it."

Clayton's family seems to have a serious interest in this firm. He lists a series of family trusts containing WMB holdings, most producing high annual dividends.

If you add up each of the dividends – some of which are listed as generating over $1 million a year, while others are listed at $100,000-$1,000,000, etc. – the total annual value of these holdings comes out to over $4 million annually, at least.

The endnote claims Clayton has no beneficial interest or control in these holdings, but that his wife and/or children have a "beneficial interest."

Given that the company would appear to be subject to SEC oversight, it's worth asking the nature of his family's involvement with WMB, and moreover to learn more about what his attitude is toward such companies in general.

Clayton has pledged to divest from WMB when his wife has "directly held financial interests" in the company, but not where his wife or his children are "solely a beneficiary."

Public Citizen for a variety of reasons believes that WMB "may also be the parent of Corporation Service Co. (CSC)," another large business services firm with offices in "Delaware, Australia, France, Hong Kong, Singapore, Sweden, and the United Kingdom."

Among other things, WMB was for some time listed as the parent of a company called CSC Trust Co., now called Delaware Trust Co.

CSC Global claims 2,500 employees as well as 180,000 corporate customers, while also representing 10,000 law firms. The company appears to do more or less the same things that Clayton says WMB does, dealing with creating legal business entities, management of licenses, upkeep of filings, dealing with service of process, etc.

Interestingly, and to Blum's point, Clayton's disclosure does not list any interest in CSC. So although he gives some information about what appears to be a holding company with little to no public profile, the company that boasts of its connections to 180,000 corporations is not mentioned in the disclosure form.

Neither CSC nor Clayton have responded to requests for comment.

The real issue with companies like these is the vast array of tools they can offer big companies and high-net-worth individuals to complicate their financial profiles. The worst-case scenario is a string of shell companies that end in an opaque offshore haven.

"That's when the trail becomes impossible to follow," says Blum. Investigators who try to follow money into offshore banking havens have almost no hope of getting answers there, he says.

"You need a formal mutual legal request that may or may not be honored in the lifetime of the investigator," says Blum.

Interestingly, when Public Citizen ran the names of WMB and CSC through the Panama Papers database, they found nothing. But when they ran the address common to both companies – 2711 Centerville Rd., Wilmington – through the database, they found it connected with numerous firms whose agent was the infamous Mossack Fonseca, many of them offshore companies.

In its letter to the Senate Banking Committee, Public Citizen asked the Senate to ask Clayton what this means. Did either WMB or CSC do business with Mossack Fonseca? Have either of those companies provided services to Mossack Fonseca clients?

Even if WMB and CSC are completely above-board, it's a strange sort of investment for the top cop on the financial beat. It will be interesting to see if he sheds some light on his holdings when he's questioned this week.

Reno woman faces mail fraud charges

KOLO

A Reno woman faces federal charges on November 22 for allegedly bilking a local senior out of nearly $200000 dollars.and...

Concord man sentenced to 72 months in prison on mail fraud charges

WMUR Manchester

A Concord man was sentenced to 72 months in prison for mail fraud offenses involving the theft of more than $650000, according to U.S. Attorney Emily Gray ...and...

Five People Charged in $33 Million Reverse Mortgage Fraud Scheme

Reverse Mortgage Daily

The fraudulent discharges claimed to discharge mortgages with a total loan principal of over $33 million. Each defendant is charged with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, bank fraud and...

West County Honda General Manager Charged with Fraud

Riverfront Times (blog)

A St. Louis car dealer cheated his bosses out of $395000 during the course of a two-year scam, authorities say. William Cafarella, 42, lied...

ZeekRewards 'winners' ordered to pay

Winston-Salem Journal

The wire and mail-fraud conspiracy charge, the mail-fraud charge and the wire-fraud charge each carry a maximum prison term of 20 years and a $250,000 fine. The tax-fraud conspiracy charge carries a...

News via Google. See more news matching 'Mail Fraud Charges'

[Dec 10, 2016] Federal Criminal Defense Attorney

Notable quotes:
"... Interestingly, white collar cases (like fraud, embezzlement and corruption) usually do not result in as steep a sentence as one might get if prosecuted for the same offense in state court. ..."
"... For the most part, however, the mandatory minimum penalties and federal sentencing guidelines usually result in very lengthy sentences for people convicted of federal crimes. That's one of the main reasons it is so important to retain a lawyer with a record of success in federal court if the case is being prosecuted by the federal government. ..."
"... In order to have jurisdiction over a crime, the alleged criminal activity must somehow involve the federal government or some instrumentality of interstate commerce. ..."
Dec 10, 2016 | www.pagepate.com
Are federal criminal cases different than state criminal cases? Yes!

Federal criminal investigations and prosecutions are handled very differently than similar criminal cases in state courts. First of all, the law enforcement agencies that investigate federal crimes are generally well-funded and staffed by the most experienced agents and investigators. The federal prosecutors who conduct federal criminal trials and sentencing hearings are also usually very experienced, and have virtually unlimited resources at their disposal. The judges who preside in federal courts have lifetime appointments and their dockets are generally not as crowded as those of most state court judges who handle many different types of criminal offenses.

More importantly, federal crimes generally carry stiffer sentences than state crimes, especially in the areas of drug trafficking and conspiracy. Federal criminal penalties are also more severe in cases involving child pornography and other sexual offenses prosecuted in federal court.

Interestingly, white collar cases (like fraud, embezzlement and corruption) usually do not result in as steep a sentence as one might get if prosecuted for the same offense in state court.

For the most part, however, the mandatory minimum penalties and federal sentencing guidelines usually result in very lengthy sentences for people convicted of federal crimes. That's one of the main reasons it is so important to retain a lawyer with a record of success in federal court if the case is being prosecuted by the federal government.

Of course, not all crimes can be prosecuted in federal court. The federal government has limited jurisdiction over criminal offenses and can only prosecute those crimes that are specifically defined in the federal criminal code. In order to have jurisdiction over a crime, the alleged criminal activity must somehow involve the federal government or some instrumentality of interstate commerce. Federal courts have generally been very expansive in their definition of what constitutes interstate commerce. As a result, the federal government now prosecutes many crimes that were traditionally prosecuted only in state court. And this trend is likely to continue.

Given the severity and complexity of federal criminal investigations and prosecutions, anyone charged with a federal crime should retain a lawyer who has extensive experience in federal criminal defense. If you need a federal criminal defense attorney with decades of successful results, contact our firm and discuss your case with Page Pate in complete confidence. You will not find a law firm with more recent successful results, better credentials, or a deeper commitment to pursuing justice for people who need help in federal court.

[Dec 10, 2016] Mail Fraud Conviction - Criminal Defense Lawyers

Notable quotes:
"... According to The Wall Street Journal ..."
"... The National Registry of Exoneration, a project of the University of Michigan, lists 18 wrongful convictions of mail fraud in the last 23 years-and this is only of the cases they've been able to examine. ..."
"... Of the 18 wrongfully convicted persons, nine were exonerated in the last five years, having already served between three to five years of their sentences. Factors contributing to the wrongful convictions ranged from perjury, misleading forensic evidence, official misconduct and most importantly, lack of adequate legal services. ..."
Dec 10, 2016 | www.pravatinetworks.com
1-844-454-4895 Mail Fraud Lawyers

Mail fraud refers to the use of the U.S. Postal Service or other mail carrier to commit a crime. Because of the proliferation of electronic communications, mail fraud has been expanded to include wire fraud-which is the use of wire communications (such as email) to commit crimes.

According to The Wall Street Journal , in 2013 there were 3,923 cases of wire fraud. For one to be convicted of mail or wire fraud, the court must establish that there is intent on the part of the accused to defraud a person or institution as part of a scheme that uses mail and wire communication. Convictions can also be made on the basis of intent alone. When found guilty, a defendant may face as long as 30 years in prison and $1 million in fines.

REPORTS ON EXONERATION The National Registry of Exoneration, a project of the University of Michigan, lists 18 wrongful convictions of mail fraud in the last 23 years-and this is only of the cases they've been able to examine.

Of the 18 wrongfully convicted persons, nine were exonerated in the last five years, having already served between three to five years of their sentences. Factors contributing to the wrongful convictions ranged from perjury, misleading forensic evidence, official misconduct and most importantly, lack of adequate legal services.

Last year, two people were exonerated. One of them was forty-year-old Leean Shantelle Thain from Berrien County, Michigan. Thain was accused of embezzling funds from her mother by diverting her mail. The National Registry of Exoneration lists inadequate legal services as a major factor contributing to her wrongful conviction. A court of appeal ruled that both the trial lawyer and defense lawyer erred by not conducting proper investigations into the matter, a factor that would have been avoided had the accused had good legal representation.

Lawyer Referral For Mail Fraud Lawsuits

If you've been accused of mail or wire fraud, don't take chances on your legal representation. Work with Pravati Networks and you'll be matched to a mail fraud lawyer who has in-depth experience working with other cases just like yours. Our mail fraud lawyers can help you avoid wrongful conviction and overly harsh sentences. With just a small retainer, you can get started with your defense today.

[Dec 10, 2016] Mail Fraud - Convictions - Punishments

Dec 10, 2016 | www.lawyershop.com
Mail Fraud Convictions

To be convicted of mail fraud, one must do all of the following:

  • Purposefully create a plan to defraud an individual or institution
  • Display intent to commit fraud
  • Mail something-for the purpose of carrying out a fraudulent scheme-through the USPS or a private carrier
Previous Mail Fraud Cases Case #1

According to the USPS, prosecutors proved in 2002 that a Texas man sold roughly $6.5 million in fraudulent certificates of deposit (CDs) via the U.S. Mail to close to 80 investors - most of whom were senior citizens. The man, who never purchased the CDs, used portions of the money to pay earlier investors and used the rest for personal expenses. More than 45 investors are still owed a total of $3.5 million.

Case #2

The USPS states that two employees of the company that publishes Business Week were charged with conspiracy to commit securities fraud when they revealed confidential information about publicly held companies. The pair allegedly stockpiled thousands of dollars in kickbacks (through the U.S. Mail) after giving two co-defendants insider trading information from an issue of Business Week the day before the issue hit newsstands. Armed with their tips, the co-defendants bought various company stocks on a reported 43 occasions and sold it when the magazine was released-after which stock prices soared. The trades were valued at more than $2 million, while profits totaled $450,000.

Case #3

An Arizona man was convicted of mail fraud and sentenced to five years of supervised probation, nine months of home detention, and $1 million in victim restitution after executing the age-old envelope-stuffing scam. The man ran ads in national magazines, promising to send stuffing materials to everyone who mailed money for supply costs ($18 to $36) to his fictitious company. He mailed instructions on how to run an envelope-stuffing business but no actual materials.

Possible Punishments for Mail Fraud Crimes

Mail fraud, a felony, carries a sentence of up to five years in prison and/or fines of up to $250,000 when individuals are involved and up to 30 years in prison and/or $1,000,000 in fines when a financial institution is involved.

[Dec 09, 2016] Guide to Preventing Mail Fraud U.S. Postal Inspection Service 9781484827451 Amazon.com Books

www.amazon.com

What Is Mail Fraud?
Sweepstakes and 'Free' Prizes
'Free' Vacatons
Government Look-Alike Mail
Solicitations Disguised as Invoices
Foreign Lotteries
Cham Lottors
Charity Fraud
Insurance Fraud
Medcal Fraud
internet Fraud
Phony Inheritance Sc homos
Home Improvement and Home Repair Fraud
Investment Fraud
Fees Charged for Normally Free Services
Advance-Fee Loans
Credit Rcpar and Credit Card Schemes
Work-at-Home Offers
Distributorshp and Franchise Fraud
Phony Job Opportunities
Unsolicited Merchandise
Rcshippmg Fraud
Fake Chock Scams
How to Contact the Postal Inspection Service

Advance-Fee Loans

Have you had difficulty obtaining a personal or business loan through normal sources? If so, you may become the target of
an advance-fee loan scheme, where a con artist offers you a "guaranteed' loan for a foo paid n advance.

The swindler dams to be able to obtain a loan for you with ease from a legitimate lending institution, such as a savings and loan association. However, the swindler has no ability to secure a loan for you. Instead, the swindler steals your fee and either disappears or remains n the area to lureother unsuspecting victims while stalling you with excuses as to why your loan has not been funded.

[Dec 09, 2016] Does Hillary Know Chelsea Clintons Felon Father-In-Law Accused Of Violating Plea Deal By Unpaid Restitution - Owes His Victim

Notable quotes:
"... The National ENQUIRER ..."
Dec 09, 2016 | radaronline.com
With Hillary Clinton 's White House run on the horizon, RadarOnline.com has learned that the skeletons in her husband, Bill 's closet are the least of her worries. Daughter Chelsea 's father-in-law, convicted felon Ed Mezvinsky , is under fire from his former fraud victims . According to the unlucky dupes, Mezvinsky stole more than $10 million - and has yet to pay it back!

Mezvinsky, the father of Chelsea's husband, Marc , served five years in federal prison after pilfering $10 million from investors. He was released in April 2008, but a special investigation by The National ENQUIRER uncovered the fact that he's currently accused of being in violation of his plea agreement - because he hasn't paid back his victims!

"It's a little irritating that he brags about his son's [$10.5 million] apartment when his son should loan him the money to pay back his debt!" one angry victim, Dr. Jason Theodosakis , told The ENQUIRER . "He could borrow [the restitution] from his son's in-law

Recommended Links

Google matched content

Softpanorama Recommended

Top articles

[Nov 19, 2018] Is Israel turning a blind eye as Israeli scammers swindle victims in France, US, elsewhere by Alison Weir Published on Nov 19, 2018 | www.unz.com

Sites

Top articles

Sites