ILNews

Federal prosecutor opposes funds for Conour, raises concern over assets

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A federal prosecutor says resigned personal injury attorney William Conour should not receive $10,000 from a court fund for living expenses. A court filing objecting to Conour’s request raises concern that he might try to liquidate assets the FBI inventoried.

Conour, who faces a wire fraud charge alleging he stole more than $4.5 million from numerous clients’ trust accounts over a number of years, filed a motion through his public defender this month asking for $10,000 to pay more than $7,000 in claimed monthly living expenses. The government opposes the motion to distribute the money from a court deposit fund established for victim compensation.

Chief Judge Richard Young of the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana has yet to set a hearing on the request, in which Conour claims monthly living expenses of $7,040, including $3,500 for car payments.

Special U.S. attorney Jason Bohm responded to Conour’s request in a court filing that argued Conour previously told the court that his living expenses were less than one-quarter what he now claimed, and that “the United States does not believe $3,500 per month in car payments is reasonable or consistent with an individual being provided counsel at public expense.”

Rather, Conour should petition the court to sell assets including extensive collections of art, wine and champagne, Bohm argued. He noted that as a condition of bond, Conour was ordered not to sell or transfer inventoried assets without court approval.

“Given the defendant’s inconsistent claims, the United States believes the court should make an ‘appropriate inquiry into the veracity’ of the defendant’s financial condition,” the government’s response said. It includes in a footnote:  

“The United States remains concerned that the defendant may attempt to liquidate all his assets leaving little for possible restitution for the victims. Thus, should the defendant ask to liquidate any assets, the United States would request an accounting from the defendant of any disposition of assets.”

Conour initially set aside $100,000 for a fund to reimburse victims and to pay his legal expenses. After hiring and dismissing two sets of defense attorneys, he deposited the remaining $39,279 with the court, from which he was provided $35,000 in October to retain new counsel.

In January, he requested a public defender, and Michael J. Donahoe of Indiana Federal Community Defenders Inc. was appointed. Young at that time ordered Conour to return money to the court fund, but it’s unclear how much remains.

“While not reflected on the Court’s docket sheet, the United States believes that the defendant did return approximately $16,000 to the Court’s Deposit Fund,” Bohm wrote.

Donahoe filed a motion for release of funds in which he claimed that Conour’s sole income was $2,140 per month from Social Security, while his more than $7,000 in monthly expenses included car payments of $1,700 for himself and $1,800 for his ex-wife, Jennifer Conour, as provided in a divorce decree issued in Kosciusko County.

Conour’s filing also notes he recently incurred about $3,000 in expenses for repairs to his Carmel home that is for sale.

Conour “believes that the requested funds will be sufficient to cover his expenses through April 2013,” Donahoe wrote.

Conour’s trial is scheduled for Sept. 9.

 

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. Other than a complete lack of any verifiable and valid historical citations to back your wild context-free accusations, you also forget to allege "ate Native American children, ate slave children, ate their own children, and often did it all while using salad forks rather than dinner forks." (gasp)

  2. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

  3. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

  4. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  5. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

ADVERTISEMENT