ILNews

Defense rests in Bales trial after flurry of witnesses

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

SOUTH BEND — Closing arguments are expected to begin Wednesday afternoon in the federal fraud trial of Indianapolis real estate broker John M. Bales and partner William E. Spencer after the defense raced through seven witnesses Tuesday and early Wednesday.

The defense made many of its points to the jury via tough cross-examinations of government witnesses before leading off its own case with former Department of Child Services Director James W. Payne, a long-time juvenile judge in Marion County.

Payne told the jury that Venture Real Estate Services, Bales' and Spencer's company, did a good job for DCS, delivering on a promise to find office space in Elkhart better suited for the agency's staff and children they serve.

"I thought it was a vast improvement," Payne said of the Elkhart office. "It was spacious and met our needs. It was an inviting and warm environment."

On cross examination, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jesse Barrett noted that Payne did not oversee Venture's contract with the state (that responsibility fell to the Indiana Department of Administration), and Payne never inquired about the ownership arrangement for the Elkhart building.

Prosecutors say Bales and Spencer provided the down payment so Indianapolis attorney Paul J. Page could buy the property to lease to the DCS, without disclosing its involvement to the state or a bank. The government says the deal violates an agreement between Venture and the state that barred the company from direct or indirect ownership of properties where state agencies leased space, but the defense argues the arrangement was a loan.

The government took about five days to present its case after the proceedings began with jury selection on Jan. 28. Defense attorneys for each of the defendants will get about one hour for closing arguments, and the government is scheduled for an hour and a half to wrap up its case before the jury gets its instructions and begins deliberations.

The second defense witness Tuesday was Adam Gilliatte, a construction contractor and developer who intended to buy the Elkhart building and serve as landlord for DCS before he "got exhausted" waiting for the state to execute a lease and opted out of the deal.

Indianapolis developer Paul Kite also considered buying the Elkhart building, he testified Tuesday, but decided against becoming a state landlord.

Defense attorneys asked both Gilliatte and Kite whether Bales or Spencer had proposed Venture act as a partner or shadow investor in their deals, and both men said no.

The most time-consuming testimony Tuesday came from Marion Siara, a retired special agent for the Internal Revenue Service hired by the defense to review financial records in the case.

The defense introduced exhibits prepared by Siara, including one showing withdrawals by Page on the bank account of L&BAB LLC, the entity that owns the building. Page had been a co-defendant with Bales and Spencer until he accepted a plea deal in January.

Siara said his research uncovered transfers of $58,300 to Page personally and another $93,700 paid out to family members and associates, including $50,000 for Page's defense attorney, Robert Hammerle, who represented him in plea negotiations with the government.

The Elkhart building is and always was a losing deal for Bales and Spencer, Siara said. His estimates showed that if the building sold for $1.65 million as the defendants estimated in 2009, proceeds needed to pay off the bank loan and Venture investment would leave a $25,000 deficit, not a profit for Venture to split with Page as originally pondered.

The government has introduced emails that indicate Bales and Spencer expected to profit from the deal.

In another exhibit, Siara claimed Venture actually overpaid the state on the Elkhart lease commission refund since the value of the 10-year deal was higher than Venture had calculated. (Venture was required to remit 25 percent of its 4-percent commission on lease deals for the state to a discretionary project fund for the state's benefit.)

Barrett saved his toughest cross-examination of the trial for Siara, needling him when he acknowledged using Google to flesh out an exhibit showing where Page directed money from his L&BAB bank account.

Barrett also pressed the former IRS agent for his exhibit claiming the state had been overpaid on the Elkhart deal. The exhibit showed an adjusted amount due to Venture while keeping the total commission amount the same, resulting in a lower payment due to the state.

Siara said he was hired by the defense team in December 2012, a late date for a fast-approaching trial, and did not know whether another financial analyst had worked on the case for the defense before he came onboard.

Other defense witnesses: Ed Scahill, a Huntington Bank commercial loan officer who said he was "quite surprised" to learn in October 2009 there was a second mortgage on the Elkhart building, but took no action since the loan was performing; and David Nugent, a commercial real estate broker based in Fort Wayne, who explained the concept of a "shared-appreciation loan," which the defense says describes the Elkhart deal.

"It's a loan, it's a mortgage, that's it," Nugent said. "It's not ownership."

On cross-examination, Barrett read Nugent portions of the code of ethics for the National Association of Realtors, which appeared to contradict Nugent's claim that brokers can represent multiple parties at once on a deal.

Barrett said the code makes clear that brokers may not accept payment from multiple parties without disclosure; Nugent contended that a broker can be paid a sale commission, lease commission and development fee on a building because each of those transactions is separate.

The final witness for the defense was Caroline Karanja Smith, a former Venture employee who worked on the DCS office rollout. She testified Wednesday morning that the state officials overseeing her, including leasing director Steve Harless, were satisfied with Venture's work.

The defense introduced an email Harless sent to Smith and another Venture employee: "Without their constant support we would be screwed," Harless wrote. "Good luck and God Bless America!!"

Defense attorney Jason Barclay also asked Smith, who handled property management for the Elkhart building, to describe her interactions with Page. She said he was hard to pin down.

She agreed with Barclay when he asked whether it was a "fair assessment" to call Page "lazy."

To catch up on IBJ's coverage of the trial and Elkhart lease deal, click here. The IBJ 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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT