ILNews

Bales defense: Elkhart deal was a 'scheme to help'

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Facing a looming deadline to find suitable office space for the state Department of Child Services and the prospect that abused or neglected children in Elkhart County could go without services, real estate broker John M. Bales and partner Bill Spencer in 2008 dipped into their own pockets to help close a difficult lease deal, their defense attorneys contend.

The state had picked a building at 1659 Mishawaka St. in Elkhart because it was in a safer area, better lit and an all-around nicer facility than a DCS office that had been targeted by graffiti artists and thieves. But the partners at Venture Cos. struggled to find a developer willing to buy and fix up the building, and lease it to the state. To persuade Indianapolis attorney Paul Page to buy it, they agreed to contribute a $362,000 down payment and collect a percentage of any proceeds of a sale in lieu of interest.

"This is no scheme to defraud the state of Indiana," argued defense attorney Larry A. Mackey in his opening statement Monday afternoon on behalf of Bales and Spencer, who are facing 13 counts of bank, wire and mail fraud stemming from the deal. "This was a scheme, frankly, to help."

The government disagrees: "Bales and Spencer decided to make extra money on a state deal, even though they're not allowed to, and then they hid it," Assistant U.S. Attorney Jesse M. Barrett said in his own opening statement in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana.

The government says the defendants collected an $88,400 commission on the lease, but did not rebate the state's portion (anything over 3 percent) until after they were served with a federal subpoena. They also were secretly paid development and broker's fees, prosecutors said. And since they put up the equity for the building, they were entitled to 25 percent of any gains in a hoped-for sale of the building. The government said in its opening that Bales himself expected to profit by about $290,000 on a sale.

Mackey, a Barnes & Thornburg partner and former federal prosecutor, sought to draw the jury's attention away from "one lease deal in Elkhart, Indiana" and instead focus on the pressure Venture was facing to locate offices in every county for the Department of Child Services, under a short deadline, and the firm's overall body of work.

The defendants faced a dilemma when their buyer for the building, Paul Page, refused to "do anything or pay anything," and pressure was coming from state officials to close the deal. Page, who also was charged, agreed earlier this month to plead guilty to one count of wire fraud in exchange for cooperating with federal prosecutors.

Mackey said Venture's DCS contact, Jeff Lozer, knew that Venture was "helping financially" to get the lease deal finished, despite the fact Venture's state leasing contract barred it from any direct or indirect ownership of any buildings leased by the state.

The defense says Venture's involvement in the deal amounted to a loan, which was not mentioned as off limits under the state contract.

Mackey showed e-mails from state officials praising Venture's work, and a wire statement showing Bales transferred the money for the building purchase in his own name. He told jurors they will hear positive testimony about the firm's work from state officials, including former DCS Director James W. Payne and Indiana Department of Administration Director of Real Estate Steve Harless.

"No matter how thin the pancake, there is another side," Mackey said. "Neither of these men did anything wrong or intended to harm anyone."

Over a five-year stint as a state consultant, Mackey said, Venture saved taxpayers $11.3 million on a total of 160 lease deals and collected $10 million from the sale of surplus state properties.

Mackey asked why Bales and Spencer would put a positive relationship with state officials and healthy profits (Venture collected $2.9 million over five years) in jeopardy. He noted the men have seven children between them.

The defense also questioned whether the state and bank are truly victims: The state wound up with a good building at a fair rent rate, Mackey argued Tuesday morning, and the bank has collected more than $215,000 in interest payments. Meantime, Bales still is owed more than $200,000 on his loan to Page.

Barrett, the assistant U.S. attorney, said that the crux of the government's case is simple, despite all the documents and testimony jurors are expected to consider: Bales and Spencer committed "financial fraud" on the state and Huntington Bank, then lied about it.

State officials were led to believe Venture had no financial interest in the Elkhart building, and the bank was told Page would be the 100-percent owner.

Barrett said the scheme came to light after state officials began asking questions in response to a series of stories about the Elkhart deal published in IBJ. Bales and Spencer ignored some questions from state officials and lied in others, the government claims.

The final e-mail the government showed in its opening was a question from an IBJ reporter to John Bales, dated May 6, 2010: "I assume you aren't going to answer my question about who is behind BAB Equity?"

The Bales-controlled entity BAB Equity LLC provided the down payment for L&BAB LLC to buy the Elkhart building. The government contends the entity is key to the fraud scheme.

The government's opening lasted about an hour and followed jury instructions from U.S. District Judge Robert L. Miller Jr., which began at 2:30 p.m. The attorneys selected the panel of eight men and six women, two of them alternates, from a pool of 48 potential jurors on Monday morning and early afternoon.

The trial began Monday and resumed late Tuesday morning. Mackey finished his opening statement before Spencer attorney Bernard Pylitt made his first remarks to the jury.

The first government witnesses are expected Monday afternoon, and the trial is scheduled to take up to two weeks.

Story originally published at IBJ.com. Indianapolis Business Journal is a sister publication of Indiana Lawyer.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I like the concept. Seems like a good idea and really inexpensive to manage.

  2. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

  3. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

  4. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

  5. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

ADVERTISEMENT