ILNews

Conour has until week’s end to recoup missing assets

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Former personal injury attorney William Conour on Monday was granted a few more days to comply with a court order to reacquire assets he dissipated in violation of bond conditions pending his federal wire fraud trial.

Conour has through Friday to reacquire and place back in his possession an array of assets that federal authorities could not locate during a recent re-inventory of his home and law office. Richard Young, chief judge for the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of Indiana, had ordered agents to re-inspect Conour’s property to assess how much was gone after a federal prosecutor asked Young to revoke Conour’s bond.

Conour is accused of defrauding more than 25 clients of at least $4.5 million. After his arrest in April 2012, he was ordered not to dissipate property federal agents inventoried.

On May 10, Young granted Conour seven days to reacquire the missing assets, but Conour’s federal public defender, James Donahoe, asked for more time and the government didn’t object. Young issued an order Monday giving Conour through Friday to resecure missing assets.

Donahoe “represented that most of the missing assets were transferred to (Conour’s) ex-wife pursuant to an uncontested divorce decree,” Young wrote in the May 10 entry. “…(T)he inventoried assets were not to be transferred without permission of the court.”

Weeks after Conour was charged and bond conditions set, his then-wife Jennifer Conour filed a divorce action in Kosciusko County. In December, a judge in Warsaw approved a dissolution of marriage that divided the couples’ assets, awarding Jennifer a Sheridan horse farm, among other things.

Conour’s trial is scheduled for Sept. 9.

 
 

 

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 need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT