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.



  • 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

      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.