Sam Antar was the first professional to report on the Letitia James mortgage fraud case because he was the person who uncovered it. Although the media tries to report on the case, they keep getting it wrong, and it is so simple for a forensic accountant like Sam to point us back to the documents (i.e. evidence) to get it right.
In a new analysis, Antar dismantles Lawfare’s defense of New York Attorney General Letitia James, who was recently indicted on federal bank fraud and false statement charges. The article calls the case against James “weak” and says that when James misrepresented the Virginia home as “her primary residence,” this was not false because it was a primary residence for James’s niece. The author says that to succeed, the government will have to prove that James knowingly made a false statement with intent to deceive, and that it’s going to be hard to prove intent.
Lawfare bills itself as a source for analysis of legal issues, and says it’s “thorough.” But it’s analysis of the mortgage fraud case is so flawed on basic level. Antar points out that instead of addressing the evidence, Lawfare resorted to attacking his credibility, calling him a “convicted felon” and mocking his expertise as a “fraud expert.”
His response: Yes, I’m a convicted felon. That’s exactly why I know fraud when I see it.
The article focuses on the documents at the heart of the indictment, which show four conflicting sworn statements James allegedly made about the same property:
- To the bank: Claimed it was a second home for a lower interest rate.
- To the insurance company: Reported it as owner-occupied.
- To the IRS: Reported zero personal use days and claimed rental deductions.
- To New York State: Labeled it as an investment property.
Antar points out that at least three of these statements must be false, and that the Second Home Rider she signed explicitly defines misrepresentations about occupancy as material fraud.
He also takes aim at Lawfare’s interpretation of contract language, calling it “legal malpractice dressed up as analysis.” Their argument that the mortgage rider’s requirements are “squishy,” he says, ignores plain language like “Borrower will occupy and use the Property as Borrower’s second home.”
Antar concludes that the evidence speaks for itself. Documents don’t lie. And they don’t care who finds them.
Read Sam Antar’s full forensic breakdown here: When Legal Experts Get the Law Wrong: A Forensic Deconstruction of Lawfare’s Defense of Letitia James
Source link
