Links

Links
CA Court Site Info on Foreclosure

Monday, June 23, 2014

Foreclosure Fraud Criminal Charges and View from Defense Attorney Perspective


California Developer to Plead Guilty in Builder Bailout Mortgage Fraud Scheme

Three Indicted in a Separate Sacramento Area Mortgage Fraud Scheme
Four More Indicted in a Shasta County Foreclosure Rescue Scheme
SACRAMENTO, Calif., May 21 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- U.S. Attorney Benjamin B. Wagner announced developments today in three separate mortgage fraud cases in the Eastern District of California.
Butte County: Anthony G. Symmes, 59, of Paradise, has agreed to plead guilty to an information, filed this morning, charging him with one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud in connection with a builder bailout scheme involving fraudulent sales of 62 houses, and with one count of money laundering. Symmes, who is an attorney, a CPA, a developer, and the largest home builder in the Chico area, has agreed to cooperate in the ongoing investigation of Garret G. Gililland and his associates. Gililland was previously indicted for mortgage fraud in this district, extradited from Spain, and is currently awaiting trial in federal custody. According to the plea agreement filed today, Symmes has already deposited $4 million into a U.S. Treasury account, which will be paid to the court for restitution.
The Symmes case was a joint investigation involving the FBI, Internal Revenue Service (IRS)-Criminal Investigation, and the Butte County District Attorney's Office. The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Russell Carlberg.
Sacramento County: Lawrence Davis, 26, and Joel Clark, 27, both formerly of Sacramento and currently living in Las Vegas, and Eric Mortenson, 28, of Sacramento, were indicted yesterday by a federal grand jury in Sacramento. That indictment was unsealed this morning after defendants Clark and Mortenson were arrested by FBI and IRS agents in Sacramento and Las Vegas. The indictment charges them with conspiracy to commit wire fraud and wire fraud in connection with an alleged property-flipping scheme operated in the Sacramento County area. This case is the product of an initial investigation by the California Department of Real Estate and is currently being investigated by the FBI. Assistant U.S. Attorney Laurel Loomis Rimon is prosecuting the case.
Shasta County: Jeremiah Andrew Martin, 32, of San Antonio, Darrin Arthur Johnston, 45, of Redding, Todd Allen Smith, 47, of Redding, and Cheryl Ann Hitomi Peterson, 47, of Redding, were indicted yesterday by a federal grand jury in Sacramento. The indictment was unsealed this morning when the defendants were arrested by FBI and IRS agents in Shasta County. The indictment returned yesterday charges all four defendants with conspiracy to commit mail fraud, mail fraud and money laundering in connection with an alleged fraudulent foreclosure rescue scheme. The case is being investigated by the FBI and IRS-Criminal Investigation, and is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Stegman.
Regarding the Symmes case, Butte County District Attorney Mike Ramsey said, "Greedy, crooked developers, appraisers, mortgage brokers, and others contributed significantly to the great mortgage meltdown of the past two years. Greed led this formerly well-respected Chico developer down a path to his downfall and the destruction of a number of neighborhoods populated by good folks who have found their homes devalued by the empty foreclosures on their block. Once we discovered the complex, fraudulent scheme hatched here we began an extensive investigation. When we found the tentacles of this corrupt organization stretched beyond Butte County, we reached out to our federal partners for help. We are most gratified with the assistance and cooperation that has lead to the justice we see this day."
U.S. Attorney Wagner said "The various schemes reflected in the cases announced today illustrate the many varieties of mortgage fraud. These types of crimes have a broad impact on our communities, not only weakening financial institutions and devastating individual victims of the fraud schemes, but also driving down the value of many families' primary asset, their home. Rooting out and prosecuting fraudsters in the mortgage and real estate industries is an extremely high priority for the U.S. Department of Justice. We are working on other mortgage fraud investigations here in the Eastern District of California, and there will be more to come."
"IRS-Criminal Investigation takes mortgage fraud seriously. The impact of these types of crimes cannot be overstated. Fraud in the mortgage industry has played a major role in almost crippling this nation's economy, and directly affecting our tax administration system," said Jose M. Martinez, Assistant Special Agent in Charge, IRS-Criminal Investigation. "We will continue to utilize our financial investigative expertise to aggressively investigate criminal activities that adversely affect our financial system."
Symmes Builder-Bailout Scheme
The prosecution of Anthony G. Symmes arises from the same investigation that resulted in the prosecution of Garret Griffith Gililland III. According to the plea agreement filed this morning, beginning in the Fall of 2006, as the real estate market cooled, Symmes found himself with a significant inventory of newly built homes not selling at their list price. Gililland, an unlicensed mortgage broker, approached Symmes and offered to take the homes off of Symmes's hands, using a network of straw buyers. The two agreed that the prices on Symmes's homes would be artificially inflated by approximately $40,000 to $60,000 above the list price.
According to court documents, Gililland, using fraudulent documents, would then qualify his straw buyers for 100 percent financing on the inflated value of the homes. Typically the day after the homes sold at the inflated values, Symmes would write a check to shell corporations controlled by Gililland and his associates for the inflated portion of the sales price ($40,000 to $60,000, depending on the house). Gililland then pocketed a portion of the money and used some of the money to pay off his straw buyers.
Altogether, from 2006 through 2008, Symmes sold Gililland and Gililland's associates 62 houses at artificially inflated prices. These fraudulent purchases were financed by mortgage lenders in the total amount of approximately $21 million. Symmes wrote checks back to Gililland and his associates totaling approximately $2.5 million. These price rebates from Symmes were concealed from the lenders. To date, dozens of Symmes's homes have been foreclosed or short-sold. Losses realized to date total almost $5 million and are expected to climb. Due to the volume of the artificially inflated prices on homes in Chico, Symmes and Gililland were able to create artificially high comparable sales that appraisers relied upon, affecting the overall new-home market in the Chico area.
Symmes is expected to appear in U.S. District Court in Sacramento in the near future to enter his plea pursuant to the plea agreement. As part of that agreement, Symmes has already paid $4 million, which will be used to make restitution to victims, and has agreed to cooperate in the ongoing investigation.
Symmes faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison, for the mail fraud charge, 10 years in prison for the money laundering charge, a $250,000 fine, and three years of supervised release.
Sacramento Area Property-Flipping Scheme
The indictment filed yesterday in the Davis case alleges that Davis, a realtor, and Mortenson, a loan officer with All State Home Loans, worked as a team assisting clients in buying houses and obtaining mortgage loans through a real estate sales office in Sacramento. Joel Clark was Davis's associate who assisted in running paperwork and showing homes to prospective buyers. Davis and Mortenson marketed a "rebate" program and encouraged buyers to buy multiple properties in a very short period of time, even within a single month, promising them "cash-back" on their purchases for repairs, upgrades, and to cover the mortgage payments they could not otherwise afford. Buyers were told that they had the opportunity to become real estate "investors" and to generate rental income and "flip" properties for substantial profits. Davis and Mortenson themselves gained large commissions from each transaction, and Joel Clark received some of the cash-back payments.
The indictment charges that the transactions involved false and fraudulent loan applications submitted by Davis and Mortenson on behalf of the buyers. First, Davis would offer the seller a purchase price on behalf of his client that was substantially more than the list price of the property, thereby misleading the lender as to the market value of the property. Then, Davis would include a term in the sales contract that required the seller to pay thousands of dollars back to the buyer, or to a third party, generally after the close of escrow and without notice to the lender. The "cash-back" to the buyers exceeded the limits set by lenders for buyer credits.
Additionally, the indictment alleges that Mortenson would submit loan applications that were full of false information and forged and fraudulent supporting documents. Loan applications were submitted that had entirely false occupations and monthly incomes, as well as falsely inflated bank account balances, leading the banks to believe that the borrowers were more qualified for the loans than they truly were. Mortenson also submitted fraudulent and forged forms verifying material matters, such as employment, rental history, and bank balances. By causing the buyers to buy so many properties in such a short period of time, earlier property purchases did not show up on property reports, leaving the lenders unaware of the buyers' other loan commitments. In all, the charges in the indictment include more than $6 million worth of fraudulently obtained loans. All of the properties were foreclosed, resulting in a loss to the financial institutions of more than $2.6 million.
Mortenson is expected to make an initial appearance at 2:00 P.M. PT. today before a U.S. Magistrate Judge in Sacramento. Defendants Davis and Clark will make their initial appearances before a U.S. Magistrate Judge in Las Vegas.
If convicted of the charges, the defendants face a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison, a $250,000 fine, and three years of supervised release.
The charges in the indictment are only allegations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Shasta County Foreclosure Rescue Scheme
The indictment filed yesterday in the Martin case charges that Martin, Johnston, Smith and Peterson, operating through several entities in the Redding area that purported to offer foreclosure relief and credit repair services, targeted homeowners in financial distress and facing foreclosure. Martin, Johnston and Smith allegedly marketed a "foreclosure recovery" program in which homeowners were persuaded to sign over the deeds to their homes, based on the defendants' false representations that the homeowners could lease them back for a low rent, that the defendants would help them repair their credit, and that the homeowners could buy the homes back after two years. After obtaining title to the homes, Martin, Johnston and Smith are alleged to have extracted equity from them by inflating their values and obtaining additional loans, keeping the rent payments rather than making payments to lenders, and then allowing the homes to be lost in foreclosure. Peterson, an escrow officer and notary, is alleged to have used her office and her notary status to lend the appearance of legitimacy to the scheme. Many homeowners lost their homes in the course of the fraud, and lenders suffered losses in excess of $1 million.
Johnson, Smith and Peterson were arrested this morning in Shasta County are expected to make an initial appearance at 2:00 p.m. today before a U.S. Magistrate Judge in Sacramento.
The maximum penalty for conspiracy to commit mail fraud affecting a financial institution and for mail fraud affecting a financial institution is 30 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. The maximum penalty for conspiracy to launder funds is 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine or twice the amount of the criminally derived property.
The charges in the indictment are only allegations, and the defendants are presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
This law enforcement action is part of the work being done by President Barack Obama's Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force. President Obama established the interagency Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force to wage an aggressive, coordinated and proactive effort to investigate and prosecute financial crimes. The task force includes representatives from a broad range of federal agencies, regulatory authorities, inspectors general, and state and local law enforcement who, working together, bring to bear a powerful array of criminal and civil enforcement resources. The task force is working to improve efforts across the federal executive branch, and with state and local partners, to investigate and prosecute significant financial crimes, ensure just and effective punishment for those who perpetrate financial crimes, combat discrimination in the lending and financial markets, and recover proceeds for victims of financial crimes. One component of the FFETF is the national Mortgage Fraud Working Group, co-chaired by U.S. Attorney Wagner. For more information on the task force, visit www.StopFraud.gov.
SOURCE U.S. Department of Justice

______________________________________________________________________________

We have no affiliation with anyone at this law group below,  however, as some of them are former prosecutors, they would likely know how to handle the defense.

Criminal Defense if Charged with Foreclosure Fraud


California Foreclosure Fraud 
Civil Code 2945 & 2945.4


Due to our current housing crisis, California foreclosure fraud is on the rise.  A conviction is serious, subjecting you to substantial fines, professional discipline, and possible time in California state prison.
The good news is that we are here to help.  As former police investigators and district attorneys, we know how to investigate, prosecute and defend against these types of fraud charges, which allows us to provide you with the best legal defense.
In this article, our California criminal defense attorneys1 explain the state's foreclosure fraud laws by addressing the following:
1. The Legal Definition of "Foreclosure Fraud" in California
2. Actual Cases of Foreclosure Fraud
3. Legal Defenses
4. Penalties, Punishment and Sentencing
If, after reading this article, you would like more information, we invite you to contact us at Shouse Law Group.
In addition, you may also find helpful information in our related articles on California's Fraud Offenses; California Real Estate and Mortgage Fraud; Wobblers; Felonies; Misdemeanors; Victim Restitution; Crimes of Moral Turpitude; How Criminal Convictions Affect Professional Licenses; and California Legal Defenses.
1. The Legal Definition of "Foreclosure Fraud" in California
Foreclosure fraud is one of the most commonly prosecuted types of California real estate fraud.  Perhaps this is because of the fact that pending foreclosures are public record, which means that anyone can readily obtain this information...and use it to prey on desperate homeowners.
Civil Code 2945 and 2945.4 makes it a crime for a foreclosure consultant...that is, a person who solicits or represents that for a fee he/she can help stop or postpone a foreclosure sale...to engage in any of the following practices:2
    Foreclosurepic1
  • collecting or even charging compensation before performing each and every legitimate service that he/she agreed to perform on behalf of the homeowner,
  • charging or collecting excessive fees for services,
  • taking a lien on the property, requiring any other security as collateral for compensation, or taking any interest in the property (for example, buying the property from the owner so that he/she can allegedly "rent it back"),
  • taking money or property from a third party in connection with the services that the consultant has agreed to perform for the homeowner without fully disclosing that the third-party involvement to the homeowner,
  • taking a power of attorney from the homeowner (a "power of attorney" is a document that authorizes someone to act on another person's behalf in a legal or business matter), or
  • inducing or attempting to induce the owner into signing an illegal contract (that is, one that doesn't comport with all statutory rules and regulations).3
2. Actual Cases of Foreclosure Fraud
In fact, the problem became so widespread that in July of 2009, California Attorney General Jerry Brown required all foreclosure consultants not only to register their personal information with the Attorney General's office but also to post a $100,000 bond with the office.  This bond would ensure that consultants who violate California's foreclosure laws could at least repay some victim restitution.4
Foreclosurepic2
The failure to register and/or post bond could trigger criminal penalties of up to one year in jail and up to $25,000 in fines per violation.5
As Ventura criminal defense attorney Darrell York6 explains, "Most violations of California's foreclosure fraud law take place when a so-called foreclosure consultant offers to 'rescue' a distressed homeowner from losing his/her home.  The consultant promises the homeowner that he/she will prevent foreclosure and collects payment before he/she does any work."
In reality, the consultant provides little, if any, help and often makes matters worse, since time elapses during which the homeowner could have actually received help from a legitimate source.
Some actual recent cases that have been prosecuted include:
  • One defendant who created bank accounts and provided hundreds of homeowners with forged bank documents, directing them to send their mortgage payments to those accounts instead of to their lenders.7
  • A San Diego real estate agent started a mortgage consulting business in late 2008 when the housing market took a big hit.  He collected over $500,000 in upfront fees from about 100 clients promising to delay the foreclosure process.  The defendant is scheduled to be sentenced in coming months and is expected to receive four years in the state prison.
In addition to violating California's foreclosure laws, the defendant committed other acts of real estate and mortgage fraud by engaging in over 100 real estate transactions where he inflated his client's incomes to qualify buyers for properties that they otherwise would have been unable to afford so that he could collect higher commissions.  That practice yielded him more than $1.3 million.8
  • An Irvine attorney committed over 400 acts of foreclosure fraud when he collected advance payments from clients in return for empty promises to modify mortgage loans...that is, by promising to reduce rates, reduce principal and convince lenders to forgive second mortgages and late fees...in an effort to prevent foreclosure.9
3. Legal Defenses
Fortunately there are a variety of legal defenses to California foreclosure fraud that a California criminal fraud defense lawyer could present on your behalf.  The most promising is that you didn't have fraudulent intent.
If you had good intentions...and were legitimately trying to help a client avoid a foreclosure but were simply unable to do so...you should be acquitted of this charge.
And when all else fails because the evidence against you is insurmountable, your attorney will engage in plea bargaining.  Plea bargaining allows you to plead guilty or nolo contendere ("no contest") to a reduced charge and/or sentence.10
4. Penalties, Punishment and Sentencing
California Civil Code 2945.4 is what's known as a wobbler.  A "wobbler" is an offense that prosecutors can charge as either a felony or a misdemeanor, depending on
  1. the facts of the case, and
  2. your criminal history.
If convicted of this offense as a felony, you face 16 months, or two or three years in the California state prison and a maximum $10,000 fine.  If convicted of this offense as a misdemeanor, you face the same fine and a maximum one year in a county jail.11
And in addition to fines and incarceration listed above, a conviction for foreclosure fraud subjects you to
  • an additional and consecutive one-to-four years in the state prison if the homeowner or renter was deprived of more than $65,000,12
  • an additional and consecutive one-to-five years in the state prison and either a maximum $500,000 fine or double the amount of the fraud, whichever is greater, if the homeowner or renter was deprived of more than $100,000 and the defendant was convicted of two or more felonies involving fraud in the same criminal proceeding (∗this penalty may even be imposed on top of the additional one-to-four years that is added on by the punishment just referenced above),13
  • repaying victim restitution, and
  • professional discipline if you hold a California professional license, such as a real estate license, mortgage broker's license, or attorney's license (even an arrest for a crime of moral turpitude such as fraud could affect your professional license...a criminal conviction will almost undoubtedly affect your professional license).14
If you or loved one is charged with Civil Code 2945 & 2945.4 foreclosure fraud and you are looking to hire an attorney for representation, we invite you to contact us at Shouse Law Group. We can provide a free consultation in office or by phone. We have local offices in Los Angeles, the San Fernando Valley, Pasadena, Long Beach, Orange County, Ventura, San Bernardino, Rancho Cucamonga, Riverside, San Diego, Sacramento, Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose and throughout California.
Additionally, our Nevada criminal defense attorneys are available to answer any questions about Las Vegas Nevada's mortgage fraud laws. And for information about Nevada foreclosure fraud laws, read our article about Nevada foreclosure fraud laws.  For more information, we invite you to contact our local attorneys at one of our Nevada law offices, located in Reno and Las Vegas.15
Legal References:
1Our California criminal defense attorneys have local Los Angeles law offices in Beverly Hills, Burbank, Glendale, Lancaster, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Pasadena, Pomona, Torrance, Van Nuys, West Covina, and Whittier.  We have additional law offices conveniently located throughout the state in Orange County, San Diego, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, San Jose, Oakland, the San Francisco Bay area, and several nearby cities.
2California Civil Code 2945.4 -- Prohibited practices (Foreclosure fraud).  ("It shall be a violation for a foreclosure consultant to: (a) Claim, demand, charge, collect, or receive any compensation until after the foreclosure consultant has fully performed each and every service the foreclosure consultant contracted to perform or represented that he or she would perform. (b) Claim, demand, charge, collect, or receive any fee, interest, or any other compensation for any reason which exceeds 10 percent per annum of the amount of any loan which the foreclosure consultant may make to the owner. (c) Take any wage assignment, any lien of any type on real or personal property, or other security to secure the payment of compensation. That security shall be void and unenforceable. (d) Receive any consideration from any third party in connection with services rendered to an owner unless that consideration is fully disclosed to the owner. (e) Acquire any interest in a residence in foreclosure from an owner with whom the foreclosure consultant has contracted. Any interest acquired in violation of this subdivision shall be voidable, provided that nothing herein shall affect or defeat the title of a bona fide purchaser or encumbrancer for value and without notice of a violation of this article. Knowledge that the property was "residential real property in foreclosure," does not constitute notice of a violation of this article. This subdivision may not be deemed to abrogate any duty of inquiry which exists as to rights or interests of persons in possession of residential real property in foreclosure. (f) Take any power of attorney from an owner for any purpose. (g) Induce or attempt to induce any owner to enter into a contract which does not comply in all respects with Sections 2945.2 and 2945.3. (h) Enter into an agreement at any time to assist the owner in arranging, or arrange for the owner, the release of surplus funds after the trustee's sale is conducted, whether the agreement involves direct payment, assignment, deed, power of attorney, assignment of claim from an owner to the foreclosure consultant or any person designated by the foreclosure consultant, or any other compensation.")
3See same, i.e., California Civil Code 2945.4 -- Prohibited practices (Foreclosure fraud).
5See same.
6Ventura criminal defense lawyer Darrell York uses his former experience as a Glendale Police Officer to represents clients at the Ventura Hall of Justice, the Van Nuys courthouse, the Pasadena courthouse, the Burbank courthouse, the Glendale courthouse, the Lancaster courthouse, the San Fernando courthouse, and the Criminal Courts Building.
7Consumer Affairs article, endnote 4, above.
9The National Law Journal Online article Crackdown on California Attorneys for Mortgage Fraud a State-Federal Joint Effort re Christopher Diener.
10In exchange for a reduced charge or reduced sentence, you will be required to plead guity or nolo contendere ("no contest").
11California Civil Code 2945.7 -- Violations; punishment; cumulative remedies.  ("Any person who commits any violation described in Section 2945.4 [that is, California's foreclosure fraud law] shall be punished by a fine of not more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000), by imprisonment in the county jail for not more than one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment for each violation. These penalties are cumulative to any other remedies or penalties provided by law.")
See also Penal Code 18 PC -- Punishment for felony not otherwise prescribed; alternate sentence to county jail.  ("Except in cases where a different punishment is prescribed by any law of this state, every offense declared to be a felony, or to be punishable by imprisonment in a state prison, is punishable by imprisonment in any of the state prisons for 16 months, or two or three years; provided, however, every offense which is prescribed by any law of the state to be a felony punishable by imprisonment in any of the state prisons or by a fine, but without an alternate sentence to the county jail, may be punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year or by a fine, or by both.")
See also Penal Code 672 PC -- Offenses for which no fine prescribed; fine authorized in addition to imprisonment.  ("Upon a conviction for any crime punishable by imprisonment in any jail or prison, in relation to which no fine is herein prescribed, the court may impose a fine on the offender not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000) in cases of misdemeanors or ten thousand dollars ($10,000) in cases of felonies, in addition to the imprisonment prescribed.")
12California Penal Code 12022.6 -- Taking, damaging or destruction of property; commission of felony; additional punishment.  ("(a) When any person takes, damages, or destroys any property in the commission or attempted commission of a felony [such as California foreclosure fraud], with the intent to cause that taking, damage, or destruction, the court shall impose an additional term as follows: (1) If the loss exceeds sixty-five thousand dollars ($65,000), the court, in addition and consecutive to the punishment prescribed for the felony or attempted felony of which the defendant has been convicted, shall impose an additional term of one year. (2) If the loss exceeds two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000), the court, in addition and consecutive to the punishment prescribed for the felony or attempted felony of which the defendant has been convicted, shall impose an additional term of two years. (3) If the loss exceeds one million three hundred thousand dollars ($1,300,000), the court, in addition and consecutive to the punishment prescribed for the felony or attempted felony of which the defendant has been convicted, shall impose an additional term of three years. (4) If the loss exceeds three million two hundred thousand dollars ($3,200,000), the court, in addition and consecutive to the punishment prescribed for the felony or attempted felony of which the defendant has been convicted, shall impose an additional term of four years. (b) In any accusatory pleading involving multiple charges of taking, damage, or destruction, the additional terms provided in this section may be imposed if the aggregate losses to the victims from all felonies exceed the amounts specified in this section and arise from a common scheme or plan. All pleadings under this section shall remain subject to the rules of joinder and severance stated in Section 954. (c) The additional terms provided in this section shall not be imposed unless the facts of the taking, damage, or destruction in excess of the amounts provided in this section are charged in the accusatory pleading and admitted or found to be true by the trier of fact. (d) This section applies to, but is not limited to, property taken, damaged, or destroyed in violation of Section 502 or subdivision (b) of Section 502.7. This section shall also apply to applicable prosecutions for a violation of Section 350, 653h, 653s, or 653w. (e) For the purposes of this section, the term "loss" has the following meanings: (1) When counterfeit items of computer software are manufactured or possessed for sale, the "loss" from the counterfeiting of those items shall be equivalent to the retail price or fair market value of the true items that are counterfeited. (2) When counterfeited but unassembled components of computer software packages are recovered, including, but not limited to, counterfeited computer diskettes, instruction manuals, or licensing envelopes, the "loss" from the counterfeiting of those components of computer software packages shall be equivalent to the retail price or fair market value of the number of completed computer software packages that could have been made from those components. (f) It is the intent of the Legislature that the provisions of this section be reviewed within 10 years to consider the effects of inflation on the additional terms imposed. For that reason this section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2018, and as of that date is repealed unless a later enacted statute, which is enacted before January 1, 2018, deletes or extends that date.")
14To learn more about how criminal convictions such as California foreclosure fraud can affect professional licenses, please visit our pages on professional license issues (which are organized by individual professions).
15Please feel free to contact our Nevada criminal defense attorneys Michael Becker and Mike Castillo for any questions relating to Las Vegas Nevada's mortgage fraud laws. Our Nevada law offices are located in Reno and Las Vegas.

No comments:

Post a Comment