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. It really doesn't matter what the law IS, if law enforcement refuses to take reports (or take them seriously), if courts refuse to allow unrepresented parties to speak (especially in Small Claims, which is supposedly "informal"). It doesn't matter what the law IS, if constituents are unable to make effective contact or receive any meaningful response from their representatives. Two of our pets were unnecessarily killed; court records reflect that I "abandoned" them. Not so; when I was denied one of them (and my possessions, which by court order I was supposed to be able to remove), I went directly to the court. And earlier, when I tried to have the DV PO extended (it expired while the subject was on probation for violating it), the court denied any extension. The result? Same problems, less than eight hours after expiration. Ironic that the county sheriff was charged (and later pleaded to) with intimidation, but none of his officers seemed interested or capable of taking such a report from a private citizen. When I learned from one officer what I needed to do, I forwarded audio and transcript of one occurrence and my call to law enforcement (before the statute of limitations expired) to the prosecutor's office. I didn't even receive an acknowledgement. Earlier, I'd gone in to the prosecutor's office and been told that the officer's (written) report didn't match what I said occurred. Since I had the audio, I can only say that I have very little faith in Indiana government or law enforcement.

  2. One can only wonder whether Mr. Kimmel was paid for his work by Mr. Burgh ... or whether that bill fell to the citizens of Indiana, many of whom cannot afford attorneys for important matters. It really doesn't take a judge(s) to know that "pavement" can be considered a deadly weapon. It only takes a brain and some education or thought. I'm glad to see the conviction was upheld although sorry to see that the asphalt could even be considered "an issue".

  3. In response to bryanjbrown: thank you for your comment. I am familiar with Paul Ogden (and applaud his assistance to Shirley Justice) and have read of Gary Welsh's (strange) death (and have visited his blog on many occasions). I am not familiar with you (yet). I lived in Kosciusko county, where the sheriff was just removed after pleading in what seems a very "sweetheart" deal. Unfortunately, something NEEDS to change since the attorneys won't (en masse) stand up for ethics (rather making a show to please the "rules" and apparently the judges). I read that many attorneys are underemployed. Seems wisdom would be to cull the herd and get rid of the rotting apples in practice and on the bench, for everyone's sake as well as justice. I'd like to file an attorney complaint, but I have little faith in anything (other than the most flagrant and obvious) resulting in action. My own belief is that if this was medicine, there'd be maimed and injured all over and the carnage caused by "the profession" would be difficult to hide. One can dream ... meanwhile, back to figuring out to file a pro se "motion to dismiss" as well as another court required paper that Indiana is so fond of providing NO resources for (unlike many other states, who don't automatically assume that citizens involved in the court process are scumbags) so that maybe I can get the family law attorney - whose work left me with no settlement, no possessions and resulted in the death of two pets (etc ad nauseum) - to stop abusing the proceedings supplemental and small claims rules and using it as a vehicle for harassment and apparently, amusement.

  4. Been on social security sense sept 2011 2massive strokes open heart surgery and serious ovarian cancer and a blood clot in my lung all in 14 months. Got a letter in may saying that i didn't qualify and it was in form like i just applied ,called social security she said it don't make sense and you are still geting a check in june and i did ,now i get a check from my part D asking for payment for july because there will be no money for my membership, call my prescription coverage part D and confirmed no check will be there.went to social security they didn't want to answer whats going on just said i should of never been on it .no one knows where this letter came from was California im in virginia and been here sense my strokes and vcu filed for my disability i was in the hospital when they did it .It's like it was a error . My ,mothers social security was being handled in that office in California my sister was dealing with it and it had my social security number because she died last year and this letter came out of the same office and it came at the same time i got the letter for my mother benefits for death and they had the same date of being typed just one was on the mail Saturday and one on Monday. . I think it's a mistake and it should been fixed instead there just getting rid of me .i never got a formal letter saying when i was being tsken off.

  5. Employers should not have racially discriminating mind set. It has huge impact on the society what the big players do or don't do in the industry. Background check is conducted just to verify whether information provided by the prospective employee is correct or not. It doesn't have any direct combination with the rejection of the employees. If there is rejection, there should be something effective and full-proof things on the table that may keep the company or the people associated with it in jeopardy.

ADVERTISEMENT