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.


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. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues