ILNews

Indianapolis attorney pleads guilty in deal with prosecutors

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indianapolis attorney and developer Paul J. Page has agreed to cooperate with federal prosecutors in an investigation that also targets former Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi.

Page on Friday pleaded guilty to a felony wire fraud charge in U.S. District Court in South Bend, agreeing to testify if necessary against co-defendants John M. Bales, a real estate broker, and Bales' partner William E. Spencer in the Northern District case.

Page separately agreed to cooperate with a Southern District investigation that could forestall additional charges against him, Assistant U.S. Attorney Jesse M. Barrett noted during the morning hearing.

Page, 47, could face up to 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine for the wire fraud charge, but he opted to take his chance on leniency in exchange for his cooperation.

A 14-count indictment in South Bend alleges Page, Bales and Spencer defrauded the state and a bank over their purchase of a building in Elkhart and a subsequent lease deal with the state's Department of Child Services first revealed as part of an IBJ investigation.

A trial in that case is scheduled to begin Jan. 28 and last up to two weeks.

The government agreed to drop the 13 other charges Page was facing, assuming he cooperates as promised. Page also agreed to forfeit the office building in Elkhart he has said he co-owned with Brizzi. Page's sentencing is scheduled for April 12.

Page declined to comment as he left the courtroom Friday to meet with a probation officer.

His attorney, Robert W. Hammerle, said Page was a victim of a scheme orchestrated by Bales. He pointed to the fact that Bales named the company that wound up owning the Elkhart building L&BAB LLC, an acronym for "lazy and broke-ass bitch", an apparent reference to Page and perhaps Brizzi as well.

The government has not filed any charges against Brizzi.

Asked whether the investigation in the Southern District has Brizzi as its target, Hammerle said: "Use your own judgement. Beyond that, I'd refer you to the U.S. Attorney's Office."

A spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Indianapolis declined to comment.

Barrett declined to comment or provide a copy of the cooperation agreement involving Page, which was was not filed in court.

During the hearing, Barrett described the probe as a "parallel investigation in the Southern District into conduct in which Mr. Page was involved."

U.S. District Judge Robert L. Miller Jr. asked Page several questions about the agreement to ascertain whether the terms were clear. Page acknowledged he could be called to testify in the case against Bales and Spencer, and agreed to stipulations that could extend his potential prison sentence including the fact that the crime required "sophisticated means" and "special skills".

Page acknowledged in court and in the agreement that he concealed from the bank that he received funds from Bales to buy the Elkhart building in 2008.

The two had agreed to split the proceeds, despite the fact Bales' firm, Venture Cos., represented the state in lease deals for state agencies. The firm's contract with the state explicitly banned Venture and its partners and employees from “any ownership interest” or any “attempt to acquire” properties to be leased by the state.

"I'm guilty of these charges," Page told the judge.

Hammerle said the lender has not lost money on the deal since Page honored his deal.

"As long as I've done this, the toughest cases, right or wrong, are when you like your clients," Hammerle said. "I like Mr. Page."

Page was admitted to the Indiana bar in 1990 and does have a history of discipline, according to the Indiana Roll of Attorneys. The details of the discipline are not posted on the Indiana Supreme Court's website.

Jason Barclay, an attorney for Bales, said his client has not entertained or accepted a deal with federal prosecutors.

"We're looking forward to proving his innocence on January 28," he said.

The Indianapolis Business Journal 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. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  2. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  3. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  4. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  5. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

ADVERTISEMENT