Durham found guilty on all counts

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal jury found attorney and financier Tim Durham guilty Wednesday on all 12 felony counts stemming from what prosecutors charged was a massive Ponzi scheme that cost investors in Ohio-based Fair Finance more than $200 million.

The jury found Jim Cochran, who co-owned Fair, guilty on eight of 12 felony counts and Rick Snow, the firm's chief financial officer, guilty on five of 12 counts.

U.S. District Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson ordered all three held at the Marion County Jail until a hearing Monday morning, when she will determine whether they should remain detained or be released on home detention until sentencing.

Durham, 49, Cochran, 56, and Snow, 48, were handcuffed and led out of the courtroom by U.S. Marshals, who transported them to jail. The defendants did not exhibit an obvious reaction, though a few family members who had gathered in the courtroom wept.

The defendants each faced the same 12 counts: 10 counts of wire fraud, one count of securities fraud, and one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and securities fraud.

After deliberating for about eight hours, the jury found Durham guilty on all counts, while splitting its decision on Cochran and Snow. The pair were found not guilty on three charges involving wire transfers of funds from Fair that wound up in Durham's bank account.

For wire fraud charges involving recorded phone calls, the jury found the two defendants on each particular call guilty. Durham was a participant on every call that resulted in charges.

The jury found all three defendants guilty of securities fraud, conspiracy to commit wire and securities fraud and two counts of wire fraud involving the dissemination of an offering circular for investors in Fair Finance.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Winfield Ong urged the defendants be taken into custody, telling the judge they are flight risks. The defense attorneys argued their clients should be released back to home detention pending sentencing.

"Tens of millions of dollars are missing," Ong told the judge. "All of them are facing life sentences. All it takes is $2,000 to get across the border."

The judge said she would make the decision after hearing evidence on the question at 10 a.m. Monday.

U.S. Attorney Joseph Hogsett hailed the jury's decision, calling the case "the most significant piece of litigation the Southern District has seen in a generation."

The verdict was a huge victory for Hogsett's office and the FBI, which began investigating Durham more than three years ago.

Hogsett vowed to seek the "full and maximum penalties." He said that makes it "entirely likely (the defendants) will serve the rest of their lives in jail."

Each wire fraud charge can carry a prison sentence of up to 20 years; the punishment on the securities fraud charge would take into account the number of investors who lost money and how much they lost.

Sentencing will occur in the next few months. At that hearing, defendants would have the opportunity to call character witnesses.

Durham defense attorney John Tompkins declined to comment as he left the courtroom Wednesday.

David Spector, an Ohio businessman who lost about $200,000 in Fair and testified for the prosecution, expressed gratitude when reached by phone Wednesday evening.

"I think the jury heard all the evidence, and it's pretty clear from the short deliberation and the verdict that the evidence was overwhelming," said Spector, who lives in Wooster, Ohio. "It sounds to me like the system worked."

Brady Cassidy, a 68-year-old Wooster resident who lost $90,000, added: "It doesn't put a dime in our pocket. But justice is served, and that's great. I'll have a good evening."

The judge read the verdicts starting at about 6:25 p.m. Wednesday.

Attorneys for the prosecution and defense offered their closing arguments Tuesday afternoon, a few hours after defense attorneys for the three defendants rested their cases. The jury began its deliberations at 9:50 a.m. Wednesday. The trial began June 11 in U.S. District Court after jury selection on June 8.

The U.S. Attorney's Office offered six days of testimony, thousands of pages of documents and recordings from FBI wiretaps as it tried to convince jurors the defendants ran Ohio-based Fair Finance as a Ponzi scheme, defrauding more than 5,000 investors.

Prosecutors said the defendants gutted Fair Finance by doling out tens of millions of dollars in related-party loans to Durham, Cochran, their friends and their failing businesses. Those loans were never repaid.

Defense attorneys blamed the 2009 collapse of the consumer-loan company on a "perfect storm" of a bad economy, bad press and newly skeptical Ohio regulators. Defense presentations lasted less than two hours and did not include testimony from Durham or his co-defendants.

On June 1, the Indiana Supreme Court suspended Durham for not paying his annual registration fee. He was admitted to the Indiana bar in 1987 and does not have a history of discipline, according to the Indiana Roll of Attorneys. The suspension is to begin June 22.

To catch up on the Indianapolis Business Journal's coverage of Fair Finance and Tim Durham, click here.



Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  2. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  3. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  4. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?

  5. Research by William J Federer Chief Justice John Marshall commented May 9, 1833, on the pamphlet The Relation of Christianity to Civil Government in the United States written by Rev. Jasper Adams, President of the College of Charleston, South Carolina (The Papers of John Marshall, ed. Charles Hobson, Chapel Hill: Univ. of North Carolina Press, 2006, p, 278): "Reverend Sir, I am much indebted to you for the copy of your valuable sermon on the relation of Christianity to civil government preached before the convention of the Protestant Episcopal Church in Charleston, on the 13th of February last. I have read it with great attention and advantage. The documents annexed to the sermon certainly go far in sustaining the proposition which it is your purpose to establish. One great object of the colonial charters was avowedly the propagation of the Christian faith. Means have been employed to accomplish this object, and those means have been used by government..." John Marshall continued: "No person, I believe, questions the importance of religion to the happiness of man even during his existence in this world. It has at all times employed his most serious meditation, and had a decided influence on his conduct. The American population is entirely Christian, and with us, Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange, indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations with it. Legislation on the subject is admitted to require great delicacy, because freedom of conscience and respect for our religion both claim our most serious regard. You have allowed their full influence to both. With very great respect, I am Sir, your Obedt., J. Marshall."