ILNews

Grand jury indicts 2 attorneys, real estate broker

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A grand jury in South Bend has returned a 14-count criminal indictment against two attorneys and a real estate broker from central Indiana over a state lease deal in Elkhart.  

The deal was first revealed as part of an Indianapolis Business Journal investigation. The IBJ is a sister publication of Indiana Lawyer.

The complaint alleges real estate broker John M. Bales, his partner and general counsel William E. Spencer and Indianapolis developer and attorney Paul J. Page defrauded the state and an unnamed bank. The charges, brought by the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Indiana, allege each man committed eight counts of wire fraud, three counts of mail fraud, one count of bank fraud and one count of conspiracy to defraud. Page also faces a charge of making false statements to influence the actions of a bank insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp.

The state hired Venture Real Estate Services in 2006 to handle leasing for state agencies in a contract that explicitly banned Venture and its partners and employees from “any ownership interest” or any “attempt to acquire” properties to be leased by the state.

But as IBJ reported last year, the politically connected real estate broker over the years has acted as a developer for several public-sector tenants he represents — putting government agencies into buildings he owns or those owned by his friends and associates.

The indictment points to one transaction in particular that prosecutors allege ran afoul of Bales' agreement with the state: A lease deal in Elkhart for the state's Department of Child Services in a building jointly owned by Page and former Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi. The government has not charged Brizzi.

According to the indictment, Page bought the office building through a company called L&BAB LLC, then leased it to the state's Department of Child Services. Page paid no money to buy the building, but put up $361,000 in cash for the property, which had been wired from Bales' account under an entity called BAB Equity.

"Page promised to repay BAB Equity and to give it 25 percent of the profits when the Elkhart building was resold, even though Bales and Spencer could not have any sort of ownership interest in the building and even though Venture told the state that it would only be compensated through commissions," U.S. Attorney David Capp said in a statement.

The indictment alleges that Page also used $531,000 from a bank without noting the details of his arrangement with BAB Equity.

Venture was paid an $88,400 commission on the lease deal, then took more than a year to rebate $22,100 to the state as required under its deal. The firm also received a $28,875 broker's fee and a $22,700 development fee, the indictment alleges.

The charges follow an FBI investigation that lasted more than a year. The U.S. Attorney's Office anticipates that the defendants' initial appearance will be at 2 p.m. Thursday in the South Bend Federal Courthouse.

According to the Indiana Roll of Attorneys, Page, who was admitted to the bar in 1990, has been disciplined in the past, but currently is active in good standing. Spencer was admitted in 2002 and has no disciplinary history. He is also active in good standing.

This story originally ran on IBJ.com Dec. 14, 2011.
 

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT