Violating Federal Law In An Asset Search
Today's article is based on an ongoing investigation, the facts of which are changed below for privacy reasons:
Ralph claimed in his New Jersey divorce that he had a low net worth, although he was a medical doctor who once had a thriving private practice. Ralph's claim made his divorcing wife Nancy believe that Ralph had hidden marital assets. Nancy therefore gathered up copies of documents she obtained during the pretrial discovery phase of the divorce and before.
These documents included Ralph's: passport, statements for airline frequent flyer miles, phone bills and financial records. Nancy gave them to Mike, who was a licensed private investigator she had retained to perform an asset search regarding Ralph. After conducting research for more than a month, Mike told Nancy that Ralph had hidden monies in foreign bank accounts and in Miami.
Mike asserted that Ralph had secretly maintained about $2.5 million dollars in foreign banks located in high-risk geographical locations known for money laundering. Ralph had also supposedly hidden another $85,000 dollars in a Miami bank account. Mike then explained that he could perform the necessary "bank account searches" which would identify all of Ralph's secret accounts.
As of the writing of this article, Nancy paid Mike over $28,000 dollars for the bank account searches and Mike had provided Nancy with a report summarizing his search results. The report identified the foreign bank accounts Ralph is believed to have hidden the $2.5 million dollars in. It also disclosed all the confidential details of Ralph's supposed $85,000 dollar Miami bank account.
When Nancy next complained to Mike, (that the report did not explain the source of Mike's information), Mike wrote her a letter. Mike's letter said that his report was completely reliable and that a trusted colleague had supplied Ralph's foreign banking information. It also stated that Mike had obtained Ralph's Miami bank account information from an "insider" who worked for the Miami bank. According to Mike's letter, the insider had used the bank's computer system to sneak a peek at Ralph's $85,000 dollar bank account.
Assuming that the statements in Mike's letter to Nancy are true, then both the insider and Mike may have violated federal privacy and other laws. The two for example, may have conspired to access Ralph's Miami bank account information in derogation of 18 U.S.C. §1030 (Fraud and related activity in connection with computers). Another recent case involving an insider at a bank is U.S.A. v. Feliciano, 2:09−cr−00197−NS. The March 2009 indictment filed in Feliciano, alleged that a bank teller had stolen confidential customer information as part of a bank fraud / identity theft scheme.
(Edited 10/14/2009)
Copyright 2009 Fred L. Abrams
