||Respondent was convicted in the United States District Court for Maryland, of criminal conspiracy to commit mail and bank fraud. Respondent was sentenced to one year of incarceration, three years of supervised release, and the payment of court costs and restitution.
Respondent’s criminal conduct involved his engaging in multiple fraudulent acts, along with several others, to defraud mortgage lenders. Respondent, acting as a settlement agent for a Maryland title company, in concert with his co-defendants, used fraudulent appraisals, fraudulent loan documents, non-existent or “straw” buyers and sellers, and other improper means and methods to obtain artificially inflated mortgages from lenders in at least eight real estate transactions. These mortgage proceeds were then divided by Respondent and his co-conspirators, while the mortgage loans were not serviced, and went into foreclosure, resulting in substantial losses to the lenders.
This conduct also led to the revocation of Respondent’s insurance agent license in the State of Maryland, by Order of the Maryland Insurance Administration and the imposition of an administrative penalty of $51,500.
The evidence also established that Respondent has been employed since his release from Federal Prison in July 2007. Respondent also emphasized that his financial gain was less than that of his co-conspirators. It was noted that he did explicitly acknowledge his guilt by entering a guilty plea, and that he fully participated in the disciplinary proceedings. Thus, despite the fact some concern regarding “Respondent’s minimal acknowledgment of responsibility coupled with an apparent failure to recognize his own level of culpability” was noted, and despite the fact Respondent failed to report his conviction in a timely manner, the hearing committee recommended a five year suspension, retroactive to the date of Respondent’s temporary suspension (June 5, 2008). A majority of the Disciplinary Board agreed, although five members dissented in favor of disbarment.
On May 8, 2009, the Supreme Court issued a Rule to Show Cause on Respondent as to why he should not be disbarred. Following Respondent’s response, and Disciplinary Counsel’s reply, Respondent was disbarred.