ILNews

Durham gets 50 years for fraud scheme

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Tim Durham will likely spend the rest of his life behind bars after a federal judge on Friday sentenced the disgraced playboy and businessman to a 50-year prison term for defrauding Ohio investors of $250 million.

U.S. Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson said three words describe both Durham, 50, and the crimes he committed: "Deceit. Greed. Arrogance."

The prosecution had sought a sentence of 225 years, taking into account 5,122 victims and a loss amount of $250 million. The judge agreed with the loss calculations but gave Durham a shorter sentence that will allow him to serve time concurrently on some of his 12 convictions.

"This case was all about numbers that were puffed up to create appearances," Magnus-Stinson said before announcing the sentence. "I’m not going to play that game. Mr. Durham is 50 years old."

The judge is scheduled later Friday afternoon to sentence Durham's two accomplices in the operation of Akron, Ohio-based Fair Finance as a Ponzi scheme.

Before Magnus-Stinson handed down the sentence, Durham stood and gave a brief statement in the courtroom.

“I feel terrible that they all lost money,” he said, his voice somber. “My family has lost all of its investments.”

Durham said he read many of the letters from victims and regrets that the company failed. He also spoke up in defense of his co-defendants. But he did not offer an apology.

“I’m not blind to how everybody has suffered,” Durham said. “I probably wasn’t as familiar with our investor base as I am now. I have regrets. I wish I would have tried harder to make some things clearer.”

Durham attorney John Tompkins said he plans to appeal the sentence within a 14-day limit.

“Anything that is likely to result in dying in prison can’t be described as a good result,” he said outside the courtroom. “But it clearly was better than a lot of what was available to (the judge).”

Unlike state prisoners, federal inmates must serve 85 percent of their sentences.

The rulings follow a morning of legal arguments over sentencing and emotional testimony from four victims of the scheme, including a 42-year-old woman named Kristen Schroeder who called herself "one of the lucky victims" since she still has time to save up and recover.

But the last word came from Barbara Lukacik, a 74-year-old nun who lost her life savings of $125,000.

"What has happened is shameful," she said. "Yes, the economy was weak, but that didn’t give you the right to steal not only my money but all the victims of Fair Financial to use as you wish, for serious greed and pampering. And you say you haven’t hurt anyone; let’s be real. I honestly believe justice must be served because it’s the righteous thing to do."

As she wrapped up her testimony, Lukacik turned toward Durham and said, "Shame on you."

After the sentencing, Lukacik would not say whether she considered the 50-year sentence appropriate.

“I was never for hurting him," she said. "I forgive him. I was for justice to be served.”

She was disappointed he didn't seem sorry: “If he had said he was sorry, that would have meant something.”

The sentencing comes three years after FBI agents raided Fair Finance and Obsidian Enterprises, a Durham company located on the 48th floor of Chase Tower in Indianapolis.

A federal jury in June found Durham guilty on all 12 felony fraud charges stemming from the collapse of Fair. Durham co-owned the firm with Jim Cochran, who was convicted of eight of 12 felony charges. Rick Snow, the company’s chief financial officer, was convicted on five of 12 counts.

The government had recommended a 225-year prison sentence for Durham, 145 years for Cochran, and 85 years for Snow. Cochran was sentenced to 25 years. All three men are expected to appeal.

All of IBJ's coverage of Tim Durham and Fair Finance is 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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT