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. Other than a complete lack of any verifiable and valid historical citations to back your wild context-free accusations, you also forget to allege "ate Native American children, ate slave children, ate their own children, and often did it all while using salad forks rather than dinner forks." (gasp)

      2. "So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)" Well, you know, we're just following in the footsteps of our founders who raped women, raped slaves, raped children, maimed immigrants, sold children, stole property, broke promises, broke apart families, killed natives... You know, good God fearing down home Christian folk! :/

      3. Who gives a rats behind about all the fluffy ranking nonsense. What students having to pay off debt need to know is that all schools aren't created equal and students from many schools don't have a snowball's chance of getting a decent paying job straight out of law school. Their lowly ranked lawschool won't tell them that though. When schools start honestly (accurately) reporting *those numbers, things will get interesting real quick, and the looks on student's faces will be priceless!

      4. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

      5. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

      ADVERTISEMENT