ILNews

New Conour asset check ordered in bond revocation bid

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Former attorney William Conour stayed out of custody in his federal wire fraud case Thursday, but the judge withheld a ruling on a government bid to revoke bond until investigators can take a fresh look at Conour’s assets the FBI inventoried last year.

“Some of these assets have been dissipated,” Chief Judge Richard Young of the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana said after he examined Conour under seal, outside the view of government attorneys and the public during a hearing at the federal courthouse in Indianapolis.

Young requested the FBI and U.S. attorney’s office conduct another inventory of Conour’s properties to determine whether items might have been sold without court permission and whether that would violate terms of bail. “The court is interested in what remains of the inventory,” Young said.

Conour, once one of Indiana’s go-to personal injury attorneys, was charged in April 2012. Authorities allege he defrauded more than 25 clients of at least $4.5 million. Victims and attorneys familiar with the case believe the figure might be several million dollars more. He resigned from the bar in June 2012.

Thursday’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 and sought to combat Conour’s claim that the feds reneged on a deal to delay prosecution so that he could settle cases and use the proceeds for possible restitution.

“There was discussion about it, but we never agreed,” FBI special agent Doug Kasper testified of a meeting involving federal authorities, Conour, and his attorney at the time, Jim Voyles, in early April 2012. Conour alleges in an affidavit the government had agreed to delay prosecution until last June.

Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Jason Bohm introduced an affidavit from Voyles saying that no such agreement had been made. Conour’s public defender, James Donahoe, characterized the inconsistencies as “different recollections of exactly what happened.”

Bohm also introduced evidence that Conour, who claims monthly income of about $2,200 and monthly expenses of about $7,000, paid for airline tickets to Arizona to visit his daughter this month and take his son to spring training baseball games. Southern District probation officer Patrick Jarosh said he had been told that a family member living in Arizona, not Conour, would pay for the trip.

Jarosh testified that Conour’s travel was approved with the understanding that a family member was paying, and Jarosh said “it would have given pause for thought” if Conour had proposed to travel on his own dime. Conour insisted that he left a voice mail message for Jarsoh saying his plans had changed, but Jarosh said he didn’t recall such a message.

Some of Conour’s alleged victims watching the hearing reacted audibly to disclosures such as Conour’s multi-night stay at the J.W. Marriott in Phoenix.

Bohm told Young that information about dissipation of assets had come to the government’s attention just before Thursday’s hearing and prompted the request to revoke Conour’s bond.

“There’s a significant question about whether Mr. Conour has violated terms of his bond,” Bohm said. “The issue should be addressed,” he said.

Donahoe took exception, saying, “all of a sudden, and quite surprising to me,” the hearing was being converted into a bond revocation proceeding. “It’s highly unfair. This is the first we’ve heard that they’re seeking this kind of remedy,” Donahoe told Young, requesting 10 days to prepare for a revocation hearing.

Young later told Donahoe that some of Conour’s monthly expenses – particularly $3,000 in car lease payments – could not be justified for someone benefiting from a taxpayer-supported defender. “It’s a matter of high concern for the court and a matter that needs to be addressed,” Young said.

Donahoe said Conour needed the vehicles to transport children to and from school, for instance, and that he was “tens of thousands of dollars upside down” on payments. Young suggested Conour could simply return the keys.

“The kids don’t need to be transported in luxury,” Young said.

After talking to Conour privately, Young told the court that Conour would continue to receive the assistance of a public defender, but the auto payments would no longer be considered part of Conour’s monthly living expenses.

Young took the motion to revoke bond under advisement until it can be determined whether assets previously inventoried have been sold. Young directed a new inventory be scheduled in the next 15 to 20 days.

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. How nice, on the day of my car accident on the way to work at the Indiana Supreme Court. Unlike the others, I did not steal any money or do ANYTHING unethical whatsoever. I am suing the Indiana Supreme Court and appealed the failure of the district court in SDIN to protect me. I am suing the federal judge because she failed to protect me and her abandonment of jurisdiction leaves her open to lawsuits because she stripped herself of immunity. I am a candidate for Indiana Supreme Court justice, and they imposed just enough sanction so that I am made ineligible. I am asking the 7th Circuit to remove all of them and appoint me as the new Chief Justice of Indiana. That's what they get for dishonoring my sacrifice and and violating the ADA in about 50 different ways.

  2. Can anyone please help this mother and child? We can all discuss the mother's rights, child's rights when this court only considered the father's rights. It is actually scarey to think a man like this even being a father period with custody of this child. I don't believe any of his other children would have anything good to say about him being their father! How many people are afraid to say anything or try to help because they are afraid of Carl. He's a bully and that his how he gets his way. Please someone help this mother and child. There has to be someone that has the heart and the means to help this family.

  3. I enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

  4. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

  5. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

ADVERTISEMENT