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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  2. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  3. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

  4. For some strange reason this story, like many on this ezine that question the powerful, seems to have been released in two formats. Prior format here: http://www.theindianalawyer.com/nominees-selected-for-us-attorney-in-indiana/PARAMS/article/44263 That observed, I must note that it is quite refreshing that denizens of the great unwashed (like me) can be allowed to openly question powerful elitists at ICE MILLER who are on the public dole like Selby. Kudos to those at this ezine who understand that they cannot be mere lapdogs to the powerful and corrupt, lest freedom bleed out. If you wonder why the Senator resisted Selby, consider reading the comments here for a theory: http://www.theindianalawyer.com/nominees-selected-for-us-attorney-in-indiana/PARAMS/article/44263

  5. Why is it a crisis that people want to protect their rights themselves? The courts have a huge bias against people appearing on their own behalf and these judges and lawyers will face their maker one day and answer for their actions.

ADVERTISEMENT