A golf trip to Las Vegas, bail bondsman bought and paid for, appears to be just the tip of the iceberg for potential conflicts of interest in the Muskegon area. Thomas DePung, a Muskegon bail bondsman, bought golf trips to Las Vegas for two assistant prosecutors from the Musekegeon county area.
Kathryn Norton, who was an entry level Assistant Prosecutor and Marc E. Curtis, who had a 9 year tenure, were fired after being on paid suspension for their acceptance of the trips. While no criminal acts were alleged, the severity of their apparent misjudgement was enough for the pair to be terminated for accepting gifts from the bail bondsman.
Muskegon County Prosecutor Tony Tague said that "despite no evidence of any influence on the assistants' jobs," their actions were "an incredible lapse of judgment and have created an unacceptable appearance of impropriety."
On the tail of the scandal involving the two assistant prosecutors, another potential conflict of interest between Tommy Depung and the Muskegon County Sheriff's office. Tommy DePung was linked with a service that provided flat screen TV's in Muskegon County Jail's booking and visiting areas, along with numerous additional county jails in across the state of Michigan. These flat screen televisions show DePung's On the Run Network TV, which provided and installed the TVs.
The connection between DePung, owner of Bad Boys Bail Bonds, and Muskegon County doesn’t involve county money going to DePung. The agreement between the Muskegon County corporate counsel’s office and the bail bondsman was signed by both Sheriff Dean Roesler and DePung.
The content being shown on the "On the Run Network" is essentially a rollign slide show that allows bail bondsmen and lawyers to advertise their services to the inmates incarcertaed in participating facilities. These advertisements are purchased from DePung's company.
The agreement does not include any money being paid to DePung's company for rent or services rendered. In addition, DePung's group installed and services the equipment for free.
However, the additional, and seemingly cozy, tie between DePung and the Sheriff's office calls into question possible conflicts of interest. Why does Depung have the ability to craft these deals? Do these ancillary agreements cause and conflicts of interest with the Sheriff's office and their dealings with DePung's Bad Boys Bail Bonds. As more information surfaces about Mr. dePung's activities, surely this will lead to more questions than answers.
BAIL BONDS UPDATE - Delivering the latest bail bonds news and stories.
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Saturday, March 3, 2012
Man Pretending To Be A Bail Bondsman Was Out On Bail
Last Monday night a Conway woman was coned by a man pretending to be a bail bondsman. The man said he worked for City Bail Bonds and asked the Conway woman if he could search her home to help locate a suspect. As the two got talking the man said he could help the Conway woman bail her son out of jail if she continued to help him locate his suspect.
The alleged bondsman and the woman met at the Faulkner County Detention Center the following night where she gave the man $150 for her sons bail. The two were exchanging information and money when the suspect took off in a silver car.
Conway Police were called reporting the scam by the victim the same night. Police were able to speak to a witness who was at the victims home at the same time as the fake bondsman. The witness was able to give the police a phone number they used to contact the suspect. The suspect told police he would turn himself in, but never did.
The owners of City Bail Bonds were asked by police if they could assist in locating the suspect. After linking the suspects name and phone number. City Bail Bonds was able to give police a driver’s license photo of the suspect. The victim confirmed it was the man who conned her out of her money.
The suspect is being considered a flight risk as he was currently out on bail for a different crime. Police will be contacted by City Bail Bonds as soon as the fake bondsman is located and placed in jail.
The alleged bondsman and the woman met at the Faulkner County Detention Center the following night where she gave the man $150 for her sons bail. The two were exchanging information and money when the suspect took off in a silver car.
Conway Police were called reporting the scam by the victim the same night. Police were able to speak to a witness who was at the victims home at the same time as the fake bondsman. The witness was able to give the police a phone number they used to contact the suspect. The suspect told police he would turn himself in, but never did.
The owners of City Bail Bonds were asked by police if they could assist in locating the suspect. After linking the suspects name and phone number. City Bail Bonds was able to give police a driver’s license photo of the suspect. The victim confirmed it was the man who conned her out of her money.
The suspect is being considered a flight risk as he was currently out on bail for a different crime. Police will be contacted by City Bail Bonds as soon as the fake bondsman is located and placed in jail.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Bail Bonds for Sex?
A bail bondsman, named Ken Waters, has been accused of providing bail bonds to women in exchange for sexual favors.
The Sacramento bail bondsman is not new to controversy. In fact, the CA Department of Insurance revoked his license back in 1995, but it has since been reinstated.
For this latest allegation, local and state officials looked for him at his bail bond's office in Sacramento. However, Ken Waters is believed to have fled. The search and investigation are the result of recorded phone conversations between the bail bondsman and his clients.
Apparently, the investigators believe the misconduct may have occurred with multiple clients. Waters eventually turned himself in and now faces charges of illegal bail transaction and soliciting prostitution.
The Sacramento bail bondsman is not new to controversy. In fact, the CA Department of Insurance revoked his license back in 1995, but it has since been reinstated.
For this latest allegation, local and state officials looked for him at his bail bond's office in Sacramento. However, Ken Waters is believed to have fled. The search and investigation are the result of recorded phone conversations between the bail bondsman and his clients.
Apparently, the investigators believe the misconduct may have occurred with multiple clients. Waters eventually turned himself in and now faces charges of illegal bail transaction and soliciting prostitution.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Bail Bonds For Illegal Aliens
Alabama's Attorney General suggests repealing a couple of the key provisions of the state's well-publicized anti-illegal immigration statute.
In a letter sent last week, to members of the Alabama state legislature, the Attorney General outlined his views and specifically adressed bail for illegal immigrants.
In a surprising move, Strange recommends removing the prohibition of eligibility for the issuing of bail bonds to illegal aliens. The constitution of the state of Alabama protects the people's "absolute right to bail in all noncapital cases."
The law's current ban, which precludes a bail bondsman from entering into contracts with illegal aliens, would be tweaked slightly so as to apply only to those contracts made after the enforcement date of the law.
HB 56 was signed into law by Governor Robert Bentley on June 9, 2011 in a ceremony held at the Old House Chamber at the Alabama State Capitol in Montgomery.
In a letter sent last week, to members of the Alabama state legislature, the Attorney General outlined his views and specifically adressed bail for illegal immigrants.
In a surprising move, Strange recommends removing the prohibition of eligibility for the issuing of bail bonds to illegal aliens. The constitution of the state of Alabama protects the people's "absolute right to bail in all noncapital cases."
The law's current ban, which precludes a bail bondsman from entering into contracts with illegal aliens, would be tweaked slightly so as to apply only to those contracts made after the enforcement date of the law.
HB 56 was signed into law by Governor Robert Bentley on June 9, 2011 in a ceremony held at the Old House Chamber at the Alabama State Capitol in Montgomery.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
Maryland Community Doesn't Want Bail Bonds Business
For some, bail bonds are a necessary life line that allows a loved one to access freedom while awaiting trial. For others, it is a business opportunity and chance to participate in the legal system. For Katia Hamilton, being a bail bondsman represents the American Dream.
Ms. Hamilton views her bail bonds aspirations as a legal and ethical way to provide an invaluable service to Waverly residents, much needed jobs for the local community and an income for her family.
However, a number of Waverly residents, in addition to some local politicians, are fighting to prevent Katia Hamilton from operating her First Response Bail Bonds in the city. They call it a predatory business and attempting to use zoning laws to prevent Hamilton from locating the business in Waverly.
“I’m doing the right thing but I feel like I’m under attack,” Hamilton said.
At the center of the issue is Waverly Councilwoman Mary Pat Clarke. She fought to appeal a city move that issued First Response an occupancy permit to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The City Councilwoman along with comunity groups and local Waverly businesses went as far as to hire attorney Fred Lauer to represent their cause.
The group opposed to Hamilton's business argued to the commission that a bail bonds agency is detrimental and counter productive to the community. They cited recent violent crime and bad publicity for the Waverly business district along Greenmount Avenue, where Hamilton intends to open a storefront.
They likened bail bonds agencies to other undesirable businesses such as pawn shops and adult bookstores. They further argued that desirable businesses on the other hand are leaving the area and adding a bail bonds business will further cause blight.
To complicate the issue, the Waverly business area is part of a broader urban renewal plan that delineates what types of business are permitted. For example, Waverly’s renewal plan explicitly prohibits such businesses as bars, massage parlors and those focused on rabbit and poultry butchering. However, the plan doesn’t specifically address or preclude bail bond agencies.
The opposition group's attorney also argued before the Planning and Zoning Commission that the Baltimore City Council passed legislation in the spring which did include the prohibition of bail bonds agencies under Waverly's urban renewal plan. He cited case law from the Court of Appeals in 2009—in Layton vs. Howard County— which found that if a law is passed while an issue is still going through the legal process, the law takes precedent.
Based on the testimony during the meeting, Planning and Zoning Commission members were decided to delay a decision pending more research and deliberation.
Ms. Hamilton views her bail bonds aspirations as a legal and ethical way to provide an invaluable service to Waverly residents, much needed jobs for the local community and an income for her family.
However, a number of Waverly residents, in addition to some local politicians, are fighting to prevent Katia Hamilton from operating her First Response Bail Bonds in the city. They call it a predatory business and attempting to use zoning laws to prevent Hamilton from locating the business in Waverly.
“I’m doing the right thing but I feel like I’m under attack,” Hamilton said.
At the center of the issue is Waverly Councilwoman Mary Pat Clarke. She fought to appeal a city move that issued First Response an occupancy permit to the Planning and Zoning Commission. The City Councilwoman along with comunity groups and local Waverly businesses went as far as to hire attorney Fred Lauer to represent their cause.
The group opposed to Hamilton's business argued to the commission that a bail bonds agency is detrimental and counter productive to the community. They cited recent violent crime and bad publicity for the Waverly business district along Greenmount Avenue, where Hamilton intends to open a storefront.
They likened bail bonds agencies to other undesirable businesses such as pawn shops and adult bookstores. They further argued that desirable businesses on the other hand are leaving the area and adding a bail bonds business will further cause blight.
To complicate the issue, the Waverly business area is part of a broader urban renewal plan that delineates what types of business are permitted. For example, Waverly’s renewal plan explicitly prohibits such businesses as bars, massage parlors and those focused on rabbit and poultry butchering. However, the plan doesn’t specifically address or preclude bail bond agencies.
The opposition group's attorney also argued before the Planning and Zoning Commission that the Baltimore City Council passed legislation in the spring which did include the prohibition of bail bonds agencies under Waverly's urban renewal plan. He cited case law from the Court of Appeals in 2009—in Layton vs. Howard County— which found that if a law is passed while an issue is still going through the legal process, the law takes precedent.
Based on the testimony during the meeting, Planning and Zoning Commission members were decided to delay a decision pending more research and deliberation.
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Las Vegas Bail Revoked After Jewels Found In Briefcase
In Las Vegas, Stanley and Colleen Rimer were convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the death of their 4-year-old son, Jason. While both of the married couple were out on bail, Stanley Rimer decided to bring a briefcase full of jewels into court.
District Judge Douglas Herndon was suspicious that anyone on bail would walk around with valuable jewels in a briefcase. Fearing Mr. Rimer was a flight risk, he revoked his $500,000 bail and had him taken into custody at the Clark County Detention Center. His wife, Colleen, did not have her bail revoked.
Rimer told the judge that he brought the jewelry with him in case he was arrested so that it could be used to pay a local Las Vegas bail bondsman. The judge didn't buy that story.
At a follow up hearing, Deputy D.A. David Stanton supplied the court with pictures of the briefcase and asked the judge to revoke the bail of both of the Rimers.
District Judge Douglas Herndon was suspicious that anyone on bail would walk around with valuable jewels in a briefcase. Fearing Mr. Rimer was a flight risk, he revoked his $500,000 bail and had him taken into custody at the Clark County Detention Center. His wife, Colleen, did not have her bail revoked.
Rimer told the judge that he brought the jewelry with him in case he was arrested so that it could be used to pay a local Las Vegas bail bondsman. The judge didn't buy that story.
At a follow up hearing, Deputy D.A. David Stanton supplied the court with pictures of the briefcase and asked the judge to revoke the bail of both of the Rimers.
Monday, January 17, 2011
Bail Bond Boards
With the decision of the Titus County Commissioners to implement a county bail bond board, the Tribune took some time to redact the applicable state law, and we publish the highlights to day as a public service.
Chapter 1704 of Title 10 of the State Occupations Code - pertaining occupations related to law enforcement - applies to the operations of a county bail bonds board. The original document is over 33 pages and 9,000 words long.
The law was passed by the Texas legislature in 1999. It has been amended a number of times since then.
The first sub-chapter sets out some basic definitions: "Bail bond" means a cash deposit, or similar deposit or written undertaking, or a bond or other security, given to guarantee the appearance of a defendant in a criminal case.
"Bail bond surety" means a person who executes a bail bond as a surety or co-surety for another person; or for compensation deposits cash to ensure the appearance in court of a person accused of a crime.
Chapter 1704 applies to counties with a population of 110,000 or more, or smaller counties where a board is created. The passage of the law in 1999 automatically created boards in counties with a population of 110,000 or more.
The discretionary creation of a board in a county with a population of less than 110,000 is allowed if a majority of the persons who would serve as members of the board approve and the commissioners court approves the creation of the board by a majority vote.
A bail bond board consists of the sheriff, a district judge, the county judge, the district attorney, a licensed bail bond surety, a justice of the peace, the district clerk, the county clerk, a presiding judge of a municipal court in the county, the county treasurer, and a criminal defense attorney.
Chapter 1704 outlines the requirements for individuals who can represent the above-named office holders on the board.
The bail bond board member who represents bail bondsmen is elected by a secret ballot; each individual licensed in the county as a bail bond surety or agent for a corporate surety is entitled to cast one vote for each license held.
The board is required to meet not later than the 60th day after the date the board is created. The action taken by county commissioners last week sets that start date Oct. 1, 2011 in Titus County. so the first meetingwill have to held in October or November.
A board in a county with a population of less than 50,000 is required to meet at least four times each year during the months of January, April, July, and October. Four members of a board constitute a quorum. A board may take action only on a majority vote of the board members are present. A person may not act as a bail bond surety or as an agent for a corporate surety in the county unless the person holds a license issued by the bail bond board. To be eligible for a license, an individual must possess the financial resources as required unless the individual is acting only as agent for a corporation holding a license.
Sureties must submit documentary evidence that, in the two years preceding the date a license application is filed, the individual completed in person at least eight hours of continuing legal education in criminal law courses or bail bond law courses that are approved by the State Bar of Texas and that are offered by an accredited institution of higher education in the state.
A person is not eligible for a license if, after August 27, 1973, the person commits and is finally convicted of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude or a felony.
To be licensed as a bail bondsmen, a person must apply for a license by filing a sworn application with the board. If the applicant is an individual, the application must be accompanied by a list of real property owned by the applicant that the applicant intends to execute in trust to the board if the applicant's application is approved; and the applicant's complete, sworn financial statement; the applicant's declaration that the applicant will comply with state law and the rules adopted by the board; three letters of recommendation, each from a person who is reputable; and has known the applicant for at least three years;
A $500 filing fee is required, as well as a photograph of the applicant; a set of fingerprints of the applicant a list of each county in which the applicant holds a license; and a statement by the applicant, as of the date of the application, of any final judgments that have been unpaid for more than 30 days and that arose directly or indirectly from a bail bond executed by the applicant.
A corporation must file a separate corporate application for each agent the corporation designates in the county.
Before a hearing on a license application, a board or a board's authorized representative shall determine whether the applicant possesses the financial resources to comply with the law.
After the hearing the board shall enter an order conditionally approving the application unless the board determines that a ground exists to deny the application.
An order issued conditionally approving a license application becomes final on the date the applicant complies with the security requirements, and deposits with the county treasurer a cashier's check, certificate of deposit, or cash in the amount required, or executes in trust to the board each deed to the property listed on the application. The deposit made may not be less than $50,000.
A list of nonexempt real property required must, for each parcel listed, include a legal description of the property that would be sufficient to convey the property by general warranty deed; a current statement from each taxing unit authorized to impose taxes on the property showing that there is no outstanding tax lien against the property; and at the option of the applicant, either the property's: net value according to a current appraisal, or its value according to a statement from the county from the county's most recent certified tax appraisal roll;
A statement by the applicant is required that, while the property remains in trust, the applicant agrees to pay the taxes on the property; will not further encumber the property unless the applicant notifies the board and the board permits the encumbrance; and agrees to maintain insurance on any improvements on the property against damage or destruction in the full amount of the value claimed for the improvements;
A statement is required of whether the applicant is married; and if the applicant is married, a sworn statement from the applicant's spouse agreeing to transfer to the board, as a part of the trust, any right, title, or interest that the spouse may have in the property.
An applicant or a license holder may appeal an order of a board denying an application for a license or renewal of a license, or suspending or revoking a license, by filing a petition in a district court in the county not later than the 30th day after the date the person receives notice of the denial, suspension, or revocation.
An attorney is allowed to post a bond for a client, without being licensed with a bail bond board.
A bail bond license holder may not execute a bail bond that, in the aggregate with other bail bonds, results in a total amount that exceeds 10 times the value of the security deposited. A license holder, at any time, may increase the limits by depositing or executing additional security.
A person shall pay a final judgment on a forfeiture of a bail bond not later than the 31st day after the date of the final judgment; if a license holder fails to pay a final judgment the judgment shall be paid from the security deposited or executed by the license holder. Before a final judgment on a forfeiture of a bail bond, the prosecuting attorney may recommend to the court a settlement in an amount less than the amount stated in the bond or the court may, on its own motion, approve a settlement.
If a final judgment on a forfeiture of a bail bond is paid from the security deposited by a license holder, they shall deposit or execute additional security in an amount sufficient to stay in compliance.
A board shall immediately suspend a license if the license holder fails to maintain the amount of security required A board is not required to provide notice or a hearing before suspending a license under this subsection. A license suspended under this subsection shall be immediately reinstated if the license holder deposits or executes the amount of security required.
A board shall revoke a license if the license holder fails to pay a judgment or the amount of security maintained by the license holder is insufficient to pay the judgment.
The board or its authorized representative shall immediately notify the sheriff if a bail bond surety fails to pay a final judgment of forfeiture After receiving notification, the sheriff may not accept any bonds from the bail bond surety until the surety pays the judgment.
The bail bond surety's privilege to post bonds is reinstated when the bail bond surety pays the judgment.
A person executing a bail bond may surrender the person for whom the bond is executed by filing an affidavit with the court or magistrate before which the prosecution is pending.
A license holder shall maintain an office in the county in which the license holder holds a license. Not later than the seventh day after the date a license holder opens a new office or moves an office to a new location, the license holder shall notify the board of the location of the office.
A board, on its own motion, may investigate an action of a license holder that relates to a complaint that the license holder has violated the law. After notice and hearing, a board may revoke or suspend a license.
Specific acts that lead to suspending or revoking a license include being finally convicted under the laws of Texas another state, or the United States of an offense that is a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude or a felony; going bankrupt; being declared mentally incompetent; soliciting bonding business in a building in which prisoners are processed or confined; recommending to a client the employment of a particular attorney or law firm in a criminal case; or misrepresenting the amount for which the license holder may execute a bail bond for purposes of obtaining the release of a person on bond.
A person in the bonding business may not directly or indirectly give, donate, lend, or contribute, or promise to give, donate, lend, or contribute, money or property to an attorney, police officer, sheriff, deputy, constable, jailer, or employee of a law enforcement agency for the referral of bonding business.
A person may not accept or receive from a license holder money, property, or any other thing of value as payment for the referral of bonding business.
Public officials are prohibited from recommending a bail bondsman. A bail bond surety or an agent of a bail bond surety may not receive money or other consideration or thing of value from a person for whom the bail bond surety executes a bond unless the bail bond surety or agent issues a receipt to the person. A board may regulate solicitations or advertisements by or on behalf of bail bond sureties to protect the public from harassment fraud misrepresentation; or threats to public safety.
A bail bond surety may not make, cause to be made, or benefit from unsolicited contact through any means, including in person, by telephone, by electronic methods, or in writing. A board shall post in each court having criminal jurisdiction in the county, and shall provide to each local official responsible for the detention of prisoners in the county, a current list of each licensed bail bond surety and each licensed agent of a corporate surety in the county.
A list of each licensed bail bond surety and each licensed agent of a corporate surety in a county must also be displayed at each location where prisoners are examined, processed, or confined.
Click here to read full Daily Tribune Article
Chapter 1704 of Title 10 of the State Occupations Code - pertaining occupations related to law enforcement - applies to the operations of a county bail bonds board. The original document is over 33 pages and 9,000 words long.
The law was passed by the Texas legislature in 1999. It has been amended a number of times since then.
The first sub-chapter sets out some basic definitions: "Bail bond" means a cash deposit, or similar deposit or written undertaking, or a bond or other security, given to guarantee the appearance of a defendant in a criminal case.
"Bail bond surety" means a person who executes a bail bond as a surety or co-surety for another person; or for compensation deposits cash to ensure the appearance in court of a person accused of a crime.
Chapter 1704 applies to counties with a population of 110,000 or more, or smaller counties where a board is created. The passage of the law in 1999 automatically created boards in counties with a population of 110,000 or more.
The discretionary creation of a board in a county with a population of less than 110,000 is allowed if a majority of the persons who would serve as members of the board approve and the commissioners court approves the creation of the board by a majority vote.
A bail bond board consists of the sheriff, a district judge, the county judge, the district attorney, a licensed bail bond surety, a justice of the peace, the district clerk, the county clerk, a presiding judge of a municipal court in the county, the county treasurer, and a criminal defense attorney.
Chapter 1704 outlines the requirements for individuals who can represent the above-named office holders on the board.
The bail bond board member who represents bail bondsmen is elected by a secret ballot; each individual licensed in the county as a bail bond surety or agent for a corporate surety is entitled to cast one vote for each license held.
The board is required to meet not later than the 60th day after the date the board is created. The action taken by county commissioners last week sets that start date Oct. 1, 2011 in Titus County. so the first meetingwill have to held in October or November.
A board in a county with a population of less than 50,000 is required to meet at least four times each year during the months of January, April, July, and October. Four members of a board constitute a quorum. A board may take action only on a majority vote of the board members are present. A person may not act as a bail bond surety or as an agent for a corporate surety in the county unless the person holds a license issued by the bail bond board. To be eligible for a license, an individual must possess the financial resources as required unless the individual is acting only as agent for a corporation holding a license.
Sureties must submit documentary evidence that, in the two years preceding the date a license application is filed, the individual completed in person at least eight hours of continuing legal education in criminal law courses or bail bond law courses that are approved by the State Bar of Texas and that are offered by an accredited institution of higher education in the state.
A person is not eligible for a license if, after August 27, 1973, the person commits and is finally convicted of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude or a felony.
To be licensed as a bail bondsmen, a person must apply for a license by filing a sworn application with the board. If the applicant is an individual, the application must be accompanied by a list of real property owned by the applicant that the applicant intends to execute in trust to the board if the applicant's application is approved; and the applicant's complete, sworn financial statement; the applicant's declaration that the applicant will comply with state law and the rules adopted by the board; three letters of recommendation, each from a person who is reputable; and has known the applicant for at least three years;
A $500 filing fee is required, as well as a photograph of the applicant; a set of fingerprints of the applicant a list of each county in which the applicant holds a license; and a statement by the applicant, as of the date of the application, of any final judgments that have been unpaid for more than 30 days and that arose directly or indirectly from a bail bond executed by the applicant.
A corporation must file a separate corporate application for each agent the corporation designates in the county.
Before a hearing on a license application, a board or a board's authorized representative shall determine whether the applicant possesses the financial resources to comply with the law.
After the hearing the board shall enter an order conditionally approving the application unless the board determines that a ground exists to deny the application.
An order issued conditionally approving a license application becomes final on the date the applicant complies with the security requirements, and deposits with the county treasurer a cashier's check, certificate of deposit, or cash in the amount required, or executes in trust to the board each deed to the property listed on the application. The deposit made may not be less than $50,000.
A list of nonexempt real property required must, for each parcel listed, include a legal description of the property that would be sufficient to convey the property by general warranty deed; a current statement from each taxing unit authorized to impose taxes on the property showing that there is no outstanding tax lien against the property; and at the option of the applicant, either the property's: net value according to a current appraisal, or its value according to a statement from the county from the county's most recent certified tax appraisal roll;
A statement by the applicant is required that, while the property remains in trust, the applicant agrees to pay the taxes on the property; will not further encumber the property unless the applicant notifies the board and the board permits the encumbrance; and agrees to maintain insurance on any improvements on the property against damage or destruction in the full amount of the value claimed for the improvements;
A statement is required of whether the applicant is married; and if the applicant is married, a sworn statement from the applicant's spouse agreeing to transfer to the board, as a part of the trust, any right, title, or interest that the spouse may have in the property.
An applicant or a license holder may appeal an order of a board denying an application for a license or renewal of a license, or suspending or revoking a license, by filing a petition in a district court in the county not later than the 30th day after the date the person receives notice of the denial, suspension, or revocation.
An attorney is allowed to post a bond for a client, without being licensed with a bail bond board.
A bail bond license holder may not execute a bail bond that, in the aggregate with other bail bonds, results in a total amount that exceeds 10 times the value of the security deposited. A license holder, at any time, may increase the limits by depositing or executing additional security.
A person shall pay a final judgment on a forfeiture of a bail bond not later than the 31st day after the date of the final judgment; if a license holder fails to pay a final judgment the judgment shall be paid from the security deposited or executed by the license holder. Before a final judgment on a forfeiture of a bail bond, the prosecuting attorney may recommend to the court a settlement in an amount less than the amount stated in the bond or the court may, on its own motion, approve a settlement.
If a final judgment on a forfeiture of a bail bond is paid from the security deposited by a license holder, they shall deposit or execute additional security in an amount sufficient to stay in compliance.
A board shall immediately suspend a license if the license holder fails to maintain the amount of security required A board is not required to provide notice or a hearing before suspending a license under this subsection. A license suspended under this subsection shall be immediately reinstated if the license holder deposits or executes the amount of security required.
A board shall revoke a license if the license holder fails to pay a judgment or the amount of security maintained by the license holder is insufficient to pay the judgment.
The board or its authorized representative shall immediately notify the sheriff if a bail bond surety fails to pay a final judgment of forfeiture After receiving notification, the sheriff may not accept any bonds from the bail bond surety until the surety pays the judgment.
The bail bond surety's privilege to post bonds is reinstated when the bail bond surety pays the judgment.
A person executing a bail bond may surrender the person for whom the bond is executed by filing an affidavit with the court or magistrate before which the prosecution is pending.
A license holder shall maintain an office in the county in which the license holder holds a license. Not later than the seventh day after the date a license holder opens a new office or moves an office to a new location, the license holder shall notify the board of the location of the office.
A board, on its own motion, may investigate an action of a license holder that relates to a complaint that the license holder has violated the law. After notice and hearing, a board may revoke or suspend a license.
Specific acts that lead to suspending or revoking a license include being finally convicted under the laws of Texas another state, or the United States of an offense that is a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude or a felony; going bankrupt; being declared mentally incompetent; soliciting bonding business in a building in which prisoners are processed or confined; recommending to a client the employment of a particular attorney or law firm in a criminal case; or misrepresenting the amount for which the license holder may execute a bail bond for purposes of obtaining the release of a person on bond.
A person in the bonding business may not directly or indirectly give, donate, lend, or contribute, or promise to give, donate, lend, or contribute, money or property to an attorney, police officer, sheriff, deputy, constable, jailer, or employee of a law enforcement agency for the referral of bonding business.
A person may not accept or receive from a license holder money, property, or any other thing of value as payment for the referral of bonding business.
Public officials are prohibited from recommending a bail bondsman. A bail bond surety or an agent of a bail bond surety may not receive money or other consideration or thing of value from a person for whom the bail bond surety executes a bond unless the bail bond surety or agent issues a receipt to the person. A board may regulate solicitations or advertisements by or on behalf of bail bond sureties to protect the public from harassment fraud misrepresentation; or threats to public safety.
A bail bond surety may not make, cause to be made, or benefit from unsolicited contact through any means, including in person, by telephone, by electronic methods, or in writing. A board shall post in each court having criminal jurisdiction in the county, and shall provide to each local official responsible for the detention of prisoners in the county, a current list of each licensed bail bond surety and each licensed agent of a corporate surety in the county.
A list of each licensed bail bond surety and each licensed agent of a corporate surety in a county must also be displayed at each location where prisoners are examined, processed, or confined.
Click here to read full Daily Tribune Article
Sunday, January 16, 2011
Bail Bond Laws Allow Poor To Be Exploited?
Those paragraphs are chock-full of fees: $250 if the defendant misses a weekly check-in; as much as $375 an hour for obscure tasks like bail consulting and research; and unspecified amounts if Mr. Zouvelos, a bail bondsman based in Manhattan, farms out tasks like obtaining court documents or delivering release papers to jail.
Then there are the thousands of dollars that Mr. Zouvelos can charge if he decides to revoke a bond and return a defendant to jail, as he did 89 times during a four-month period last year.
The common perception of how the bail-bond system operates is fairly straightforward: A bondsman bails a defendant out of jail. If that defendant misses a court appearance, the bondsman can “surrender” him — chase him down and haul him back to jail.
The reality is more troubling.
Vague laws and insufficient oversight have allowed some bondsmen in New York to return defendants to jail for questionable or unspecified reasons, and then withhold thousands of dollars to which they may not be entitled, according to lawyers, judges, state regulators and even some bondsmen.
Those cases turn the system on its head: Those who are supposed to give poor defendants a shot at freedom while their cases are pending are instead the ones locking them up and disenfranchising them further.
The laws “are open for exploitation,” said James Carfora, a Long Island-based bail bondsman.
“They need to be more specific,” he said. “If I bail a guy out today and I don’t like him, I can put him back in jail, and it’s O.K. To me, that’s screwed up.”
Complaints against bondsmen have risen in recent years, according to the New York State Insurance Department. Although the allegations may often involve only a thousand dollars, that sum can be the difference between freedom and detention for indigent defendants who make up most of bondsmen’s clientele.
Over a four-year period that ended in mid-July, the department received 227 complaints against 43 bail-bond agents. But those figures may represent only a fraction of the actual grievances: People often do not know when a bondsman is violating their rights or where to file a complaint, experts say.
But the complaints have been alarming enough that the Insurance Department, which licenses bondsmen, is considering implementing new regulations intended to rein in agents who do things like place onerous restrictions on defendants, frequently surrender them, and deduct excessive fees from the cash collateral that clients are supposed to get back.
Read Full New York Times Article Here
Then there are the thousands of dollars that Mr. Zouvelos can charge if he decides to revoke a bond and return a defendant to jail, as he did 89 times during a four-month period last year.
The common perception of how the bail-bond system operates is fairly straightforward: A bondsman bails a defendant out of jail. If that defendant misses a court appearance, the bondsman can “surrender” him — chase him down and haul him back to jail.
The reality is more troubling.
Vague laws and insufficient oversight have allowed some bondsmen in New York to return defendants to jail for questionable or unspecified reasons, and then withhold thousands of dollars to which they may not be entitled, according to lawyers, judges, state regulators and even some bondsmen.
Those cases turn the system on its head: Those who are supposed to give poor defendants a shot at freedom while their cases are pending are instead the ones locking them up and disenfranchising them further.
The laws “are open for exploitation,” said James Carfora, a Long Island-based bail bondsman.
“They need to be more specific,” he said. “If I bail a guy out today and I don’t like him, I can put him back in jail, and it’s O.K. To me, that’s screwed up.”
Complaints against bondsmen have risen in recent years, according to the New York State Insurance Department. Although the allegations may often involve only a thousand dollars, that sum can be the difference between freedom and detention for indigent defendants who make up most of bondsmen’s clientele.
Over a four-year period that ended in mid-July, the department received 227 complaints against 43 bail-bond agents. But those figures may represent only a fraction of the actual grievances: People often do not know when a bondsman is violating their rights or where to file a complaint, experts say.
But the complaints have been alarming enough that the Insurance Department, which licenses bondsmen, is considering implementing new regulations intended to rein in agents who do things like place onerous restrictions on defendants, frequently surrender them, and deduct excessive fees from the cash collateral that clients are supposed to get back.
Read Full New York Times Article Here
Friday, January 7, 2011
Bail Bonds Group Fined For Campaign Issue
A political group that pushed unsuccessfully to require bail bonds in more criminal cases in Colorado has been fined for campaign finance violations.
Safe Streets Colorado was fined $12,200 for improper reporting before raising money to put the bonds question on ballots last year.
The proposal would have made it harder for people awaiting criminal trials to be released under supervision without having to post bail. Critics called the measure a kickback to help the bail bonds industry. The measure failed by a wide margin.
Colorado Ethics Watch filed the complaint. Administrative Law Judge Laura Broniak made her ruling public on Tuesday.
Safe Streets Colorado was fined $12,200 for improper reporting before raising money to put the bonds question on ballots last year.
The proposal would have made it harder for people awaiting criminal trials to be released under supervision without having to post bail. Critics called the measure a kickback to help the bail bonds industry. The measure failed by a wide margin.
Colorado Ethics Watch filed the complaint. Administrative Law Judge Laura Broniak made her ruling public on Tuesday.
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Bail Bondsman In Hot Water After Shooting
KNOXVILLE, Tenn. (WVLT)- A bail bondsman and the suspect he was trying to take into custody are both facing charges this morning-- after a violent scene in the parking lot of Clinton Plaza.
A KPD officer responded to a shots fired called at the North Knoxville shopping center-- when he came across the bondsman-- Darrin Charette-- holding James Branam at gun-point.
Charette, who works for "Donna's Bail Bonds" out of Jefferson County, claims he was trying to detain Banam on a warrant out of that county.
Police believe that Charette fired several shots in the suspect's direction, when he tried to make a run for it.
The scene unfolded near an open day care and a number of other businesses.
Both the bondsman and his intended catch are facing a number charges, while Branam was returned to Jefferson County to face the prior charges.
A KPD officer responded to a shots fired called at the North Knoxville shopping center-- when he came across the bondsman-- Darrin Charette-- holding James Branam at gun-point.
Charette, who works for "Donna's Bail Bonds" out of Jefferson County, claims he was trying to detain Banam on a warrant out of that county.
Police believe that Charette fired several shots in the suspect's direction, when he tried to make a run for it.
The scene unfolded near an open day care and a number of other businesses.
Both the bondsman and his intended catch are facing a number charges, while Branam was returned to Jefferson County to face the prior charges.
Friday, December 17, 2010
Judge Loses Bench Over Bail Bonds Gifts
Seems like recently we've seen quite a few bondsmen arrested for illegal business practices or issues relating to their bonding agencies. However, someone from the other side of the fence has been identified in a bail bonds scandal. Thomas Porteous, a well known federal judge in Louisiana, has been removed from the bench after a US Senate hearing. At issue, was his acceptance of gifts from bail bondsmen. Gifts included trips, meals and other items of value. The problem is that these gifts may have affected the judge's consideration of bail bonds and treatment of the bondsmen on the cases. 
Testifying against Porteous was a a New Orleans bail bondsman, would said that he took the judge on expensive trips, provided lavish meals at expensive restaurants, and had his cars filled with gas and washed. In exchange, the judge would set bail for defendants at the highest amount possible. Therefore the bail bondsman would earn higher bail bonds fees.
While the Senate convicted him 69-27, the charges actually pertain to his time as a state judge. This is unusual to say the least, that a federal judge was removed for actions stemming for time prior to the federal judgeship. Although, this was far from Porteous' only knock. Other allegations relate to unrelated cases where he improper contact with attorneys or false statements during his own bankruptcy proceedings.
Even though Congress found Porteous guilty, he was not charged with any criminal offenses. After an exensive 8 year investigation by the the Justice Department and FBI, no indictments were handed down. The judge blamed gambling and alcohol as reasons for his actions.
Testifying against Porteous was a a New Orleans bail bondsman, would said that he took the judge on expensive trips, provided lavish meals at expensive restaurants, and had his cars filled with gas and washed. In exchange, the judge would set bail for defendants at the highest amount possible. Therefore the bail bondsman would earn higher bail bonds fees.
While the Senate convicted him 69-27, the charges actually pertain to his time as a state judge. This is unusual to say the least, that a federal judge was removed for actions stemming for time prior to the federal judgeship. Although, this was far from Porteous' only knock. Other allegations relate to unrelated cases where he improper contact with attorneys or false statements during his own bankruptcy proceedings.
Even though Congress found Porteous guilty, he was not charged with any criminal offenses. After an exensive 8 year investigation by the the Justice Department and FBI, no indictments were handed down. The judge blamed gambling and alcohol as reasons for his actions.
Thursday, December 2, 2010
Bail Bond Agency To Forfeit $100,000 Bond
A federal judge has ordered a bail bond company to forfeit the $100,000 it promised to guarantee court appearances by an Ohio woman who later fled the country following her corporate fraud conviction.
Garcia Bail Bonds of Phoenix had asked the judge to reconsider after fugitive Rebecca Parrett was found and arrested in Mexico in October.
U.S. District Court Judge Algenon Marbley ruled Wednesday that the bond company had done nothing to locate Parrett after she fled and that the government had expended considerable resources tracking her.
An attorney for the bond company says he has not yet seen the ruling.
Parrett was convicted in 2008 in the $1.9 billion fraud case. She is being held in the Franklin County Jail in Columbus following her return to Ohio about a week ago.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- An Ohio fugitive convicted in a $1.9 billion corporate fraud case has returned to Ohio after her arrest in Mexico in October.
Rebecca Parrett was being held in the Franklin County Jail in Columbus on Wednesday following her return to the state about a week ago.
Drew Shadwick of the U.S. Marshal's Service says a court date has not yet been set for Parrett.
She disappeared in March 2008 after she was convicted of securities fraud, wire fraud and other charges in a scheme at health care financing company National Century Financial Enterprises.
A judge sentenced her in absentia to 25 years in prison.
A message was left Wednesday with attorney Gregory Peterson, who has previously represented Parrett.
To read more go to: Bloomberg Business Week
Garcia Bail Bonds of Phoenix had asked the judge to reconsider after fugitive Rebecca Parrett was found and arrested in Mexico in October.
U.S. District Court Judge Algenon Marbley ruled Wednesday that the bond company had done nothing to locate Parrett after she fled and that the government had expended considerable resources tracking her.
An attorney for the bond company says he has not yet seen the ruling.
Parrett was convicted in 2008 in the $1.9 billion fraud case. She is being held in the Franklin County Jail in Columbus following her return to Ohio about a week ago.
THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) -- An Ohio fugitive convicted in a $1.9 billion corporate fraud case has returned to Ohio after her arrest in Mexico in October.
Rebecca Parrett was being held in the Franklin County Jail in Columbus on Wednesday following her return to the state about a week ago.
Drew Shadwick of the U.S. Marshal's Service says a court date has not yet been set for Parrett.
She disappeared in March 2008 after she was convicted of securities fraud, wire fraud and other charges in a scheme at health care financing company National Century Financial Enterprises.
A judge sentenced her in absentia to 25 years in prison.
A message was left Wednesday with attorney Gregory Peterson, who has previously represented Parrett.
To read more go to: Bloomberg Business Week
Saturday, November 27, 2010
Celebrity Loses $1 Million Bail
American actor RANDY QUAID and his wife EVI QUAID have forfeited $1 million in bail bonds after failing to show up for their latest court date, less than a month after they missed their previous hearing, reports the New York Post.
The couple, who were scheduled to appear in court on charges of felony burglary, failed to attend the hearing in Santa Barbara California yesterday (16th November 2010). They were previously scheduled to appear in court on October 18th 2010 on the same charges, and after failing to attend, the judge issued a warrant for their arrest. The Quaids have been the subject of much media attention in recent months due to their strange behaviour. After initially being arrested for 'squatting' in a home that did not belong to them, the couple claimed they were the next intended victims on a 'Hollywood death list', which, they say, had already caused the deaths of HEATH LEDGER, CHRIS PENN, and DAVID CARRADINE.
The couple's lawyer, BOB SANGER, told the judge yesterday that the Quaids had not appeared because Randy's passport had been confiscated by Canadian authorities after he attempted to claim asylum there. Warrants for the couple's arrest are still in effect, and Judge DONNA GECK said that the $500,000 bail bonds placed on both individuals had now been forfeited
The couple, who were scheduled to appear in court on charges of felony burglary, failed to attend the hearing in Santa Barbara California yesterday (16th November 2010). They were previously scheduled to appear in court on October 18th 2010 on the same charges, and after failing to attend, the judge issued a warrant for their arrest. The Quaids have been the subject of much media attention in recent months due to their strange behaviour. After initially being arrested for 'squatting' in a home that did not belong to them, the couple claimed they were the next intended victims on a 'Hollywood death list', which, they say, had already caused the deaths of HEATH LEDGER, CHRIS PENN, and DAVID CARRADINE.
The couple's lawyer, BOB SANGER, told the judge yesterday that the Quaids had not appeared because Randy's passport had been confiscated by Canadian authorities after he attempted to claim asylum there. Warrants for the couple's arrest are still in effect, and Judge DONNA GECK said that the $500,000 bail bonds placed on both individuals had now been forfeited
Tuesday, November 23, 2010
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
Bail Bonds Agency Arrests Journalist
DropZone is a multi function business in Anchorage Alaska that offers bail enforcement services. Their private security firm handcuffed and detained a journalist at a local town hall meeting.
William Fulton, head of DropZone, said his firm handles VIP and concert security, bail bond enforcement, and the occasional domestic abuse case as well. Fulton noted that they were hired for the Republican Senate nominee's, Joe Miller, town hall at Central Middle School in Anchorage because the school district requires security for private events.
Tony Hopfinger, the founder and editor of online news site the Alaska Dispatch, was handcuffed and detained by DropZone yesterday after repeatedly trying to question and videotape Miller.
Lt. Dave Parker, Public Information Officer for the Anchorage PD, told TPM that under Alaska law, non-law enforcement can conduct "private persons arrest, which is commonly called a citizens arrest," when they witness a crime being committed. This, he said, is what happened at Miller's event.
William Fulton, head of DropZone, said his firm handles VIP and concert security, bail bond enforcement, and the occasional domestic abuse case as well. Fulton noted that they were hired for the Republican Senate nominee's, Joe Miller, town hall at Central Middle School in Anchorage because the school district requires security for private events.
Tony Hopfinger, the founder and editor of online news site the Alaska Dispatch, was handcuffed and detained by DropZone yesterday after repeatedly trying to question and videotape Miller.
Lt. Dave Parker, Public Information Officer for the Anchorage PD, told TPM that under Alaska law, non-law enforcement can conduct "private persons arrest, which is commonly called a citizens arrest," when they witness a crime being committed. This, he said, is what happened at Miller's event.
Saturday, September 25, 2010
Bail Bondsman To The Stars
A SELLOUT crowd and a $300,000 payday awaited the comedian Katt Williams one November evening two years ago. It was to be his first performance at Carnegie Hall.
Just one problem: Mr. Williams was in jail.
He had been arrested that morning with members of his entourage at 28th Street and Broadway on gun possession charges. The show’s promoters were poised to pull the plug unless Mr. Williams’s lawyer, Charles A. Ross, could guarantee that he would appear.
For Mr. Ross, there was only one person to call: Ira. Ira Judelson, bail bondsman, is an inevitable entry in the BlackBerrys of New York defense lawyers, an A.T.M. for desperate rappers, actors, athletes, executives and madams with pocketbooks much fatter than his.
When Mr. Ross called that November afternoon, Mr. Judelson did what he does. He talked with two of Mr. Williams’s managers about pledging their homes as collateral, ran checks to see which had more equity, then had the owner of that one sign over the property.
Read Full Article at: New York Times
Just one problem: Mr. Williams was in jail.
He had been arrested that morning with members of his entourage at 28th Street and Broadway on gun possession charges. The show’s promoters were poised to pull the plug unless Mr. Williams’s lawyer, Charles A. Ross, could guarantee that he would appear.
For Mr. Ross, there was only one person to call: Ira. Ira Judelson, bail bondsman, is an inevitable entry in the BlackBerrys of New York defense lawyers, an A.T.M. for desperate rappers, actors, athletes, executives and madams with pocketbooks much fatter than his.
When Mr. Ross called that November afternoon, Mr. Judelson did what he does. He talked with two of Mr. Williams’s managers about pledging their homes as collateral, ran checks to see which had more equity, then had the owner of that one sign over the property.
Read Full Article at: New York Times
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
Woman Claims Bail Bondsman Sexually Coerced Her
A woman who says she was coerced into having sex with a bail agent earlier this month will file a lawsuit against the man on Monday, her attorney said.
The 20-year-old Ocoee woman claims Allen Robert Burns Jr. of Mike Snapp Bail Bonds demanded collateral and said he would revoke her bond and put her back in jail unless she had sex with him, according to a draft of the suit.
The woman complied but then reported the incident to the Orange County Sheriff's Office.
Burns, 36, of Apopka, was arrested Jan. 20 and faces sexual assault charges. He was released from the Orange County Jail on $10,000 bond.
"This is a sad case of a man abusing his authority and position of power to instill fear and take advantage of a woman he should have been helping," said Richard Schwamm, the woman's attorney.
The woman, who has asked to remain anonymous because the nature of the crime against her, was arrested in October on a theft charge. That charge was dropped Jan. 25.
Sheriff's deputies investigated a 2005 claim that Burns sexually assaulted a woman who described herself as his friendly acquaintance, the Sheriff's Office said.
The sheriff's office also referred a 2008 sexual-assault claim against Burns to the Orlando Police Department.
The 20-year-old Ocoee woman claims Allen Robert Burns Jr. of Mike Snapp Bail Bonds demanded collateral and said he would revoke her bond and put her back in jail unless she had sex with him, according to a draft of the suit.
The woman complied but then reported the incident to the Orange County Sheriff's Office.
Burns, 36, of Apopka, was arrested Jan. 20 and faces sexual assault charges. He was released from the Orange County Jail on $10,000 bond.
"This is a sad case of a man abusing his authority and position of power to instill fear and take advantage of a woman he should have been helping," said Richard Schwamm, the woman's attorney.
The woman, who has asked to remain anonymous because the nature of the crime against her, was arrested in October on a theft charge. That charge was dropped Jan. 25.
Sheriff's deputies investigated a 2005 claim that Burns sexually assaulted a woman who described herself as his friendly acquaintance, the Sheriff's Office said.
The sheriff's office also referred a 2008 sexual-assault claim against Burns to the Orlando Police Department.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Bail Bondsman Shot And Killed
RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA, Calif. — Authorities say the owner of a bail bonds business was shot and killed by another man in a home in an upscale neighborhood in Orange County.
Sheriff's spokesman Jim Amormino said Sunday that Dean Patrick Maldonado was shot by a 51-year-old guest of the woman who owned the home in Rancho Santa Margarita.
Amormino said Maldonado entered the home through a rear sliding door late Saturday night, and the shooting occurred sometime afterward.
He said the circumstances of the shooting were not clear.
Maldonado's daughter Megan Maldonado says the home belonged to her father's girlfriend.
Property records show that the homeowner is Linda Shaw-Sprowl, a personal trainer.
The name of the suspect has not been released.
Sheriff's spokesman Jim Amormino said Sunday that Dean Patrick Maldonado was shot by a 51-year-old guest of the woman who owned the home in Rancho Santa Margarita.
Amormino said Maldonado entered the home through a rear sliding door late Saturday night, and the shooting occurred sometime afterward.
He said the circumstances of the shooting were not clear.
Maldonado's daughter Megan Maldonado says the home belonged to her father's girlfriend.
Property records show that the homeowner is Linda Shaw-Sprowl, a personal trainer.
The name of the suspect has not been released.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Maryland Bail Bondsman Arrested On Tax Charges
Baltimore's leading bail bondsman and his son were arrested Wednesday on federal charges of filing false tax returns and illegally running an insurance business, among other counts.
Milton Tillman Jr., 54, and his son, Milton Tillman III, 35, who run 4 Aces Bail Bonds Inc. and other companies, were each released pending trial during an initial appearance in Baltimore U.S. District Court on Wednesday afternoon. Neither man had been able to review the 28-count indictment before being brought to court.
Tillman Jr.'s attorney said they "had known about this case for some time," however.
Federal agents raided Tillman Jr.'s offices a year and a half earlier, seizing financial, phone and business records belonging to him and his son, along with records from a longshoremen's union at the Dundalk Marine Terminal. Milton Jr. is also charged with defrauding Ports of America Baltimore Inc. by overrepresenting the hours he worked as a longshoreman.
He's been prosecuted federally twice. He pleaded guilty in 1993 to trying to bribe a city zoning board member, and in 1996 was sentenced to 57 months in prison on charges he failed to pay taxes and funneled money into a nightclub he owned. The new indictment, returned last month and unsealed Wednesday, contains similar charges.
Milton Jr. is charged with conspiracy to defraud the Treasury Department by underrepresenting his earnings as a bail bondsman while spending large amounts to acquire apartment buildings, pay court fines and maintain his BMW along with hefty premiums on nearly $10 million in life insurance. He's also charged with five counts of filing false tax returns, one count of unlawfully engaging in the insurance business (his previous convictions prevent it), and 15 counts of wire fraud.
Tillman III is charged with the conspiracy, five counts of false tax statements, and one count of permitting a prohibited person - his father - to participate in the insurance business.
Milton Tillman Jr., 54, and his son, Milton Tillman III, 35, who run 4 Aces Bail Bonds Inc. and other companies, were each released pending trial during an initial appearance in Baltimore U.S. District Court on Wednesday afternoon. Neither man had been able to review the 28-count indictment before being brought to court.
Tillman Jr.'s attorney said they "had known about this case for some time," however.
Federal agents raided Tillman Jr.'s offices a year and a half earlier, seizing financial, phone and business records belonging to him and his son, along with records from a longshoremen's union at the Dundalk Marine Terminal. Milton Jr. is also charged with defrauding Ports of America Baltimore Inc. by overrepresenting the hours he worked as a longshoreman.
He's been prosecuted federally twice. He pleaded guilty in 1993 to trying to bribe a city zoning board member, and in 1996 was sentenced to 57 months in prison on charges he failed to pay taxes and funneled money into a nightclub he owned. The new indictment, returned last month and unsealed Wednesday, contains similar charges.
Milton Jr. is charged with conspiracy to defraud the Treasury Department by underrepresenting his earnings as a bail bondsman while spending large amounts to acquire apartment buildings, pay court fines and maintain his BMW along with hefty premiums on nearly $10 million in life insurance. He's also charged with five counts of filing false tax returns, one count of unlawfully engaging in the insurance business (his previous convictions prevent it), and 15 counts of wire fraud.
Tillman III is charged with the conspiracy, five counts of false tax statements, and one count of permitting a prohibited person - his father - to participate in the insurance business.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)