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.



Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.