• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

DATE CASE NUMBER INVESTIGATIVE DESCRIPTION DISPOSITION CLOSED HUD OIG reviewed newspaper allegations concerning kickbacks from HVAC and audio/visual contractors who had bid on and received HUD funds to refurbish (b) (7)(C) investigation determined that the allegations had merit, however, this case has Based on the stagnancy of this matter, it was decided to administratively close the case until such (b) (7)(C) 3/15/2016 time that the prosecutor is prepared to move forward. Administratively Closed HUD OIG received information from local law enforcement that a company was involved in a conspiracy to originate fraudulent FHA-insured properties. The owners of this and other affiliated corporations were previously convicted in for the same conduct. Investigation determined that the owners of this mortgage company, realtors, appraisers, and straw buyers engaged in a conspiracy to generate fraudulent loans for home sales in the Connecticut area. There were 20 FHA-insured mortgage loans and 34 conventional mortgage loans, totaling $16,000,000, $7,000,000 of which were with FHA exposure. Three subjects were charged in this case resulting in: 3 debarments; 72 months of incarceration; 108 months of probation; $1,600 in fines, $3,098,459 in joint restitution with $481,719 in additional (b) (7)(C) 12/23/2015 restitution for one defendant. Successful Prosecution HUD OIG received a complaint from HUD alleging that an entity receiving (b) (7)(C) had provided false documentation to draw down funds used for the payment of salaries and operations of a non-HUD housing program. Investigation of the bank accounts determined that all funds were deposited and withdrawn properly and no suspicious transactions were uncovered. T(b) (5) (b) (7)(C) 7/30/2015 Prosecution Declined a local housing authority offered him a bribe in return for the officer to stop investigating a matter involving a maintenance employee associated with the housing authority. Investigation determined that (b) (7)(C) Celtic tickets, but the investigation ended when (b) (7)(C) (b) (5) (b) (7)(C) 10/30/2015 Prosecution Declined HUD OIG received information from a HUD CPD employee that three years worth (b) (7)(C) findings disclosed on monitoring reports for a homeless provider grantee were administratively adjudicated in a manner that (b) (7)(C) felt did not follow normal procedure. Furthermore, the monitoring reports indicated (b) (7)( engaged in financial irregularities. The investigation revealed that the grantee comingled federal and state funds, (b) (7)(C) , but there was no evidence that the grantee misused the HUD funds. HUD OIG's results were brought to the grantee's attention and they immediately created separate ledgers. The case was referred to the state agency whose funds were commingled with HUD's for their (b) (7)(C) 4/4/2016 review and action, if warranted. Closed by Referral HUD OIG HQ-Ops discovered potential identity theft associated with the data contained in the Continued Program Monitoring 500 analytical tool. There were four suspected cases of potential identity theft involving recipients of PIH subsidized housing in New York City. After researching HUD databases and contacting NYCHA IG, it was found that tenants were reporting their accurate income. Allegation not (b) (7)(C) 3/16/2016 substantiated, (b) (5) Allegation Not Substantiated HUD OIG in obtaining FHA loan files originated by a direct endorsement lender for review and analysis of fraudulent origination practices. Reviews of several FHA mortgage files noted fraud related to bank account information and false statements by the borrowers. (b) (7)(C) 1/4/2016 Prosecution Declined HUD OIG received a referral from (b) (7)(C) indicating that were falsifying documents during its mortgage origination process of FHA- insured loans. The investigation revealed the principals and the real estate broker created fraudulent information for borrowers in order to qualify them for FHA-insured loans. A total of seven subjects were charged in this case resulting in 1 suspension; 5 debarments; 92 months of incarceration; 264 months of (b) (7)(C) 10/20/2015 probation; $1,600 in fines, and $8,340,904 in restitution. Successful Prosecution The FBI contacted HUD OIG and other federal and state agencies, requesting assistance in an investigation involving a brokerage/law firm that allegedly engaged in fraudulent mortgage origination practices. The investigation determined that the real estate developer was using a straw buyer to purchase FHA-insured properties with FHA-insured loans. The real estate developer was charged and sentenced in U.S. District Court to one day of incarceration and 36 months supervised release, fined $25,000, and ordered to forfeit (b) (7)(C) 11/4/2015 $525,000 to the U.S. government. The real estate developer was also referred to the DEC for debarment. Successful Prosecution A former employee of a Section 8-assisted senior living facility alleged that the owners and their children embezzled Section 8 funds by failing to report the deaths of some of the tenants and instead, continuing to collect HUD subsidies for the apartments that were vacated by deceased tenants. The investigation revealed that although some Section 8 funds were paid for vacant apartments, HUD successfully reversed the payments. As such, there was no loss to HUD. The matter was then referred to HUD OIG Audit for their (b) (7)(C) 2/29/2016 action, if warranted. Referral to Program Staff/HUD HUD OIG received a complaint from a former business partner of a multi-property owner alleging that the owner misappropriated mortgage proceeds and investment funds from two Bronx multifamily buildings, and that tenants were paying bribes to the owner to obtain Section 8 apartments. Investigation determined the buildings were not HUD project-based and evidence collected indicating bribes might have occurred were (b) (7)(C) 4/8/2016 outside the statute of limitations. This case had no HUD nexus. Administratively Closed HUD OIG received a referral from alleging that a homeowner falsified her property deed to reflect that she was the sole owner of her property. The applicant received $38,000 in Hurricane Sandy funds. The investigation determined that the subject mistakenly furnished the wrong deed to the property in her application and that no intent to defraud was evident. The allegation was (b) (7)(C) 3/9/2016 not substantiated. Allegation Not Substantiated HUD OIG received a complaint from the alleging that a contractor hired by homeowners possessed false electrician and plumber licenses. The investigation determined that there was no loss to HUD and that this might be a consumer fraud crime. (b) (5) (b) (7)(C) 4/7/2016 Prosecution Declined HUD OIG received information from the Hotline alleging that Bank of America employees defrauded the FHA program by not verifying borrower income on one FHA loan. Further investigation revealed the victim retained counsel and counsel (b) (7)(C) no evidence of criminal wrong-doing. The loan is (b) (7)(C) 1/15/2016 currently in a contested foreclosure status. The allegations were unsubstantiated. Allegation Not Substantiated HUD OIG received information from DOL-OIG alleging that the(b) (7)(C) t received payoffs in exchange for awarding HOME grants to a particular contractor. The investigation corroborated the allegations and determined that the subject received over $2,000,000 in kickbacks from developers since 2001. A total of twelve subjects were charged in this case resulting in 2 dismissals; 3 acquittals; 3 suspensions; 4 debarments; 70 months of incarceration; (b) (7)(C) 11/5/2015 204 months of probation; 300 hours of community service; $25,000 in fines; and $553,199 in restitution. Successful Prosecution HUD OIG received a referral from the HOC regarding high default/claim rates, HUD losses, and questionable loans originated by (b) (7)(C) . Four subjects, including (b) (7)(C) (b) (7)(C) were prosecuted and sentenced for submitting false information to the FHA in order to receive the benefit of FHA-insured mortgages, on behalf of straw buyers, for which they were not qualified. The case resulted in 1 suspension; 3 debarments; 6 months incarceration; 144 months of probation; $5,000 in fines; (b) (7)(C) 9/17/2015 and $2,638,784.74 in restitution. Successful Prosecution HUD OIG received information from HUD Program concerning the questioned disposition of approximately $90,000 in unaccounted for union funds. The unaccounted funds caused union members to question whether a HUD (b) (7)(C) may have embezzled the funds. (b) (7)(C) (b) (7)(C) 1/25/2016 Employee Action HUD OIG received a referral from the HOC QAD alleging Bank of America reported a borrower misrepresented both his occupancy and the sales history of the subject FHA-insured property. Investigation uncovered a mortgage fraud conspiracy involved several fraudulently originated FHA-insured properties. The subject, acting on the borrowers' behalf, prepared, caused to be prepared, and submitted to the lenders, mortgage applications containing misrepresentations and material falsehoods, designed to include the lenders to issue the mortgage loans. (b) (7)(C) due to (b) (7)(C) (b) (7)(C) 10/5/2015 . Successful Prosecution Single-instance tenant fraud referrals (Section 8 and Public Housing) were administratively documented in this case file. The subjects indicated, during interviews, that they either failed to report or under-reported their income on the certification forms. A total of 8 subjects were charged resulting in 1 employee (b) (7)(C) 10/9/2015 termination, 156 months of probation, and $146,187.26 in restitution. Successful Prosecution The FBI requested HUD OIG's assistance in investigating the CEO of a HUD-funded project, who allegedly provided false financial reports to investors and converted project funds to personal use. HUD OIG and HUD Program collaborated and it led to a Settlement Agreement requiring the project owner to resolve compliance issues that occurred during 2011 through 2014.

Load more

  121

Copy Link