The Federal Bureau of Investigation's mission in the area of Financial
Institution Fraud (FIF) is to identify, target, disrupt, and dismantle criminal
organizations and individual operations engaged in fraud schemes which target
our nation’s financial institutions. Additionally, the FBI seeks to
identify, undertake, and promote prevention measures, where available, to
reduce the opportunity for fraud to take place within the financial institution
arena. Within white-collar crimes, FIF investigations are among the most
demanding, difficult, and time-consuming cases undertaken by law enforcement.
Efforts by the FBI and the Department of Justice have attained extraordinary
results since the enactment of the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery,
and Enforcement Act (FIRREA) of 1989.
Areas of primary investigative interest relative to FIF include mortgage
and loan fraud, insider fraud, check fraud, counterfeit negotiable instruments,
check kiting, and financial institution failures. FIF investigations related
to emerging technologies and computer-related banking are taking on added
significance among the nation’s financial institutions.
Since the 1992 peak of the savings and loan crisis, the FBI has been able to
refocus its investigative efforts from failed financial institution cases to
other high-priority FIF matters. At the close of FY 2006, the total number of
pending FIF investigations for the FBI was 4,655. Of this total, 56 failure
cases, or less than 2 percent, involved criminal activity related to a failed
financial institution.
At the close of FY 2007, the total number of pending FIF investigations
for the FBI was 2,852. This figure does not include 1,204 mortgage fraud
cases which the FBI now separates by classification from other FIF investigations.
Of the total FIF cases, 43 cases, or less than 2 percent, involved criminal
activity related to a failed financial institution.
As the number of failure investigations has declined, the number of major
FIF investigations has remained substantial and the number of mortgage fraud
cases has dramatically increased. As of FY 2007, the FBI was investigating
1,042 major FIF cases.1 This is significant in view of the fact
that convictions related to major case investigations have remained constant
since FY 1995,
surpassing total convictions for major cases during the 1992 peak.
During the late 1980s and early 1990s, approximately 60 percent of the fraud
reported by financial institutions related to bank insider abuse. Since then,
external fraud schemes have replaced bank insider abuse as the dominant FIF
problem confronting financial institutions. The pervasiveness of mortgage
fraud, check fraud and counterfeit negotiable instrument schemes, technological
advances, as well as the availability of personal information through information
networks, has fueled the growth in external fraud. In many instances, the
international aspects associated with many of these schemes have increased
the complexity and severity in the fraud being committed.
The increased reliance by both financial institutions and non-financial
institution lenders on third -party brokers has created opportunities for
organized fraud groups, particularly where mortgage industry professionals
are involved.
Criminal activity has become more complex and loan frauds are expanding
to multi-transactional frauds involving groups of people from top management
to industry professionals who assist in the loan application process. These
professionals include loan brokers, appraisers, accountants, and real estate
attorneys. Such transactions are sometimes hidden against a backdrop of genuine
transactions which give them an appearance of legitimacy. To combat these
fraudulent activities, the FBI often targets large-scale fraud operations
involving hundreds of subjects in multiple jurisdictions.
The FBI continues to concentrate its efforts on organized criminal groups
involved in these activities. These organized groups are often involved in
the sale and distribution of stolen and counterfeit corporate checks, money
orders, payroll checks, credit and debit cards, U.S. Treasury checks, and
currency. Furthermore, the organized groups involved in check fraud and loan
fraud schemes are often involved in illegal money-laundering activities in
an effort to conceal the proceeds from their crimes. The FBI often utilizes
asset forfeiture statutes to forfeit the proceeds of these fraud schemes.
For the period of April 1, 1996, through September 30, 2007, the FBI received
846,113 Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) for criminal activity related
to check fraud, check kiting, counterfeit checks, counterfeit negotiable
instruments, and mortgage loan fraud. These fraudulent activities accounted
for 27 percent of the 3,186,213 SARs filed by U.S. financial institutions (excluding
Bank Secrecy Act violations), and equaled more than $21.4 billion in losses.2
Other fraud matters affecting the nation's financial institutions are being
classified and worked by the FBI as Corporate Fraud, Cyber Fraud, and Terrorist
Financing. The results of these cases are not included in this report.
The lines between traditional banking services and other financial services
now offered by financial institutions are fading. As financial institutions
become less regulated and provide more financial services to the public through
the sale of insurance, securities, investment products, and on-line banking,
the nature of FIF will change in terms of the potential impact to the nation’s
financial institutions.
The FBI has responded to these trends by providing proactive deterrents
to assist the nation’s banking infrastructure in combating FIF. The
FBI and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency published Check Fraud:
A Guide to Avoiding Losses, (revised in 1999 by the FBI) to assist financial
institutions in identifying check fraud-related schemes. Another publication
produced in 2001 by the FBI entitled: “How Financial Institutions Can
Help the FBI” can assist financial institutions in preventing
and reporting financial crimes as well as bank robberies.
I. FINANCIAL INSTITUTION FAILURE INVESTIGATIONS
AND PERCENT OF INCREASE (DECREASE) FROM PRIOR YEAR
Since February 1986, the FBI has tracked the number of financial institution
failure investigations. From a peak of 758 cases in July 1992, failure investigations
have steadily declined. Since the 1992 peak, failure investigations have decreased
94.4 percent. The matrix below illustrates the number of failure investigations
and corresponding percentage change by fiscal year.
FISCAL YEAR
REPORT DATE |
FAILURE
INVESTIGATIONS |
% CHANGE
FROM PRIOR YEAR |
Sep-95 |
395 |
(-25.6%) |
Sep-96 |
247 |
(-37.5%) |
Sep-97 |
200 |
(-19.0%) |
Sep-98 |
142 |
(-29.0%) |
Sep-99 |
129 |
(-09.1%) |
Sep-00 |
99 |
(-23.3%) |
1-Sep |
97 |
(- 2.1%) |
2-Sep |
71 |
(-26.8%) |
3-Sep |
67 |
(-5.6%) |
4-Sep |
60 |
(-10.4%) |
5-Sep |
62 |
(+3.3%) |
6-Sep |
56 |
(-9.7%) |
7-Sep |
43 |
(-23.2%) |
The chart and graphs which follow exhibits:
(a) Financial Institution Failure
Investigations for 2002 – 2007;
(b)
Number of FDIC-Insured “Problem Institutions” for 2002 – 2007; and,
(c) Assets of FDIC-Insured “Problem Institutions” for 2002 – 2007.
(a) Financial Institution Failure Investigations for2002 – 2007
(b) Number of FDIC-Insured “Problem Institutions” for 2002
– 2007
“Problem Institutions”–those with financial, operational,
or managerial
weaknesses that threaten their continued viability. Source: FDIC Quarterly
Banking Profile through Third Quarter 2007
(c) Assets of FDIC-Insured “Problem Institutions” for 2002 – 2007
“Problem Institutions”–those with financial, operational,
or managerial
weaknesses that threaten their continued viability. Source: FDIC Quarterly
Banking Profile through Third Quarter 2007.
II. FINANCIAL INSTITUTION FRAUD AND MAJOR CASES
UNDER INVESTIGATION BY THE FBI BY FISCAL YEAR
Following the 1982 deregulation of the savings and loan industry, and in conjunction
with more speculative lending practices, the FBI initiated criminal investigations
of hundreds of failed financial institutions throughout the United States.
Since the July 1992 peak, the number of failure investigations has steadily
declined. However, total FIF and major case investigations have leveled off
to pre-1992 figures. At the close of FY 2007 the total number of pending FIF
and major case investigations continue to exceed levels at the beginning of
the savings and loan crisis. The following matrix reflects total pending FIF
and major case investigations reported during FY 2002 through FY 2007.
FISCAL YEAR |
NUMBER OF PENDING FIF CASES |
% CHANGE FROM PRIOR YEAR |
NUMBER OF MAJOR CASES |
% CHANGE FROM PRIOR YEAR |
PERCENT MAJOR TO PENDING CASES |
2002 |
7,305 |
-10.80% |
4,287 |
-2.20% |
58.70% |
2003 |
5,869 |
-19.70% |
4,027 |
-6% |
68.60% |
2004 |
5,125 |
-12.70% |
3,915 |
-3% |
76.30% |
2005 |
5,041 |
-1.70% |
4,135 |
5.60% |
82.00% |
2006 |
4,104 |
-18.60% |
3,316 |
-19.80% |
80.80% |
2007 |
4,056 |
-1.20% |
1,719 |
-48.20% |
42.20% |
The chart and graph which follows exhibit:
(a) Pending and Major Cases for FYs 2002 – 2007.
(a) Pending and Major Cases
for FYs 2002 – 2007
III. STATISTICAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS FROM FBI INVESTIGATIONS
IN FINANCIAL INSTITUTION FRAUD AND FAILURE MATTERS
A. CONVICTIONS/PRE-TRIAL DIVERSIONS
Total FIF convictions, excluding local convictions, continued to decrease.
However, the percentage of convictions in major cases continued to increase.
The matrix below is illustrative of this trend.
FISCAL YEAR |
NUMBER OF CONVICTIONS* |
NUMBER OF MAJOR CONVICTIONS* |
% OF MAJOR TO TOTAL CONVICTIONS |
2002 |
2,397 |
1,328 |
55.40% |
2003 |
2,053 |
1,286 |
62.70% |
2004 |
1,728 |
1,265 |
73.20% |
2005 |
1,537 |
1,218 |
79.20% |
2006 |
1,424 |
1,148 |
89.60% |
2007 |
925 |
363 |
39.20% |
* Includes pre-trial diversions and excludes local convictions.
The charts and graphs which follow exhibits:
(a) Convictions and Pre-Trial Diversions for FYs 2002 – 2007;
(b)
Types of Subjects Convicted in FIF Cases During FY 2007; and
(c) Total Convictions, “Outsiders vs Insiders” for
FYs 2002 – 2007.
(a): Convictions and Pre-Trial Diversions for FYs 2002
– 2007
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION FRAUD CONVICTIONS AND PRE-TRIAL DIVERSIONS
(DOES NOT INCLUDE LOCAL CONVICTIONS) |
FBI FIELD OFFICE |
FISCAL YEAR 2002 |
FISCAL YEAR 2003 |
FISCAL YEAR 2004 |
FISCAL YEAR 2005 |
FISCAL YEAR 2006 |
FISCAL
YEAR
2007 |
ALBANY |
19 |
22 |
20 |
6 |
8 |
22 |
ALBUQUERQUE |
10 |
6 |
7 |
7 |
12 |
10 |
ANCHORAGE |
8 |
24 |
8 |
6 |
4 |
10 |
ATLANTA |
78 |
79 |
64 |
43 |
59 |
84 |
BALTIMORE |
27 |
31 |
31 |
13 |
15 |
17 |
BIRMINGHAM |
71 |
38 |
24 |
16 |
8 |
16 |
BOSTON |
33 |
27 |
13 |
17 |
42 |
25 |
BUFFALO |
22 |
17 |
5 |
10 |
11 |
5 |
CHARLOTTE |
42 |
28 |
48 |
34 |
70 |
24 |
CHICAGO |
103 |
88 |
36 |
52 |
65 |
46 |
CINCINNATI |
39 |
47 |
80 |
37 |
42 |
30 |
CLEVELAND |
96 |
151 |
119 |
75 |
50 |
42 |
COLUMBIA |
32 |
36 |
44 |
27 |
27 |
18 |
DALLAS |
120 |
107 |
84 |
84 |
53 |
56 |
DENVER |
27 |
19 |
25 |
17 |
8 |
15 |
DETROIT |
93 |
58 |
39 |
52 |
32 |
28 |
EL PASO |
11 |
2 |
3 |
5 |
6 |
6 |
HONOLULU |
27 |
18 |
22 |
12 |
14 |
10 |
HOUSTON |
64 |
22 |
16 |
32 |
5 |
8 |
INDIANAPOLIS |
17 |
16 |
10 |
13 |
28 |
4 |
JACKSON |
25 |
24 |
15 |
16 |
30 |
21 |
JACKSONVILLE |
10 |
13 |
14 |
12 |
9 |
7 |
KANSAS CITY |
29 |
46 |
34 |
26 |
27 |
25 |
KNOXVILLE |
20 |
17 |
12 |
10 |
15 |
12 |
LAS VEGAS |
34 |
25 |
11 |
7 |
8 |
3 |
LITTLE ROCK |
51 |
32 |
29 |
38 |
31 |
20 |
LOS ANGELES |
79 |
70 |
47 |
64 |
120 |
64 |
LOUISVILLE |
37 |
22 |
32 |
21 |
30 |
23 |
MEMPHIS |
70 |
37 |
26 |
34 |
44 |
34 |
MIAMI |
56 |
31 |
25 |
25 |
18 |
20 |
MILWAUKEE |
39 |
34 |
23 |
32 |
19 |
34 |
MINNEAPOLIS |
45 |
35 |
28 |
25 |
25 |
32 |
MOBILE |
29 |
27 |
11 |
20 |
13 |
4 |
NEWARK |
38 |
28 |
38 |
49 |
32 |
16 |
NEW HAVEN |
7 |
10 |
22 |
19 |
3 |
7 |
NEW ORLEANS |
52 |
65 |
61 |
43 |
41 |
31 |
NEW YORK |
141 |
113 |
111 |
90 |
91 |
85 |
NORFOLK |
22 |
11 |
19 |
16 |
14 |
13 |
OKLAHOMA CITY |
42 |
24 |
26 |
35 |
17 |
37 |
OMAHA |
26 |
23 |
37 |
23 |
26 |
10 |
PHILADELPHIA |
83 |
74 |
58 |
45 |
59 |
69 |
PHOENIX |
0 |
11 |
8 |
18 |
6 |
18 |
PITTSBURGH |
31 |
31 |
17 |
13 |
23 |
21 |
PORTLAND |
45 |
20 |
21 |
17 |
22 |
17 |
RICHMOND |
44 |
35 |
18 |
10 |
22 |
20 |
SACRAMENTO |
14 |
11 |
10 |
13 |
41 |
35 |
SAINT LOUIS |
58 |
67 |
48 |
55 |
33 |
19 |
SALT LAKE CITY |
42 |
37 |
18 |
12 |
14 |
12 |
SAN ANTONIO |
31 |
32 |
17 |
25 |
29 |
35 |
SAN DIEGO |
31 |
6 |
8 |
15 |
7 |
11 |
SAN FRANCISCO |
11 |
26 |
26 |
5 |
8 |
5 |
SAN JUAN |
12 |
7 |
12 |
24 |
5 |
2 |
SEATTLE |
89 |
40 |
45 |
30 |
28 |
20 |
SPRINGFIELD |
40 |
54 |
23 |
23 |
17 |
14 |
TAMPA |
20 |
19 |
26 |
29 |
12 |
15 |
WMFO |
55 |
60 |
54 |
40 |
23 |
24 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTALS |
2,397 |
2,053 |
1,728 |
1,537 |
1,521 |
1,311 |
(b): Types of Subjects Convicted in FIF Cases During
FY 2007*
SUBJECT TYPE |
NUMBER OF SUBJECTS |
Legal Alien |
8 |
Illegal Alien |
20 |
All Other Subjects |
1,038 |
Bank Officer |
88 |
Bank Employee |
179 |
International or National Union Officer |
1 |
President |
1 |
Business Manager |
2 |
Office Manager |
2 |
Financial Secretary |
1 |
Federal Employee - GS 12 & Below |
1 |
State - All Others |
1 |
Local Law Enforcement Officer |
1 |
City Councilman |
1 |
Possible Terrorist Member or Sympathizer |
1 |
Company or Corporation |
7 |
Local - All Others |
2 |
Total |
1,354 |
* Does not include pre-trial diversions or local convictions
(c) Convictions,“Outsiders vs Insiders”2002 – 2007
(No pre-trial
diversions or local convictions)
B. INDICTMENTS AND INFORMATIONS
For FY 2006 the total number of defendants charged by indictment or information
decreased 10.9 percent from FY 2005 and 9.8 percent from FY 2006 to FY 2007. The
following matrix illustrates this trend.
FISCAL YEAR |
INDICTMENTS/INFORMATIONS* |
2002 |
2,471 |
2003 |
1,918 |
2004 |
1,822 |
2005 |
1,543 |
2006 |
1,375 |
2007 |
1,240 |
* Does not include subjects charged in state or local jurisdictions.
The chart and graphs which follow exhibits:
(a) Total FIF Indictments
and Informations for FYs 2002 – 2007.
(a) Total FIF Indictments and Informations for FYs 2002
– 2007
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION FRAUD INDICTMENTS/INFORMATIONS
(DOES NOT INCLUDE LOCAL INDICTMENTS/INFORMATIONS) |
FBI FIELD OFFICE |
FISCAL
YEAR 2002 |
FISCAL YEAR 2003 |
FISCAL YEAR 2004 |
FISCAL YEAR 2005 |
FISCAL YEAR 2006 |
FISCAL YEAR 2007 |
ALBANY |
21 |
20 |
11 |
6 |
5 |
26 |
ALBUQUERQUE |
7 |
5 |
6 |
14 |
10 |
9 |
ANCHORAGE |
4 |
18 |
11 |
7 |
10 |
11 |
ATLANTA |
56 |
71 |
67 |
28 |
128 |
87 |
BALTIMORE |
44 |
45 |
16 |
11 |
17 |
14 |
BIRMINGHAM |
78 |
35 |
29 |
7 |
9 |
16 |
BOSTON |
32 |
25 |
26 |
33 |
30 |
23 |
BUFFALO |
11 |
11 |
9 |
7 |
15 |
3 |
CHARLOTTE |
40 |
22 |
56 |
69 |
30 |
31 |
CHICAGO |
122 |
78 |
44 |
82 |
44 |
29 |
CINCINNATI |
41 |
46 |
62 |
45 |
37 |
32 |
CLEVELAND |
203 |
57 |
123 |
74 |
48 |
41 |
COLUMBIA |
40 |
52 |
40 |
32 |
28 |
13 |
DALLAS |
145 |
112 |
80 |
86 |
49 |
57 |
DENVER |
22 |
24 |
24 |
12 |
6 |
12 |
DETROIT |
57 |
43 |
63 |
33 |
39 |
34 |
EL PASO |
7 |
8 |
4 |
5 |
11 |
6 |
HONOLULU |
35 |
9 |
26 |
10 |
18 |
12 |
HOUSTON |
41 |
32 |
14 |
12 |
11 |
19 |
INDIANAPOLIS |
20 |
10 |
13 |
27 |
12 |
6 |
JACKSON |
23 |
27 |
19 |
14 |
47 |
11 |
JACKSONVILLE |
12 |
16 |
20 |
22 |
5 |
4 |
KANSAS CITY |
52 |
47 |
32 |
30 |
36 |
23 |
KNOXVILLE |
21 |
12 |
9 |
15 |
14 |
8 |
LAS VEGAS |
18 |
23 |
10 |
9 |
3 |
3 |
LITTLE ROCK |
32 |
26 |
38 |
43 |
23 |
13 |
LOS ANGELES |
113 |
49 |
83 |
86 |
87 |
50 |
LOUISVILLE |
44 |
32 |
24 |
31 |
34 |
24 |
MEMPHIS |
82 |
25 |
38 |
41 |
54 |
24 |
MIAMI |
55 |
19 |
54 |
12 |
14 |
18 |
MILWAUKEE |
48 |
33 |
23 |
11 |
28 |
43 |
MINNEAPOLIS |
37 |
38 |
23 |
23 |
30 |
35 |
MOBILE |
23 |
33 |
10 |
8 |
14 |
4 |
NEWARK |
52 |
29 |
38 |
61 |
29 |
27 |
NEW HAVEN |
8 |
14 |
34 |
5 |
6 |
6 |
NEW ORLEANS |
35 |
83 |
68 |
59 |
39 |
22 |
NEW YORK |
136 |
116 |
123 |
86 |
101 |
84 |
NORFOLK |
25 |
12 |
24 |
14 |
14 |
12 |
OKLAHOMA CITY |
29 |
25 |
28 |
34 |
29 |
42 |
OMAHA |
21 |
32 |
25 |
20 |
26 |
11 |
PHILADELPHIA |
103 |
60 |
55 |
33 |
87 |
60 |
PHOENIX |
6 |
26 |
8 |
2 |
6 |
11 |
PITTSBURGH |
24 |
38 |
9 |
18 |
26 |
22 |
PORTLAND |
30 |
26 |
21 |
30 |
27 |
20 |
RICHMOND |
29 |
40 |
11 |
21 |
18 |
31 |
SACRAMENTO |
21 |
7 |
8 |
13 |
50 |
28 |
SAINT LOUIS |
39 |
28 |
38 |
41 |
37 |
21 |
SALT LAKE CITY |
38 |
35 |
20 |
11 |
17 |
15 |
SAN ANTONIO |
32 |
33 |
22 |
38 |
12 |
43 |
SAN DIEGO |
8 |
6 |
6 |
5 |
4 |
5 |
SAN FRANCISCO |
35 |
40 |
14 |
6 |
17 |
6 |
SAN JUAN |
3 |
17 |
15 |
26 |
2 |
6 |
SEATTLE |
85 |
23 |
47 |
36 |
22 |
15 |
SPRINGFIELD |
52 |
42 |
19 |
23 |
13 |
11 |
TAMPA |
18 |
28 |
17 |
30 |
12 |
10 |
WMFO |
56 |
55 |
65 |
44 |
20 |
39 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTALS |
2,471 |
1,918 |
1,822 |
1,601 |
1,560 |
1,288 |
C. RECOVERIES, RESTITUTIONS, AND FINES
For FY 2006 and FY 2007, statistical accomplishments for recoveries, restitutions,
and fines continue to demonstrate the FBI's investigative efforts in addressing
FIF. The matrix which follows illustrates actual dollar amounts recovered
for FYs 2002 – 2007.
FISCAL YEAR |
RECOVERIES |
RESTITUTIONS |
FINES |
2002 |
$28,164,377 |
$1,983,796,156 |
$7,614,787 |
2003 |
$15,145,174 |
$3,128,016,099 |
$35,642,324 |
2004 |
$30,561,112 |
$3,132,922,982 |
$18,104,071 |
2005 |
$31,742,313 |
$3,601,154,263 |
$19,233,834 |
2006 |
$27,171,846 |
$1,442,277,122 |
$584,363,385 |
2007 |
$32,632,568 |
$2,581,187,296 |
$12,135,541 |
The charts and graphs which follow exhibits:
(a) Recoveries by Office for FYs 2002 – 2007;
(b) Recoveries for FYs
2002 – 2007;
(c) Restitutions by Office for FYs 2002 – 2007;
(d) Restitutions for
FYs 2002 – 2007;
(e) Fines by Office for FYs 2002 – 2007; and
(f) Fines for FYs 2002 – 2007.
(a) Recoveries by Office for FYs 2002 – 2007
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION FRAUD RECOVERIES
FISCAL YEARS 2002
–- 2007 |
FBI FIELD OFFICE |
FISCAL YEAR 2002 |
FISCAL YEAR 2003 |
FISCAL YEAR 2004 |
FISCAL YEAR 2005 |
FISCAL YEAR 2006 |
FISCAL
YEAR 2007 |
ALBANY |
-$0- |
$131,656 |
$265,840 |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
ALBUQUERQUE |
$361,633 |
$609,099 |
-$0- |
-$0- |
$277,962 |
-$0- |
ANCHORAGE |
$1,949 |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
ATLANTA |
$318,658 |
$712,784 |
$59,650 |
$105,750 |
$464,690 |
$76,450 |
BALTIMORE |
$36,900 |
$242,963 |
$29,379 |
$137,500 |
-$0- |
-$0- |
BIRMINGHAM |
$61,000 |
$82,915 |
$51,342 |
$25,000 |
-$0- |
-$0- |
BOSTON |
$236,086 |
$20,334 |
$240,424 |
$7,180,000 |
-$0- |
$443,408 |
BUFFALO |
$8,250 |
$4,450 |
$4,200 |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
CHARLOTTE |
$152,462 |
$3,065,459 |
-$0- |
$66,589 |
$420,130 |
-$0- |
CHICAGO |
$290,372 |
$2,841,700 |
$2,510,585 |
$1,075,439 |
$3,106,394 |
$325,000 |
CINCINNATI |
$65,803 |
$470,738 |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
CLEVELAND |
$785,077 |
$165,937 |
$175,063 |
$64,400 |
$493,647 |
$539,277 |
COLUMBIA |
$24,674 |
$304,709 |
-$0- |
$115,300 |
$53,530 |
-$0- |
DALLAS |
$873,644 |
$4,462,303 |
$806,127 |
$398,222 |
$412,701 |
$63,306 |
DENVER |
$8,714,188 |
$274,111 |
-$0- |
$82,894 |
$46,005 |
-$0- |
DETROIT |
$158,566 |
$151,417 |
$298,923 |
$376,931 |
$38,171 |
-$0- |
EL PASO |
$102,000 |
-$0- |
-$0- |
$176,836 |
-$0- |
-$0- |
HONOLULU |
$288,172 |
$3,000 |
$1,500 |
$218,852 |
$2,079,468 |
$250,000 |
HOUSTON |
$88,505 |
$612,348 |
$31,396 |
$25,000 |
$257,018 |
$45,377 |
INDIANAPOLIS |
$6,185 |
$15,647 |
-$0- |
$30,250 |
-$0- |
$631,881 |
JACKSON |
-$0- |
$65,767 |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
$127,000 |
JACKSONVILLE |
$10,075 |
$25,532 |
$151,836 |
$24,000 |
$1,457,718 |
$60,000 |
KANSAS CITY |
$167,006 |
$2,400 |
-$0- |
$88,000 |
-$0- |
$2,976,600 |
KNOXVILLE |
$3,100 |
$19,720 |
-$0- |
$138,312 |
-$0- |
$86,931 |
LAS VEGAS |
-$0- |
$22,850,495 |
$542,500 |
$2,225,000 |
$1,401,550 |
-$0- |
LITTLE ROCK |
$792,900 |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
$661 |
-$0- |
LOS ANGELES |
$5,210 |
$210,612 |
$131,919 |
$282,539 |
$586,966 |
$77,050 |
LOUISVILLE |
-$0- |
$20,524 |
$63,426 |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
MEMPHIS |
$483,507 |
$114,008 |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
MIAMI |
$3,722,589 |
$82,556 |
$95,487 |
-$0- |
$868,500 |
$110,464 |
MILWAUKEE |
$744,710 |
$147,825 |
$24,542 |
$112,129 |
$380,000 |
$258 |
MINNEAPOLIS |
$4,000 |
$28,135 |
$70,000 |
$81,733 |
$80,500 |
-$0- |
MOBILE |
$39,000 |
$6,020 |
$3,430,666 |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
NEWARK |
$1,550,531 |
$1,383,688 |
$18,485,902 |
-$0- |
$6,112 |
-$0- |
NEW HAVEN |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
$1,013,118 |
NEW ORLEANS |
$718,333 |
$425,350 |
$57,019 |
$50,723 |
-$0- |
-$0- |
NEW YORK |
$1,347,872 |
$1,663,022 |
$178,649 |
$1,258,721 |
$12,683,476 |
$1,940,165 |
NORFOLK |
$23,000 |
$88,787 |
$24,435 |
$36,664 |
$25,186 |
$21,329 |
OKLAHOMA CITY |
$1,496,976 |
$397,335 |
$953,600 |
$4,001,788 |
-$0- |
-$0- |
OMAHA |
$2,000 |
$251,334 |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
PHILADELPHIA |
$201,068 |
$657,873 |
$14,900 |
$2,897,135 |
$1,190,395 |
$80,748 |
PHOENIX |
$68,000 |
-$0- |
$29,593 |
$124,088 |
$3,668 |
-$0- |
PITTSBURGH |
-$0- |
$162,650 |
$166,500 |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
PORTLAND |
$101,183 |
$351,900 |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
$20,000 |
RICHMOND |
$8,800 |
$70,451 |
$583,538 |
$2,301 |
$40,666 |
-$0- |
SACRAMENTO |
-$0- |
-$0- |
$435,000 |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
SAINT LOUIS |
$1,048,643 |
$2,400 |
$2,200 |
-$0- |
$101,112 |
-$0- |
SALT LAKE CITY |
$17,495 |
$154,252 |
$109,067 |
-$0- |
$80,000 |
$21,703,684 |
SAN ANTONIO |
$2,000 |
$91,088 |
-$0- |
$110,170 |
-$0- |
$14,400 |
SAN DIEGO |
$313,808 |
$2,000 |
$417,000 |
$7,454,898 |
-$0- |
-$0- |
SAN FRANCISCO |
-$0- |
$283,111 |
$10,000 |
$423,212 |
-$0- |
-$0- |
SAN JUAN |
$99,331 |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
SEATTLE |
$1,928,854 |
$860,118 |
$41,722 |
$1,500 |
-$0- |
-$0- |
SPRINGFIELD |
$50,000 |
-$0- |
-$0- |
$83,845 |
-$0- |
-$0- |
TAMPA |
-$0- |
$1,126,558 |
$13,937 |
$6,500 |
-$0- |
$912,613 |
WMFO |
$640,262 |
$42,415 |
$53,245 |
$2,004,426 |
$615,620 |
$1,113,509 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTALS |
$28,164,377 |
$45,759,496 |
$30,561,112 |
$31,486,647 |
$27,171,846 |
$32,632,568 |
(b) Recoveries for FYs
2002 – 2007
(c) Restitutions by Office for FYs 2002 – 2007
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION FRAUD RESTITUTIONS
FISCAL YEARS 2002 – 2007 |
FBI FIELD OFFICE |
FISCAL YEAR 2002 |
FISCAL YEAR 2003 |
FISCAL YEAR 2004 |
FISCAL YEAR 2005 |
FISCAL YEAR 2006 |
FISCAL YEAR 2007 |
ALBANY |
$11,312,507 |
$944,303 |
$9,356,717 |
$4,016,733 |
$265,086 |
$14,694,561 |
ALBUQUERQUE |
$586,106 |
$2,565,093 |
$846,070 |
$88,260 |
$5,949,031 |
$884,896 |
ANCHORAGE |
$499,760 |
$1,758,633 |
$965,444 |
$939,237 |
$125,800 |
$2,350,846 |
ATLANTA |
$48,953,228 |
$273,084,188 |
$13,431,838 |
$20,369,310 |
$29,381,886 |
$47,368,158 |
BALTIMORE |
$18,166,924 |
$694,701,811 |
$54,103,859 |
$5,144,744 |
$8,837,702 |
$145,616,428 |
BIRMINGHAM |
$21,799,928 |
$8,285,970 |
$18,209,471 |
$2,886,101 |
$4,737,970 |
$2,498,248 |
BOSTON |
$2,929,969 |
$2,029,355 |
$6,082,676 |
$8,910,393 |
$9,772,524 |
$3,510,354 |
BUFFALO |
$302,911 |
$11,014,194 |
$18,061,674 |
$3,486,415 |
$1,539,949 |
$140,190 |
CHARLOTTE |
$12,844,936 |
$37,809,022 |
$2,688,851 |
$288,916,866 |
$45,567,545 |
$20,568,513 |
CHICAGO |
$31,435,574 |
$77,143,471 |
$30,809,210 |
$57,817,870 |
$39,217,862 |
$109,488,670 |
CINCINNATI |
$7,488,247 |
$1,614,786 |
$67,143,069 |
$4,130,390 |
$17,232,149 |
$3,255,701 |
CLEVELAND |
$4,395,079 |
$60,381,858 |
$32,315,860 |
$21,576,928 |
$6,700,793 |
$52,337,044 |
COLUMBIA |
$6,763,725 |
$5,209,817 |
$4,140,206 |
$20,229,712 |
$6,419,911 |
$3,189,619 |
DALLAS |
$22,150,376 |
$26,369,619 |
$19,217,466 |
$58,282,445 |
$79,839,087 |
$33,081,964 |
DENVER |
$2,743,222 |
$14,952,272 |
$3,142,330 |
$75,462,956 |
$39,422,929 |
$885,353 |
DETROIT |
$26,969,365 |
$10,860,548 |
$5,648,662 |
$4,728,759 |
$19,571,032 |
$40,794,202 |
EL PASO |
$630,323 |
$1,257,410 |
$147,054 |
$105,103 |
$1,441,720 |
$375,029 |
HONOLULU |
$4,981,492 |
$1,505,580 |
$9,078,900 |
$2,132,473 |
$6,368,062 |
$15,311,616 |
HOUSTON |
$15,702,375 |
$20,088,102 |
$28,231,008 |
$15,008,882 |
$9,232,402 |
$0 |
INDIANAPOLIS |
$1,920,784 |
$7,338,419 |
$6,061,430 |
$2,425,770 |
$4,738,956 |
$34,031,961 |
JACKSON |
$2,963,325 |
$158,424,141 |
$287,815 |
$1,338,902 |
$2,242,914 |
$34,483,837 |
JACKSONVILLE |
$712,651 |
$2,859,555 |
$1,392,875 |
$5,469,051 |
$30,641,398 |
$789,097 |
KANSAS CITY |
$2,310,880 |
$16,835,743 |
$375,676,323 |
$6,537,176 |
$13,111,880 |
$48,187,030 |
KNOXVILLE |
$840,908 |
$4,399,753 |
$2,857,922 |
$10,833,994 |
$18,937,156 |
$351,054,406 |
LAS VEGAS |
$5,997,581 |
$2,000,917 |
$1,949,382 |
$10,971,044 |
$4,951,993 |
$4,062,586 |
LITTLE ROCK |
$5,568,148 |
$15,169,291 |
$1,561,984 |
$11,231,719 |
$10,740,708 |
$3,047,583 |
LOS ANGELES |
$27,912,471 |
$44,610,084 |
$43,050,573 |
$29,063,385 |
$212,396,997 |
$81,003,427 |
LOUISVILLE |
$3,271,780 |
$472,095 |
$22,709,365 |
$2,651,743 |
$693,768 |
$4,014,421 |
MEMPHIS |
$5,192,691 |
$10,181,502 |
$4,995,365 |
$5,812,275 |
$132,468,895 |
$1,000,001 |
MIAMI |
$4,550,765 |
$28,029,624 |
$555,123,560 |
$195,905,848 |
$53,700,973 |
$681,549,378 |
MILWAUKEE |
$67,827,070 |
$72,501,052 |
$9,784,033 |
$1,971,539 |
$1,586,762 |
$2,914,033 |
MINNEAPOLIS |
$2,412,448 |
$14,655,008 |
$26,055,079 |
$2,475,753 |
$6,255,414 |
$3,305,894 |
MOBILE |
$1,739,125 |
$5,790,465 |
$1,445,148 |
$259,663 |
$1,775,797 |
$4,333,236 |
NEWARK |
$5,863,109 |
$16,217,624 |
$21,820,014 |
$31,573,654 |
$44,167,482 |
$9,470,918 |
NEW HAVEN |
$1,086,471 |
$1,013,398 |
$4,057,967 |
$1,965,541 |
$146,093 |
$17,014,017 |
NEW ORLEANS |
$4,214,036 |
$3,438,298 |
$2,015,167 |
$4,651,928 |
$9,592,078 |
$2,442,404 |
NEW YORK |
$127,861,261 |
$122,753,742 |
$1,600,914,476 |
$2,558,054,617 |
$350,061,186 |
$234,875,923 |
NORFOLK |
$12,776,212 |
$5,819,923 |
$4,443,407 |
$765,983 |
$883,393 |
$872,306 |
OKLAHOMA CITY |
$20,034,408 |
$1,092,842,879 |
$3,175,628 |
$19,996,284 |
$5,099,230 |
$7,794,108 |
OMAHA |
$2,216,090 |
$18,790,553 |
$6,819,109 |
$9,341,985 |
$11,185,441 |
$9,920,153 |
PHILADELPHIA |
$14,060,819 |
$17,914,633 |
$9,846,168 |
$17,870,262 |
$88,362,785 |
$386,923,421 |
PHOENIX |
$1,448,602 |
$314,357 |
$656,135 |
$4,415,727 |
$3,439,410 |
$3,904,585 |
PITTSBURGH |
$1,343,994,344 |
$99,271,139 |
$272,450 |
$1,841,359 |
$1,540,652 |
$22,850,006 |
PORTLAND |
$7,177,980 |
$5,239,573 |
$770,115 |
$829,438 |
$4,621,834 |
$1,683,167 |
RICHMOND |
$2,621,984 |
$5,580,115 |
$2,692,012 |
$3,066,125 |
$2,388,448 |
$3,732,823 |
SACRAMENTO |
$1,183,884 |
$1,195,146 |
$1,636,777 |
$5,839,100 |
$1,191,751 |
$7,638,355 |
SAINT LOUIS |
$2,913,067 |
$24,030,677 |
$9,774,691 |
$4,875,958 |
$14,232,869 |
$8,887,194 |
SALT LAKE CITY |
$2,342,030 |
$8,916,679 |
$4,852,466 |
$8,759,574 |
$3,394,095 |
$30,187,605 |
SAN ANTONIO |
$8,282,163 |
$8,343,942 |
$15,900,765 |
$10,921,237 |
$26,001,148 |
$9,908,708 |
SAN DIEGO |
$17,107,309 |
$1,486,626 |
$1,963,539 |
$1,277,892 |
$268,600 |
$4,357,167 |
SAN FRANCISCO |
$1,620,720 |
$32,684,279 |
$1,111,624 |
$24,593,409 |
$11,940,401 |
$19,515,112 |
SAN JUAN |
$620,587 |
$3,271,368 |
$14,401,590 |
$5,260,948 |
$11,450,896 |
$35,385 |
SEATTLE |
$13,762,511 |
$2,569,620 |
$5,288,427 |
$5,846,598 |
$8,649,688 |
$6,636,055 |
SPRINGFIELD |
$5,627,217 |
$4,017,072 |
$811,508 |
$6,163,811 |
$2,819,561 |
$772,953 |
TAMPA |
$6,566,898 |
$3,704,793 |
$4,636,093 |
$1,679,773 |
$7,779,186 |
$24,355,733 |
WMFO |
$6,537,780 |
$13,755,982 |
$38,491,635 |
$15,085,660 |
$7,193,844 |
$17,280,916 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTALS |
$1,983,796,156 |
$3,128,016,099 |
$3,132,922,982 |
$3,625,858,302 |
$1,442,277,122 |
$2,581,187,296 |
(d) Restitutions for FYs 2002 – 2007
(e) Fines by Office for FYs 2002 -
2007
FINANCIAL INSTITUTION FRAUD FINES
FISCAL YEARS 2002 – 2007 |
FBI FIELD OFFICE |
FISCAL YEAR 2002 |
FISCAL YEAR 2003 |
FISCAL YEAR 2004 |
FISCAL YEAR 2005 |
FISCAL YEAR 2006 |
FISCAL YEAR 2007 |
ALBANY |
$870,668 |
$182,362 |
$300 |
$3,600 |
$200 |
$5,100 |
ALBUQUERQUE |
$100 |
$700 |
$500 |
$300 |
$100 |
$137,766 |
ANCHORAGE |
$300 |
$2,950 |
$18,000 |
-$0- |
-$0- |
$56,532 |
ATLANTA |
$130,295 |
$68,850 |
$82,328 |
$133,800 |
$39,300 |
$40,625 |
BALTIMORE |
$82,900 |
$835,300 |
$36,246 |
$40,100 |
$101,176 |
$1,000 |
BIRMINGHAM |
$8,450 |
$29,057 |
$47,750 |
$184,194 |
$10,000 |
$100 |
BOSTON |
$31,528 |
$210,726 |
$5,300 |
$7,200 |
$118,000 |
$600 |
BUFFALO |
$5,424 |
$850 |
$4,000 |
$1,100 |
$10,400 |
$56,233 |
CHARLOTTE |
$2,000 |
$500 |
$1,900 |
$19,400 |
$45,400 |
$35,500 |
CHICAGO |
$234,802 |
$13,850 |
$749,366 |
$705,190 |
$1,757,142 |
$683,443 |
CINCINNATI |
$35,156 |
$1,750 |
$11,300 |
$7,900 |
$719,782 |
$21,000 |
CLEVELAND |
$39,540 |
$46,372 |
$34,974 |
$59,400 |
$640,618 |
$130,928 |
COLUMBIA |
$61,743 |
$8,500 |
$104,131 |
$235,230 |
$100 |
$2,600 |
DALLAS |
$19,430 |
$139,066 |
$134,400 |
$109,920 |
$1,073,410 |
$11,600 |
DENVER |
$7,050 |
$331,158 |
$114,323 |
$3,700 |
$1,200 |
$81,500 |
DETROIT |
$31,600 |
$48,751 |
$25,825 |
$29,319 |
$37,625 |
$18,800 |
EL PASO |
$2,000 |
-$0- |
$5,000 |
$1,200 |
$300 |
$200 |
HONOLULU |
$31,175 |
$5,800 |
$11,505,619 |
$3,000 |
$8,900 |
$1,525 |
HOUSTON |
$74,047 |
$30,100 |
$958,489 |
$15,100 |
$2,300 |
-$0- |
INDIANAPOLIS |
$25,100 |
$400 |
$6,300 |
$182,235 |
$1,300 |
$12,000 |
JACKSON |
$11,076 |
$29,629 |
$6,450 |
$1,025 |
$351,059 |
$21,500 |
JACKSONVILLE |
$122,371 |
$3,500 |
$383,250 |
$6,300 |
$8,500 |
$1,500 |
KANSAS CITY |
$28,995 |
$1,800 |
$1,007,100 |
$1,825 |
$231,830,716 |
$2,700 |
KNOXVILLE |
$53,700 |
$850 |
$950 |
$300 |
$5,625 |
$8,125 |
LAS VEGAS |
$218,752 |
$2,975 |
$675 |
$5,000 |
$28,700 |
$200 |
LITTLE ROCK |
$27,268 |
$113,284 |
$1,900 |
$44,797 |
$5,800 |
$8,400 |
LOS ANGELES |
$726,666 |
$3,289,965 |
$25,500 |
$987,731 |
$819,890 |
$1,680,523 |
LOUISVILLE |
$266,472 |
$15,789 |
$4,550 |
$4,900 |
$85,845 |
$7,500 |
MEMPHIS |
$263,854 |
$383,083 |
$23,922 |
$62,314 |
$3,000 |
$17,200 |
MIAMI |
$23,850 |
$110,000 |
$26,300 |
$55,200 |
$4,950 |
$34,000 |
MILWAUKEE |
$7,192 |
$42,000 |
$4,507 |
$5,200 |
$32,400 |
$6,200 |
MINNEAPOLIS |
$1,179,900 |
$9,975 |
$3,600 |
$1,600 |
$6,300 |
$17,700 |
MOBILE |
$57,982 |
$2,000 |
$700 |
$20,250 |
$100 |
$300 |
NEWARK |
$805,371 |
$9,700 |
$244,826 |
$220,700 |
$42,292,500 |
$34,700 |
NEW HAVEN |
$600 |
$52,300 |
$6,500 |
$46,200 |
$100 |
$1,076 |
NEW ORLEANS |
$23,010 |
$128,778 |
$650,385 |
$33,600 |
$2,500 |
$467,891 |
NEW YORK |
$63,500 |
$779,591 |
$343,323 |
$40,050 |
$844,675 |
$2,214,346 |
NORFOLK |
$1,000 |
$100 |
$1,000 |
$500 |
$110,438 |
$2,309,481 |
OKLAHOMA CITY |
$3,125 |
$262,741 |
$1,073,509 |
$17,400 |
$123,600 |
$43,869 |
OMAHA |
$8,800 |
$39,129 |
$13,500 |
$5,000 |
$70,500 |
$1,406,487 |
PHILADELPHIA |
$52,600 |
$333,848 |
$43,600 |
$28,610 |
$1,049,040 |
$669,993 |
PHOENIX |
-$0- |
$425 |
$1,978 |
$6,600 |
$5,000 |
$88,900 |
PITTSBURGH |
$19,600 |
$25,523,600 |
$1,000 |
$5,725 |
$95,200 |
$21,675 |
PORTLAND |
$500 |
$2,884 |
$525 |
$400 |
-$0- |
$1,000 |
RICHMOND |
$24,600 |
$13,125 |
$4,000 |
$8,400 |
$6,200 |
$1,400 |
SACRAMENTO |
$33,600 |
$129,000 |
$100 |
$14,325 |
$6,525 |
$10,700 |
SAINT LOUIS |
$400 |
$22,485 |
$55,222 |
$10,051 |
$301,211,048 |
$1,346,650 |
SALT LAKE CITY |
$21,858 |
$74,034 |
$87,053 |
$112,400 |
$100 |
$4,400 |
SAN ANTONIO |
$8,450 |
$10,100 |
$10,600 |
$333,339 |
$9,800 |
$14,800 |
SAN DIEGO |
$1,625 |
$75 |
$20,569 |
-$0- |
$2,400 |
$225 |
SAN FRANCISCO |
$1,042,770 |
$1,954,134 |
$20,650 |
$2,000 |
-$0- |
$25,100 |
SAN JUAN |
$631,200 |
$100 |
$161,900 |
$800 |
$15,400 |
$100 |
SEATTLE |
$123,905 |
$53,510 |
$52,063 |
$15,270 |
$650,196 |
$306,948 |
SPRINGFIELD |
$62,212 |
$255,950 |
$7,188 |
$1,100 |
$12,400 |
-$0- |
TAMPA |
$2,500 |
$12,998 |
$6,875 |
$1,400 |
$52,800 |
$62,700 |
WMFO |
$2,175 |
$21,825 |
$5,250 |
$16,100,137 |
$52,825 |
$200 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOTALS |
$7,614,787 |
$35,642,324 |
$18,147,071 |
$19,942,337 |
$584,363,385 |
$12,135,541 |
(f) Fines for FYs 2002 – 2007
D. SEIZURES AND FORFEITURES
Forfeiture provisions were added to the 10 banking-related violations in
FY 1989. In April 2003, Congress passed the Comprehensive Asset Forfeiture
Reform Act, which provided authority for the FBI and other federal agencies
to seize and forfeit the proceeds of numerous Specified Unlawful Activities,
including banking-related violations. These investigative tools have aided
immensely in the effort to address FIF. The matrix which follows demonstrates
accomplishments in these areas for FYs 2002 – 2007.
FISCAL YEAR |
SEIZURES |
FORFEITURES |
2002 |
$13,277,362 |
$4,013,342 |
2003 |
$7,703,435 |
$3,407,971 |
2004 |
$16,343,881 |
$14,254,838 |
2005 |
$23,746,365 |
$4,241,535 |
2006 |
$13,283,028 |
$12,498,89 |
2007 |
$27,055,895 |
$11,496,994 |
The chart and graphs which follow exhibits:
(a) Bank Fraud Seizures and Forfeitures by Office for
FYs 2006 and 2007;
(b) Seizures for FYs 2002 – 2007;
(c) Forfeitures for FYs 2002 – 2007;
and
(d) Mortgage Fraud Seizures and Forfeitures by Office for
FYs 2006 and 2007.
(a) Bank Fraud Seizures and Forfeitures by Office
for FYs 2006 and 2007
BANK FRAUD SEIZURES AND FORFEITURES FISCAL YEARS 2006
AND 2007 |
FBI FIELD OFFICE |
SEIZURES FISCAL YEAR 2006 |
SEIZURES FISCAL YEAR 2007 |
FORFEITURES FISCAL YEAR 2006 |
FORFEITURES FISCAL YEAR 2007 |
ALBANY |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
ALBUQUERQUE |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
ANCHORAGE |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
ATLANTA |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
BALTIMORE |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
BIRMINGHAM |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
BOSTON |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
BUFFALO |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
CHARLOTTE |
$66,260 |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
CHICAGO |
$13,910,576 |
-$0- |
-$0- |
$22,319,824 |
CINCINNATI |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
CLEVELAND |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
COLUMBIA |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
DALLAS |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
DENVER |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
DETROIT |
$2,120 |
-$0- |
$12,819 |
$2,120 |
EL PASO |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
HONOLULU |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
HOUSTON |
$284,379 |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
INDIANAPOLIS |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
JACKSON |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
JACKSONVILLE |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
KANSAS CITY |
$326,347 |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
KNOXVILLE |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
LAS VEGAS |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
LITTLE ROCK |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
LOS ANGELES |
$166,161 |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
LOUISVILLE |
$9,205,246 |
$624,421 |
-$0- |
-$0- |
MEMPHIS |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
MIAMI |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
MILWAUKEE |
$26,931 |
-$0- |
-$0- |
$26,931 |
MINNEAPOLIS |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
MOBILE |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
NEWARK |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
NEW HAVEN |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
NEW ORLEANS |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
NEW YORK |
$13,700,000 |
$10,667 |
$13,300,000 |
$30,615,540 |
NORFOLK |
$103,738 |
-$0- |
$103,738 |
-$0- |
OKLAHOMA CITY |
$337,321 |
-$0- |
$2,010 |
-$0- |
OMAHA |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
PHILADELPHIA |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
PHOENIX |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
PITTSBURGH |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
PORTLAND |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
RICHMOND |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
SACRAMENTO |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
SAINT LOUIS |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
SALT LAKE CITY |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
SAN ANTONIO |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
SAN DIEGO |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
SAN FRANCISCO |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
SAN JUAN |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
SEATTLE |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
SPRINGFIELD |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
TAMPA |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
WMFO |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
|
|
|
|
|
TOTALS |
$38,129,078 |
$635,088 |
$13,418,567 |
$52,964,415 |
(b) Seizures for FYs 2002 – 2007
(c) Forfeitures for FYs 2002 – 2007
(d) Mortgage Fraud Seizures and Forfeitures by Office
for FYs 2006 and 2007
MORTGAGE FRAUD SEIZURES AND FORFEITURES FISCAL YEARS
2006 AND 2007 |
FBI FIELD OFFICE |
SEIZURES FISCAL YEAR 2006 |
SEIZURES FISCAL YEAR 2007 |
FORFEITURES FISCAL YEAR 2006 |
FORFEITURES FISCAL YEAR 2007 |
ALBANY |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
ALBUQUERQUE |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
ANCHORAGE |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
ATLANTA |
$8,643,335 |
$632,483 |
-$0- |
$420,694 |
BALTIMORE |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
BIRMINGHAM |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
BOSTON |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
BUFFALO |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
CHARLOTTE |
-$0- |
$423,769 |
-$0- |
-$0- |
CHICAGO |
$169,918,.93 |
$968,144 |
$18,790,950 |
$169,919 |
CINCINNATI |
$35,625 |
$11,475 |
-$0- |
-$0- |
CLEVELAND |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
COLUMBIA |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
DALLAS |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
DENVER |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
DETROIT |
$245,801 |
$1,734,630 |
$147,612 |
$504,018 |
EL PASO |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
HONOLULU |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
HOUSTON |
-$0- |
$42,000,000 |
-$0- |
-$0- |
INDIANAPOLIS |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
JACKSON |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
JACKSONVILLE |
$176,685 |
$10,293,868 |
-$0- |
$98,600 |
KANSAS CITY |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
KNOXVILLE |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
LAS VEGAS |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
LITTLE ROCK |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
LOS ANGELES |
-$0- |
$239,683,125 |
-$0- |
$8,125 |
LOUISVILLE |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
MEMPHIS |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
MIAMI |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
MILWAUKEE |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
MINNEAPOLIS |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
MOBILE |
$609,330 |
-$0- |
$595 |
$38,725 |
NEWARK |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
$19,935 |
NEW HAVEN |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
NEW ORLEANS |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
NEW YORK |
-$0- |
$9,375,001 |
-$0- |
-$0- |
NORFOLK |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
OKLAHOMA CITY |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
OMAHA |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
PHILADELPHIA |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
PHOENIX |
$1,325,795 |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
PITTSBURGH |
$55,180 |
$42,900 |
-$0- |
-$0- |
PORTLAND |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
RICHMOND |
-$0- |
$127,216 |
-$0- |
-$0- |
SACRAMENTO |
-$0- |
$660,990 |
-$0- |
-$0- |
SAINT LOUIS |
$93,801 |
$41,275 |
-$0- |
$390,430 |
SALT LAKE CITY |
-$0- |
$7,700,000 |
-$0- |
-$0- |
SAN ANTONIO |
-$0- |
$179,271,24 |
-$0- |
-$0- |
SAN DIEGO |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
SAN FRANCISCO |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
SAN JUAN |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
SEATTLE |
$1,843,531 |
$248,531 |
-$0- |
-$0- |
SPRINGFIELD |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
-$0- |
TAMPA |
$2,875,337 |
$2,387,355 |
$1,635,095 |
$3,051,886 |
WMFO |
-$0- |
$166,913,817 |
-$0- |
$1,668,288 |
|
|
|
|
|
TOTALS |
$15,904,421 |
$483,244,577 |
$20,574,252 |
$6,370,620 |
E. DISRUPTIONS AND DISMANTLEMENTS
As previously stated, part of the FBI's mission in combating FIF is to disrupt
and dismantle criminal organizations engaged in FIF. The matrix which follows
demonstrates accomplishments in these areas for FYs 2002 – 2007.
FISCAL YEAR |
DISRUPTIONS |
DISMANTLEMENTS |
2002 |
4 |
9 |
2003 |
19 |
7 |
2004 |
43 |
28 |
2005 |
74 |
29 |
2006 |
137 |
57 |
2007 |
105 |
58 |
F. FINANCIAL INSTITUTION FRAUD EMERGING TRENDS
Since the spring of 2007, the stability of the United States and the world
economic markets have been threatened by fraud associated with mortgages
originated by sub-prime lenders, financial statements of the sub-prime lenders,
and investments derived from the sub-prime lender market. As a result, publicly
traded stocks of sub-prime lenders and investors in mortgage backed securities
dramatically decreased in value, resulting in massive balance sheet write-downs,
and a number of bankruptcy filings. In the past year, publicly traded financial
institutions have written down over $100 billion due to losses associated
with the sub-prime mortgage industry. These factors coupled with decreasing
home values across the country will continue to create an environment which
is conducive to retail and corporate mortgage fraud.
Mortgage fraud is defined as a material misstatement, misrepresentation,
or omission relied upon by an underwriter or lender to fund, purchase, or
insure a loan. The FBI investigates mortgage fraud in two distinct areas:
fraud for profit and fraud for property.
Fraud for profit is sometimes referred to as "industry insider fraud" and
the motive is to revolve equity, falsely inflate the value of the property,
or issue loans based on fictitious properties. Based on existing investigations
and mortgage fraud reporting, 80 percent of all reported fraud losses involve
collaboration or collusion by industry insiders. The borrower's debts are
not fully disclosed, nor is the borrower's credit history, which is often
altered. Often, the borrower assumes the identity of another person (straw
buyer). The borrower states he intends to use the property for occupancy
when he/she intends to use the property for rental income, or is purchasing
the property for another party (nominee). Appraisals almost always list the
property as owner-occupied. Down payments do not exist or are borrowed and
disguised with a fraudulent gift letter. The property value is inflated (faulty
appraisal) to increase the sales value to make up for no down payment and
to generate cash proceeds in fraud for profit.
Fraud for property, also known as fraud for housing, usually involves the
borrower as the perpetrator on a single loan. The borrower makes misrepresentations,
usually regarding income, personal debt, and property value, or there are
down payment problems. The borrower wants the property and intends to repay
the loan. Sometimes industry professionals are involved in coaching the borrower
so that they qualify.
Although there are many mortgage fraud schemes, the FBI is focusing its
efforts on those perpetrated by industry insiders. Some of the current rising
mortgage fraud trends include: equity skimming, property flipping, and mortgage
related identity theft.
Today's equity skimming schemes involve the use of corporate shell companies,
corporate identify theft, and the use of threat of bankruptcy/foreclosure
to dupe homeowners and investors.
Property flipping is best described as purchasing properties and artificially
inflating their value through false appraisals. The artificially valued properties
are then repurchased several times for a higher price by associates of the "flipper."
After three or four sham sales, the properties are foreclosed on by victim
lenders. Often flipped properties are ultimately repurchased for 50 to 100
percent of their original value. With property flipping schemes, law enforcement
is again faced with an educated criminal element that is using identity theft,
straw borrowers and shell companies, along with industry insiders to conceal
their methods and override lender controls.
The FBI, HUD-OIG, USPS, and IRS conduct criminal investigations into mortgage
fraud activity with a goal of disrupting and dismantling mortgage fraud rings.
We strongly support joint investigations to effectively utilize all of our
limited resources while strengthening investigations by tapping into everyone's
expertise. Federal law enforcement is working with state and local law enforcement,
regulators, and the financial institution industry to combat this crime problem.
The FBI focuses on fostering relationships and partnerships with the mortgage
fraud industry to promote mortgage fraud awareness. To raise awareness of
this issue and provide easy accessibility to investigative personnel, the
FBI has provided points-of-contact to relevant groups including the Mortgage
Bankers Association (MBA), the Mortgage Asset Research Institute, the Mortgage
Insurance Companies of America, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and others.
The FBI has also been working to establish broader Suspicious Activity
Reporting requirements for mortgage lenders who do not have adequate
protection under the current safe harbor provisions. The FBI is collaborating
with the mortgage industry and Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN)
to create a more productive reporting requirement for Mortgage Fraud. The
FBI has also been working with the FinCEN to promote an efficient and effective
method of identifying and reporting fraudulent mortgage activity affecting
non-federally insured mortgage institutions.
The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) has passed a
regulation requiring Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to report suspicious mortgage
fraud activity on a Mortgage Incident Notice (MFIN). FBI, OFHEO, and FinCEN are working to establish a reporting
device similar to the banking industry's Suspicious Activity Report (SAR).
The top ten hot spots for mortgage fraud activity for 2007 were California,
Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Texas, and
Utah. Other areas significantly affected by mortgage fraud include Arizona,
Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, North Carolina, Tennessee,
and Virginia.
All mortgage fraud programs were recently consolidated within the FBI's
Economic Crimes Unit II, including cases where the targeted lender is not
a financial institution. This consolidation provides a more effective and
efficient management over mortgage fraud investigations, the ability to identify
and respond more rapidly to emerging mortgage fraud problems and a clearer
picture of the overall mortgage fraud problem.
FY 2006 and FY 2007 Mortgage Fraud Statistics:
-147,847 mortgage fraud SARs were filed
-44 pending FBI mortgage fraud cases, FY 2006.
-1,204 pending FBI mortgage fraud cases, FY 2007.
-170 FBI indictments/informations, FY 2006
-321 FBI indictment/informations, FY 2007
-139 FBI convictions, FY 2006
-260 FBI convictions, FY 2007
-$4,829,187,680 (FBI) reported loss
CASE SUMMARIES
NELSON MILLER, FREEDOM FINANCIAL
The top 10 executives of Freedom Financial and Absolute Abstract and Title,
at one time the largest mortgage broker in the state of Arkansas, were charged
criminally for their part in devising, implementing, and carrying out various
fraud schemes that involved falsification of hundreds of loan files. The
analysis of seized documents revealed employees of Freedom Financial has
submitted Uniform Residential Loan Applications and supporting documents
to lenders that contained false and fraudulent information. This false information
in all its variations was submitted by the employees of Freedom Financial
to lenders to induce the lenders to fund loans, or make loans in larger amounts
than would normally be given if there had been truthful and complete disclosure.
Seven of the nine defendants in this case entered guilty pleas, and two of
the defendants were convicted on August 31, 2006 and January 28, 2008, respectively.
CHRISTOPHER CRAIG
In May 2007, Christopher Craig, of Auburn, California, pled guilty to bank
fraud charges related to a foreclosure scheme. Craig approached homeowners
who were on the verge of foreclosure and promised to loan them money. Instead,
he created documents deeding away their properties to straw buyers, then
applied for home equity loans from Washington Mutual Bank. Washington Mutual
disbursed $1.2 million in loan proceeds to Craig based on the false loan
applications. Craig was sentenced in the Eastern District of California to
five years in federal prison and ordered to pay $974,452 in restitution.
Property and cash was also seized for asset forfeiture from Craig including
a 2007 GMC Hummer SUV.
RAYMOND JOSEPH COSTANZO, JR.
From late 2004 to early 2006 RAYMOND JOSEPH COSTANZO, JR. participated in
closing millions of dollars in fraudulently inflated mortgage loans for unqualified
straw borrowers. These straw borrowers were paid as much as $600,000 from
fraudulently obtained loan proceeds through shell companies. COSTANZO himself
obtained mortgage loans totaling over $1.5 million by providing the lender
with false qualifying information, and falsified down payments. COSTANZO
received $250,000 in scheme proceeds from this transaction, and arranged
for disbursements of fraudulently obtained loan proceeds to co-conspirators
from this and other loans. COSTANZO was sentenced on February 1, 2008, to
three years and five months in prison to be followed by four years of supervised release,
and ordered to pay $7,843,184 in restitution. COSTANZO pleaded guilty to
these charges on October 17, 2006, and has also surrendered his license to
practice law.
GHANDI BEN MORKA
Gandhi Ben Morka, a real estate appraiser who was convicted at trial of
several offenses related to his involvement in a mortgage fraud scheme, was
sentenced in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas
to 60 months in prison and ordered to pay more than $2.3 million in restitution.
Morka was arrested in May 2007, and indicted along with seven others for
various offenses related to a mortgage fraud scheme to defraud Countrywide
Home Loans, d/b/a America Wholesale Lender (Countrywide). Morka conspired
with co-defendants to defraud Countrywide by locating single family residences
in and around the Dallas area and recruiting straw purchasers and borrowers
to purchase the targeted residences. Morka would prepare appraisals on the
properties, inflating the value to an amount far greater than the fair market
value. Then he and co-conspirators prepared and submitted false and fraudulent
loan applications in the names of the straw purchasers to secure mortgage
loans from Countrywide in amounts substantially greater than the fair market
value of the purchased property. Morka and the co-conspirators paid the original
owners of the properties and distributed the remaining fraudulent proceeds
obtained from the loan proceeds among themselves. The scheme resulted in
millions of dollars of losses to Countrywide.
DARRYL L. COOPER
Darrly L. Cooper, of Decatur, Georgia was sentenced on January 11, 2008,
to one year and six months in federal prison, followed by three years of supervised
release, for a scheme to defraud mortgage lenders by creating fraudulent
appraisals that reflected completed construction.
Cooper was recruited by builder/co-conspirator Jeffrey Allen Teague to prepare
fraudulent appraisals reflecting photographs and $5 million in appraisal
valuations for 15 houses that were represented as completed construction
when, in fact, the homes were not fully constructed. A California lender
relied on Cooper's fraudulent appraisals to make $4.7 million in mortgage
loans secured by these properties, which in fact had no value at all. This
case highlights the problems created by mortgage fraud in which the appraiser
conspired with the builder to misrepresent that construction on homes was
complete, compounded by out-of-state "investors" who sign for loans
without inspecting the properties. The partially built houses in this case
may be subject to condemnation, as the portions completed were not built
to code, leaving mortgage lenders with little security for their loans and "investors" with
nothing to resell, and neighborhoods full of vacant and uninhabitable houses.
Cooper pled guilty to a one-count criminal information on November 7, 2007, on
a charge of mortgage fraud conspiracy, and has been ordered to pay $4,720,500
in restitution. Teague was sentenced on October 26, 2007, to 15 years and eight months in
prison and ordered to pay $7,803,701 in restitution.
KEITH AND LATESHA GARNER
On February 12, 2008, following a two week trial, a jury in federal court returned
guilty verdicts against Keith Garner, Latesha Garner, Gregg Savage, and Shalonda
Harris, on charges of conspiracy to commit mortgage fraud and wire fraud
related to $6 million in fraudulent real estate financing. The fraud took
place over a ten week period in the summer of 2006. The subjects used inflated
appraisals, stolen identities for straw buyers, and Latesha Garner's position
as a loan processor with Sun Trust Mortgage to perpetrate the fraud. The
FBI seized $410,057 from the bank accounts of the subjects through asset
forfeiture.
AMERIFUNDING
Amerfunding was a Mortgage Brokerage owned and operated by Gerald Small
in Colorado, which maintained two "warehouse" lines of credits,
each at a large federally-insured financial institution in the U.S. In order
to support a lavish lifestyle, Small created fictitious loans to live off
of the lines of credit. The borrower information, name, and social security
number were invented. Eventually, one of the creditors asked for verification
of identification thereby defeating the "invention" process. To
deal with this, Small placed an advertisement for a $100,000 + Account Representative
position at his company. Applicants eagerly completed applications inclusive
of names, social security numbers and copies of driver's licenses which Small
wasted no time in utilizing for more fictitious loans. Investigation determined
that Small had kited over $200 million in fraudulent loans and used the stolen
identities of 47 job applicants to obtain mortgage funding for fictitious
home loans or "air loans" totaling over $21.5 million during a
24-month period.
MIDTOWNE RESTORATION LLC
Brent Michael Barber led the mortgage fraud ring holding himself and company
Midtowne Restoration LLC as a real estate investment company. "Straw
buyers" were solicited in schemes where they were paid $2,000 for use
of their identity and credit profiles to obtain mortgage financing for properties
predominantly in low income areas of Kansas City, Missouri. In other schemes,
investors were recruited for properties which were represented to be refurbished
and appraised at amounts far in excess of their true value. The investors
were assured by Barber that renters would be found to service the mortgage
and maintenance costs of the properties so there would be no risk. Eight
other individuals were also involved in the scheme which involved 300 fraudulent
mortgage loans worth approximately $19.6 million and caused losses to federally-insured
financial institutions of approximately $11.8 million. On February 23, 2006,
Barber pled guilty to 104 counts contained in two federal indictments. On
October 27, 2006, Barber was sentenced to 12 years and seven months federal incarceration,
and ordered to pay restitution in the amount of $11,206,419.
FOOTNOTES:
1A major case is defined as an investigation pertaining to a failed financial institution, or where the loss or loss exposure to the financial institution exceeds $100,000.
2These statistics are derived from the Suspicious Activity Report database, which is owned by the five Federal banking regulatory agencies, and is maintained by the U.S. Treasury Department's Financial Crimes Enforcement Network.
|