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

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. 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?

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT