ILNews

Judge orders Durham, Cochran jailed until sentencing

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Convicted Ponzi schemers Tim Durham and James Cochran will be held in a federal prison until sentencing under an order issued Monday afternoon by U.S. District Judge Jane E. Magnus-Stinson.

The judge agreed to release accomplice Rick Snow on home detention including GPS monitoring, noting his comparatively smaller role in the fraud and the young age of his children.

Magnus-Stinson did not set a sentencing date.

The defendants were convicted of operating Ohio-based Fair Finance Co. as a Ponzi scheme that swindled 5,000 investors out of more than $200 million. A jury last week found Durham guilty of 12 fraud-related charges, Cochran of eight and Snow of five.

Magnus-Stinson issued her ruling on whether the defendants would remain in jail at about 2:30 p.m. after 90 minutes of testimony, including from Durham's son and Snow's wife, both of whom said their loved ones have expressed no desire to flee. Defense attorneys argued their clients should be released under home detention pending a sentencing hearing.

The court's decision to jail Durham and Cochran is based on the fear some of the "missing money" from Fair Finance could help bankroll an escape, said Magnus-Stinson, who repeatedly referenced the infamous Ponzi scheme operated by Bernie Madoff in a stern ruling.

She scoffed in particular at a suggestion by Durham defense attorney John Tompkins that she could require a higher bond on Durham in exchange for allowing him to maintain an office and help find more money to pay back investors in Fair.

Durham's former father-in-law, local businessman Beurt SerVaas, had put up $1 million bond pending trial. The bond will be released since Durham will now be held indefinitely.

Magnus-Stinson suggested the SerVaas bond assets could have been "put up with Fair money in the first place" based on some of the insider loans the company had issued to Durham family members. And besides, she said, the jury's verdict suggests Durham has "no respect for other people's money."

She also expressed skepticism at Tompkins' simultaneous claim that Durham doesn't have the financial means to attempt to flee and that he's essential to recovering more money for Fair's victims.
"It's the missing money the court is concerned about," she said.

Durham and Cochran likely will be transferred to a federal correctional facility in Kentucky. Snow was released following the hearing and will be confined to his home, which he shares with his wife of 22 years and teenage children (who are 14 and 16).

"I'm happy she decided he wasn't a risk," said Snow attorney Jeffrey Baldwin. "I agree with the court's decision."

The judge had ordered all three defendants held in the Marion County Jail over the weekend, pending Monday's hearing.

Tompkins first called Gary Sallee, an attorney who represented a handful of Durham businesses over the years. Sallee said Durham has cooperated with the Fair Finance bankruptcy trustee, turning over more than 40 cars and artwork appraised at more than $6 million to help repay investors.

"It's always been his intention to transfer to the bankruptcy estate as many assets as he could," Sallee said.

Timothy Scott Durham added testimony that his father has never expressed a desire to flee. When he and his father heard the jury had reached a verdict, they put on their suits and were on their way to the court within 30 seconds, he said.

"There's only been talk of an appeal," he said.

Tompkins suggested Fair investors would have a better chance of recovery if the court allowed Durham to continue assisting the bankruptcy trustee.

He described as "farfetched" the suggestion by the prosecution that any of Durham's friends or family members might help facilitate an escape.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Winfield Ong called the prospect of a life sentence an "extraordinary incentive to flee."

"Tens of millions of dollars is missing," Ong added, noting the "cryptic, meaningless" accounting at Fair left plenty of room for Durham to squirrel away cash. "He has shown complete disregard for others in consideration of his own gain."

Ong said little else during the hearing, other than to request the judge consider the trial record in her decision.

Both Baldwin and Cochran attorney Bill Dazey called probation officers who had been assigned to their clients. The officers testified the defendants had followed the rules and made no attempt to flee.

Dazey also introduced exhibits to show the court Cochran does not have enough money to mount an escape: So far this year he has sold two of his three houses and is nearing a deal to sell the third, all for less than the first mortgage balance. And Cochran had a balance of $2,098.54 in his lone bank account at the end of May.

Baldwin called Snow's wife, Stacey, who said the family has spent most of its savings and drawn on a home equity line to keep up with expenses. He reminded the judge Snow never received a related party loan or wire transfer from Fair or exercised any control over the enterprise.

The next step is a sentencing hearing at which the defendants will be allowed to call character witnesses to appeal to Magnus-Stinson, who has wide discretion on sentencing. The hearing likely will be held in the next few months.

Durham, Cochran and Snow face decades in prison under federally recommended sentencing guidelines. They are expected to appeal their convictions.

Observers say succeeding at such an appeal is a longshot.

The jury returned the guilty verdict on June 20, after eight hours of deliberations, and a trial in U.S. District Court that began June 11.

The U.S. Attorney's Office offered six days of testimony, thousands of pages of documents and recordings from FBI wiretaps.

Prosecutors said the defendants gutted Fair by doling out tens of millions of dollars in related-party loans to Durham, Cochran, their friends and their failing businesses. Those loans were never repaid.

Defense attorneys blamed the 2009 collapse of the consumer-loan company on a "perfect storm" of a bad economy, bad press and newly skeptical Ohio regulators. Defense presentations lasted less than two hours and did not include testimony from Durham or his co-defendants.

 

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. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  2. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

  3. This law is troubling in two respects: First, why wasn't the law reviewed "with the intention of getting all the facts surrounding the legislation and its actual impact on the marketplace" BEFORE it was passed and signed? Seems a bit backwards to me (even acknowledging that this is the Indiana state legislature we're talking about. Second, what is it with the laws in this state that seem to create artificial monopolies in various industries? Besides this one, the other law that comes to mind is the legislation that governed the granting of licenses to firms that wanted to set up craft distilleries. The licensing was limited to only those entities that were already in the craft beer brewing business. Republicans in this state talk a big game when it comes to being "business friendly". They're friendly alright . . . to certain businesses.

  4. Gretchen, Asia, Roberto, Tonia, Shannon, Cheri, Nicholas, Sondra, Carey, Laura ... my heart breaks for you, reaching out in a forum in which you are ignored by a professional suffering through both compassion fatigue and the love of filthy lucre. Most if not all of you seek a warm blooded Hoosier attorney unafraid to take on the government and plead that government officials have acted unconstitutionally to try to save a family and/or rescue children in need and/or press individual rights against the Leviathan state. I know an attorney from Kansas who has taken such cases across the country, arguing before half of the federal courts of appeal and presenting cases to the US S.Ct. numerous times seeking cert. Unfortunately, due to his zeal for the constitutional rights of peasants and willingness to confront powerful government bureaucrats seemingly violating the same ... he was denied character and fitness certification to join the Indiana bar, even after he was cleared to sit for, and passed, both the bar exam and ethics exam. And was even admitted to the Indiana federal bar! NOW KNOW THIS .... you will face headwinds and difficulties in locating a zealously motivated Hoosier attorney to face off against powerful government agents who violate the constitution, for those who do so tend to end up as marginalized as Paul Odgen, who was driven from the profession. So beware, many are mere expensive lapdogs, the kind of breed who will gladly take a large retainer, but then fail to press against the status quo and powers that be when told to heel to. It is a common belief among some in Indiana that those attorneys who truly fight the power and rigorously confront corruption often end up, actually or metaphorically, in real life or at least as to their careers, as dead as the late, great Gary Welch. All of that said, I wish you the very best in finding a Hoosier attorney with a fighting spirit to press your rights as far as you can, for you do have rights against government actors, no matter what said actors may tell you otherwise. Attorneys outside the elitist camp are often better fighters that those owing the powers that be for their salaries, corner offices and end of year bonuses. So do not be afraid to retain a green horn or unconnected lawyer, many of them are fine men and woman who are yet untainted by the "unique" Hoosier system.

  5. I am not the John below. He is a journalist and talk show host who knows me through my years working in Kansas government. I did no ask John to post the note below ...

ADVERTISEMENT