ILNews

More than half of Conour’s inventoried assets gone, feds say

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

About half the property that federal agents inventoried after former personal injury attorney William Conour was charged with wire fraud is missing from his home, and just 13 of 78 items at his former law office are still there, according to new government filings in his federal criminal case. 

Chief Judge Richard Young of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana ordered the new inventory last month during a hearing at which a federal prosecutor sought to revoke Conour’s bond. Young is still considering that request, and the government in Thursday’s filing argued anew that Conour has violated his bond conditions.

Conour was charged in April 2012 with defrauding more than 25 clients of at least $4.5 million. He was ordered after his arrest not to dissipate property that had been inventoried, and he is currently receiving the assistance of a public defender.

A revised inventory filed with the court Thursday shows 83 of 165 pieces itemized at Conour’s Carmel home could not be located. The missing items include about 30 pieces of art, furniture, five televisions, a variety of sports memorabilia and other miscellaneous items of value.

Agents also noted that more than a dozen previously inventoried bottles of alcohol – including four bottles of Louis Roderer Cristal Champagne with a retail value of $200 or more per bottle – were no longer in his home. The earlier inventory counted 80 bottles of 32 varieties of wine, champagne, liqueur and Scotch.

However, the government in its most recent inventory did make a fresh discovery of previously unknown assets. “Agents located another cache of alcohol in the defendant’s pool house, which is now listed at the end of the inventory,” according to Thursday’s filing.

 There, the government reported 215 bottles of 48 varieties of wine, according to the inventory.

Last month, Young also asked Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Jason Bohm to provide an affidavit from former federal prosecutor Richard Cox, Bohm’s predecessor on the case who recently retired. Cox addressed Conour’s allegation in an affidavit last month that the government had agreed to defer filing criminal charges against him for several months to allow him to retire and collect legal fees from pending personal injury cases that could be used to compensate victims.

Bohm last month denied such a deal existed and entered a statement from Conour’s former attorney, Jim Voyles, denying any such agreement had been reached.

In his affidavit filed with the court Thursday, Cox recalled the April 2012 meeting with Conour, Voyles, FBI and state police representatives and others at which Conour alleged the government had agreed to wait several months before charging him.

“While Mr. Conour desired that any possible charges be deferred until June, 2012, there was no agreement about deferring the charges,” Cox wrote.

When Conour was charged in a criminal complaint and appeared before Southern District Magistrate Judge Debra M. Lynch, “Judge Lynch entered an order setting the bond conditions, including a condition that the defendant not transfer, sell, encumber, or otherwise dispose of any of his personal or business assets or property without court approval,” Cox stated in the affidavit.

The items missing from Conour’s former law office are categorized as seized by creditors, but it’s unclear what happened to the assets dissipated from the home. The inventory lists several items that Conour had admitted to the court he no longer had as well as additional items investigators failed to locate.

 Last month’s hearing came after Conour requested $10,000 for living expenses from a court fund, a motion that he later withdrew. But the government insisted the hearing go forward, at which time Bohm asked Young to revoke bond.

Conour’s trial is scheduled for Sept. 9.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Gov/attorneys
    Jack, I was only responding to bill's comment of tying everybody in government together. I agree with you though, it takes one bad apple to ruin the bunch.. As in any profession. What's truly unfair is when somebody violates someone's trust and takes complete advantage of someone
  • Gov/Attny Lies
    John’s comment is unfair. The majority of attorneys can be trusted. Unfortunately, all it takes is one greedy, unscrupulous, immoral attorney to jade the public.
    • Gov/attorney's
      In regards to bill's comment about trusting the cover meant. We can trust them about as much as we can trust attorneys'.
    • Government lies
      This is a lie just like most of the things the government says. Of, course, we all know we can trust the government, right?

      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. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

      2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

      3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

      4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

      5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

      ADVERTISEMENT