Asset Search : Lawyer & Attorney : Fred Abrams Law Firm : Financial Fraud, Debt Collection : New York, NY

Private investigators, bankruptcy trustees, judgment creditors, etc., sometimes research**  the following kinds of records / databases as part of a low-cost asset search: 

• Real Estate Searches: Some government databases provide for free real property searches, like New York City's Automated City Register System ("ACRIS") at "http://www.nyc.gov/html/dof/html/jump/acris.shtml".  ACRIS permits one to search for real property owners in New York City by a party's name, parcel identifiers (such as borough, block and lot numbers), etc. 

• Lawsuits: A beneficial owner's assets held in the form of personal injury or other type of legal claim, (if any), can sometimes be uncovered via court databases.

• Local Courts: Although limited to New York State courts, "eCourts" is a free database at "http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/webcivil/ecourtsMain".

• Federal Courts: After signing up for an access code, "http://pacer.uspci.uscourts.gov/" enables one to conduct low-cost searches of federal courts nationwide. 

• Corporate & U.C.C. Searches: Free government websites such as New York's "http://www.dos.state.ny.us/corp/corpwww.html", sometimes provide beneficial ownership or other useful information about duly licensed businesses / corporations.

• United States Patent & Trademark Office:  Patents and trademarks can be researched for free at "http://www.uspto.gov/patft/".
  

• Comprehensive Searches: At "http://global.lexisnexis.com/",  LexisNexis offers a fee-based service called "SmartLinx", which searches public records nationwide.  Records regarding real property, motor vehicles, telephone numbers, can be accessed.  ChoicePoint offers a similar service called DEBTORDiscovery at  "http://www.debtordiscovery.com/ ".  Yet another comprehensive search service is available at IRB's website, "http://www.irbsearch.com/".  These services may provide the names of business associates, neighbors, relatives, etc., and can therefore possibly be used to identify nominees hiding a beneficial owner's assets.   
  

Researching real estate, lawsuits or other similar records in some cases may uncover assets concealed by a judgment debtor, bankruptcy debtor or divorcing spouse.  When conducting such research, one should however, always consider the red flags or indicia mentioned at  "Asset Search Indicia For Divorce, Debt Collection & Bankruptcy".






**L.L. Jones, Concealing Assets In Bankruptcy: What Are the Consequences And How Do Trustees Find The Assets?, Association of the Bar of the City of New York (Presentation: April 24, 2008).


Copyright 2008 Fred L. Abrams

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

Mr. Reinaldo Cestero is a private investigator and a retired Chief Deputy United States Marshal, who works in Puerto Rico.  I asked Mr. Cestero about the superseding indictment filed in U.S.A. v. Acevedo-Vila, et. al., which charged Puerto Rico's Governor Anibal Acevedo Vila, (and /or twelve co-defendants), with: conspiracy; false statements; wire fraud; federal program fraud; and filing false tax returns. 


When I inquired whether there was a prevailing view in San Juan about the Governor's indictment, Mr. Cestero answered: "The trial is supposed to start in February.  The public is split down the middle.  About half think that the Governor has been falsely accused as a result of a conspiracy between the Blue Party [Partido Nuevo Progresista] and the United States.  The other half are disgusted, and  think that the Governor is guilty of public corruption." 


The Governor's above-mentioned indictment arises from allegations that he had several businessman pay off large unreported campaign debt, in violation of 2 U.S.C. §431 et. seq., the Federal Election Campaign Act.  The first count of the superseding indictment specifically charged violations of 18 U.S.C. §371 (conspiracy);  2 U.S.C. §441a et. seq. (limitations on contributions /  expenditures); and 18 U.S.C. §§1001 (a) (1) & (a) (2) (false statements).  According to the first count, about sixteen collaborators had made illegal off-the-book campaign contributions to the Governor's political campaign committee.  The collaborators had allegedly paid false invoices issued by a media / public relations company.  The indictment further alleged that said company ultimately applied the paid invoices as credit against debt owed by the Governor's political campaign committee. 


The first count also essentially alleged that the Governor had used his family, staff and others as nominees or "conduits", to illegally make campaign contributions.  These "conduit contributions" were even sometimes allegedly made with funds from the Governor.  Count one additionally claimed that the Governor, (and/ or one of his associates), had contacted the Office of Management and Budget, the Puerto Rico Housing Department and the Puerto Rico Pension Fund, to promote the business interests of some of the conduit contributors.  Perhaps most interesting however, is that an April 28, 2008 Daily News' article indicates that the Governor is still running for re-election in Puerto Rico's November gubernatorial race-- despite the fact of his indictment.


Copyright 2008 Fred L. Abrams

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

At "An Asset Search, Tax Fraud & Divorce ", I described a conversation I had with Brian-- a former IRS Special Agent who had also once been a high-ranking official at the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.  In that conversation, Brian suggested that a broad range of criminal statutes were sometimes relevant to a tax fraud investigation.


Such was the case in the IRS tax fraud investigation of Wisconsin businessman Ronald Miserendino, which ended in Mr. Miserendino's indictment on a variety of charges in U.S.A. v. Miserendino .  As the superseding indictment returned against him indicated, Mr. Miserendino was charged with violating 18 U.S.C. 1344 (bank fraud); 18 U.S.C. 1341 (mail fraud); 26 U.S.C. 7201 (tax evasion); and 18 U.S.C. 1956 (h) (conspiracy to commit money laundering).


According to his plea agreement, Mr. Miserendino had illegally concealed assets and was guilty of tax evasion and conspiracy to commit money laundering.  Mr. Miserendino had started concealing assets in 2001 because his wife had filed for a Wisconsin divorce and sought the division of their marital property.  He had therefore used safe deposit boxes and nominees to hide and / or launder assets in multiple jurisdictions, like Australia, Oregon and Hawaii.  Mr. Miserendino had also dissipated his ownership of a Wisconsin real estate development and rental company, by transferring 49 percent of its stock to his son from a prior marriage.  As the Court's April 21,2008 sentencing minutes and criminal judgment reflect, Mr. Miserendino finally received a sentence of 48 months in prison.


Copyright 2008 Fred L. Abrams

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks

The divorcing spouse was suspected of hiding marital assets, and his / her personal computer may have contained undisclosed financial information.  The divorcing spouse had even removed the personal computer from the marital residence in anticipation of the divorce.  In the foregoing situation, a forensic examination of the divorcing spouse's computer might possibly help.


Yesterday, I spoke with Peter J. Theobald, who is a forensic computer examiner with Klein Liebman & Gresen, LLC.  Mr. Theobald explained that he could search a computer for active data, archived data and deleted data.  He further stated that once given physical access to a computer, he might find stored information about:

• Personal & Business Finances
• Purchases
• Appointments, Calendars & Contacts
• Communications
• Relationships

This means that a forensic computer examiner could elicit information about suspected hidden assets, such as bank account numbers or the names of nominees, high-risk geographical locations, shell companies, etc.  If such information were discovered, it might then be used to impeach an opposing party at a deposition or trial.  It could also be provided to investigators as the leads to be followed in an asset search.


Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 (a) (1) (A) (ii) & (b) (2) (B), cover the circumstances electronically stored information may be disclosed / forensically examined during federal litigation.  Pursuant to Federal Rule 26, a litigant may also seek the stored information in an opposing party's digital camera, cell phone, personal digital assistant or global positioning system.  Electronically stored information might also sometimes be "material and necessary" under New York law, and therefore disclosed pursuant to N.Y. Civ. Prac. L. & R. § 3101:

"§ 3101. Scope of disclosure. (a) Generally. There shall be full
disclosure of all matter material and necessary in the prosecution or
defense of an action, regardless of the burden of proof, by:
(1) a party, or the officer, director, member, agent or employee of a
party;..."

      
In  Etzion v. Etzion 2008 NY Slip Op 50475(U) (Nassau Sup. Ct. 2008) however, the Court mentioned N.Y. Civ. Prac. L. & R. § 3101(a), but then denied an ex-wife plaintiff electronic discovery of her ex-husband's computers.  Although the Court denied the ex-wife's discovery request under the particular facts of Etzion,  the Etzion decision provides an example of the kind of computer information a litigant might ideally seek from an opposing party.


Copyright 2008 Fred L. Abrams

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks