No. 1894, Disciplinary Docket No. 3

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL, Petitioner v. SEAN RYAN McBRIDE, Respondent No. 1894 Disciplinary Docket No.3 No. 176 DB 2012 Attorney Registration No. 94514 (Allegheny County) ORDER PER CURIAM: AND NOW, this 241h day of July, 2013, there having been filed with this Court by Sean Ryan McBride his verified Statement of Resignation dated February 28, 2013, stating that he desires to resign from the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in accordance with the provisions of Rule 215, Pa.R.D.E., it is ORDERED that the resignation of Sean Ryan McBride is accepted; he is disbarred on consent from the Bar of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania retroactive to December 20, 2012; and he shall comply with the provisions of Rule 217, Pa.R.D.E. Respondent shall pay costs, if any, to the Disciplinary Board pursuant to Rule 208(g), Pa.R.D.E. A True Copy Patricia Nicola As Of 7/24/L013 ~- }ik,uf.._.) Att"st: Chief Cler Supreme Court of Pennsylvania BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL Petitioner No. 1894 Disciplinary Docket No.3 No. 176 DB 2012 v. Attorney Registration No. 94514 SEAN RYAN MCBRIDE Respondent (Allegheny County) RESIGNATION BY RESPONDENT Pursuant to Rule 215 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLlNARY COUNSEL,: No. 1894 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 Petitioner No. 176 DB 2012 vs. SEAN RYAN McBRIDE, Attorney Registration No. 94514 Respondent (Allegheny County) RESIGNATION UNDER RULE 215, Pa.R.D.E. Sean Ryan McBride hereby states that he is a member of the Bar of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania and is the Respondent named in the matter filed at the number indicated above. In conformity with Rule 215 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement, he further states as follows: 1. He is an attorney admitted in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, having been admitted to the bar on or about April'S, 2005. His attorney registration number is 94514. 2. He was temporarily suspended from the practice of law pursuant to Rule 214, Pa.R.D.E., by Order of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania dated December 20, 2012. He has not been readmitted. 3. He wishes to resign from the Bar, his resignation is freely and voluntarily rendered, he is not being subjected to coercion or duress, and he is fully aware of the implications of submitting his resignation. 4. He is aware that there is presently pending an investi- gation into allegations that he has been guilty of misconduct, the nature and specifics of which have been made known to him with regard to a Statement of Facts, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit 1, an Indictment filed against him in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania attached hereto as Exhibit 2, a Guilty Plea Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit 3, and a Judgment in a Criminal Case attached hereto as Exhibit 4. 5. He acknowledges that the material facts, upon which are predicated the allegations of professional misconduct so lodged against him, are true. 6. not He submits his resignation because he knows that he could successfully defend himself against the misconduct under investigation. 7. Statement He is fully aware that the submission of this Resignation is irrevocable and that he can only apply for reinstatement to the practice of law pursuant to the provisions of Enforcement Rule 218(b). 8. He requests that his resignation be made retroactive to January 19, 2012, the effective date of his suspension pursuant to Rule 214, Pa.R.D.E. by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. 9. Office of Disciplinary Counsel takes no position on his request for retroactivity. 10. He has consulted with counsel in regard to submitting his resignation. In accordance with Rule 215, Pa.R.D.E., this statement is made by the signatory subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. c. S. §4 904 (relating to unsworn falsification to authorities). Signed this ,~ ,_.;?J· day of februcl'l\.j ---------,~-------------' 2013 . . BEFORE THE DISCIPLINARY BOARD OF THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF DISCIPLINARY COUNSEL,: No. 1894 Disciplinary Docket No. 3 Petitioner No. 176 DB 2012 vs. SEAN RYAN McBRIDE, Attorney Registration No. 94514 Respondent (Allegheny County) STATEMENT OF FACTS 1. to The Respondent, Sean Ryan McBride, is an attorney admitted practice law in the Registration No. 94514. Cormnonweal th of Pennsylvania, Attorney His status is "Administrative Suspension." His address is No. 66851-066, Federal Correctional Institution, P. 0. Box 1000, Morgantown, WV 26507. 2. On March 13, 2012, in the United States District the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, Cou/~ for pursuant to an Indictment docketed at No. 2:010CR000790-003, and a plea agreement, Respondent entered a plea of guilty to one count of Conspiracy, four counts of Bank Fraud and Aiding and Abetting Bank Fraud, and seven counts of Wire Fraud and Aiding and Abetting Wire Fraud. 3. Respondent's plea of guilty was subject to the condition that the Court approve the sentence agreed upon by the defense and the prosecution and, in the absence of such approval, Respondent and/ or the government would be permitted to withdraw from the Guilty Plea Agreement. 4. and On October 1, 2012, the Court accepted the Plea Agreement, sentenced Respondent to incarceration of 63 months, to be followed by supervised release for five years, a special assessment of $1,200, and restitution to be determined. 5. Pursuant to Pennsylvania Rule of Disciplinary Enforcement 214(i), Respondent's plea and sentence constitute a ''conviction'' for purposes of Rule 214, Rule 203(b) (1), and Rule 402. 2 ,,. ' )' Document 1 Filed 121m8 Page 1 of 28 Case 210-cr-·0-MMB IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA CRI~IINAL U:"'ITED STATES OF A"IERICA v. NO._,I"'-0- _ _ _ _ __ _ DATE FILED: December 9, 2010 Al"'ITHONY JAMES DEMARCO, III MICHAEL RICHARD ROBERTS SEAl"'l RYAl"'l MCBRIDE ERIC BASCOVE VIOLATIONS: 18 U.S.C. § 1349 (conspiracy- 1 count) 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (mail fraud- 1 count) I8 U.S.C. § 1343 (wire fraud- 8 counts) 18 U.S.C. § 1344 (bank fraud- 4 counts) 18 U.S.C. § 1957 (money laundering- 1 count) 18 U.S.C. § 2 (aiding and abetting) Notice of forfeiture INDICT:VIENT COUNT ONE THE GRAND JURY CHARGES THAT: BACKGROUND I. From in or about September 2006 through in or about July 2009, defendant ANTHONY JAMES DEMARCO, Ill, was the president of DeMarco REI, Inc .. ("DeMarco REl''), a mortgage rescue foreclosure company. From approximately January 2008 through July 2009, defendant DEMARCO operated DeMarco REI from an office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 2. From in or about June 2008 until in or about early 2009, defendant MICHAEL RICHARD ROBERTS was vice president of sales at DeMarco REI. 3. From in or about June 2008 to in or about June 2009, defendant ERIC BASCOVE was an employee at DeMarco REI. ( Case 2:10-cr-60-MMB Document 1 Filed 12/09. Page 2 of 28 J 4. At all times material to this indictment, defendant SEAN RYAN MCBRIDE was a title agent at Settlement Engine, Inc., in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. As a settlement agent and agent for a title insurance company, defendant MCBRIDE received funds from lenders and deposited them into an escrow account. He was obligated to disburse funds from real estate transactions only as detailed on the settlement statement, also known as a Form HUD-1, after the buyer of the real estate had provided the required funds for closing. Settlement Engine closed loans for DeMarco REI from approximately June 2008 through early December 2008. 5. At all times relevant to this indictment, Flagstar Bank FSB was a financial institution headquartered in Troy, Michigan, and its deposits were insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ("FDIC"). 6. At all times relevant to this indictment, American Partners Bank, which changed its name to Waterfield Bank in January 2008, was a financial institution headquartered in Germantown, Maryland, and its deposits were insured by the FDIC. 7. At all times relevant to this indictment, Everbank was a financial institution headquartered in Jacksonville, Florida, and its deposits were insured by the FDIC. THE CONSPIRACY 8. From in or June 2008 through in or about December 2008, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and elsewhere, defendants ANTHONY JA.t'\1ES DEMARCO, III, MICHAEL RICHARD ROBERTS SEAN RY Al"l MCBRIDE, and ERIC BASCOVE 2 I I Case 2:10-cr-·0-MMB Document 1 Filed 12/09. Page 3 of 28 conspired and agreed, together with others known and unknown to the grand jury, to knowingly devise a scheme to defraud, and to obtain money and property by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, and to obtain monies owned by and under the care, custody, and control of a financial institution by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 1344. MANNER AND MEANS It was part of the conspiracy that: DeMarco REI 9. Defendant ANTHONY JAMES DEMARCO, !II, directed his employees to contact homeowners in financial distress and pitch a solution. The "pitch" varied, but typically DeMarco REI employees explained that DeMarco REI would buy the homeowner's house and rescue the financially distressed homeowner from foreclosure. Under this plan, the former homeowner could continue to live in his home, paying rent to DeMarco REI for one year. DeMarco REI employees claimed that, during that term, they would help repair the homeowner's credit and assist the homeowner in obtaining a mortgage to repurchase his house. The DeMarco REI employees further claimed that, if there was equity in their house at the time of the sale to DeMarco REI, then DeMarco REI would put that money into an escrow account or rent reserve account for the homeowner. 10. However, DeMarco REI did not purchase the house from the homeowner. Instead, defendant ANTHONY JAMES DEMARCO, lll, and his employees solicited "investors" to buy the homes of people facing foreclosure. Defendant DEMARCO executed contracts with 3 Case 2:10-cr-890-MMB Document 1 Filed 12/0. Page 4 of 28 the investors, making clear that the investor would put no money into the transaction. Rather, DeMarco REI would provide the investor with the down payment to purchase the property and DeMarco REI would make the monthly mortgage payments. l I. Once an investor was paired with a distressed homeowner, DeMarco REI employees then prepared a mortgage application, also known as a HUD Form 1003, for the investor. However, in preparing these mortgage applications, defendants ANTHONY JAMES DEMARCO, lll, MICHAEL RICHARD ROBERTS, ERIC BASCOVE, and other DeMarco REI employees acting at their direction, made numerous false statements and created numerous false and fraudulent documents to use to secure a larger mortgage loan than a lender would otherwise have approved. 12. Once an investor had been paired with a homeowner and a mortgage commitment had been secured, DeMarco REI employees arranged for the transaction to go to closing, using various different settlement companies. At closing, DeMarco REI arranged for the seller's proceeds- i.e., the seller's equity that was supposed to be deposited into an escrow account for the seller- to instead be deposited into DeMarco's REI's checking account. There never were any escrow accounts. Defendant DEMARCO then used the sellers' equity to fund the transactions, i.e., to pay the investor's down payment and closing costs, to operate DeMarco REI, and to fund his own lavish lifestyle. Settlement Engine, lnc. 13. Defendant SEAN RYAN MCBRIDE authorized the disbursement of the proceeds due to the seller at closing from Settlement Engine's escrow account. Although the settlement statements prepared by Settlement Engine for the DeMarco REI transactions routinely Case 2:10-cr-·0-MMB Document 1 Filed 12/0gft Page 5 of 28 falsely showed that the sellers' proceeds were disbursed to the sellers, defendant MCBRIDE routinely authorized the disbursement of the sellers' proceeds not to the sellers but to DeMarco REI. 14. In or about August 2008, defendant SEAN RYAN MCBRIDE began wiring the seller's proceeds to DeMarco REI before DeMarco REI wired the buyer's funds to Settlement Engine, thus enabling DeMarco REI to use the seller's equity to pay the buyer's down payment and closing costs. OVERT ACTS In furtherance of the conspiracy and to accomplish its objects, the defendants committed the following overt acts, among others, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and elsewhere: The Sale of P.H.'s Home to Investor M.B. 15. P.H. owned her home in Stowe, Pennsylvania, and had no mortgage. By 2008, P.H. had financial problems. Defendant MICHAEL RICHARD ROBERTS called P.H. and they discussed "refinancing" her house. However, rather than re-financing the house, defendant ROBERTS and others at DeMarco REI arranged to sell the house from P.H. to M.D.B., a DeMarco REI investor. 16. DeMarco REI employees prepared a false mortgage application to obtain a mortgage loan from Flagstar Bank for investor M.D. B. In the application, DeMarco REI employees falsely stated that M.D.B. had $70,000 in a bank account at Commerce Bank. On or about September 18, 2008, defendant ERIC BASCOVE altered M.D.B. 's Commerce Bank account statement, inflating M.D.B.'s ending balance from approximately $3,399.76 to 5 Case 2:10-cr-·0-MMB Document 1 Filed 12/09. Page 6 of 28 approximately $73,399.76. Defendant BASCOVE cmailed this altered bank statement to defendant MICHAEL RICHARD ROBERTS. This altered account statement was then sent to Flagstar Bank in support of the mortgage application for M.D.B. 's purchase of P.H. 's house. 17. Settlement Engine, Inc., was the settlement agent for this transaction. On or about October I, 2008, Flagstar Bank wired M.D.B. 's new mortgage loan to Settlement Engine. Defendant SEAN RYAN MCBRIDE then wired all of the money due to the seller P.l-1. to DeMarco REI. In tum, DeMarco REI wired back to Settlement Engine the money due from the buyer, namely, M.D.B. 's down payment and closing costs, and DeMarco REI kept the difference. The Sale of R.P.'s Home to Investor D.P. 18. R.P. owned a condominium in Lincoln Park, New Jersey. He had no mortgage. Eventually, R.P. decided to try to sell his condominium. On or about October 9, 2008, defendant ANTHONY JAMES DEMARCO, lll, came to R.P.'s condominium and offered R.P. approximately $304,000 for the condo. R.P. accepted the offer and signed papers that day. 19. Defendant ANTHONY JAMES DEMARCO, lll, told R.P. that he would wire the money to R.P. 's bank account. However, no money was ever wired to the account, despite R.P.'s repeated phone calls to defendant DEMARCO and others at DeMarco REI. 20. Settlement Engine was the closing agent for this transaction, for which Flagstar Bank was the new mortgage lender for the buyer D.P. Defendant ANTHONY JAMES DEMARCO, III caused a false settlement statement to be prepared. The HUD shows that D.P. purchased R.P. 's condo for approximately $380,000, paying approximately $89,626.84 in down 6 Case 2:10-cr-·0-MMB Document 1 Filed 12/0f. Page 7 of 28 payment and closing costs. The HUD shows that R.P. received approximately $363,908.21 from the sale of his condo. DeMarco REI's name appears nowhere on the HUD. 21. In fact, D.P. was a DeMarco REI investor and he paid nothing to purchase R.P. 's condominium, and R.P. received nothing from the sale of his condominium. Instead, Settlement Engine wired all of the money due to R.P. to DeMarco REI, which then used some of the money to pay D.P.'s down payment and closing costs, wiring that money back to Settlement Engine, and kept the balance. The Sale of A.B.'s Home to Investor S.R. 22. A.B. owned a home on Garden Lane in Bensalem, Pennsylvania. He was laid-off from his job and fell behind in his mortgage payments. A DeMarco REI employee called A.B. The employee offered to help A.B. save his home, regain ownership, and repair his credit. A.B. accepted the offer. 23. During the settlement for the sale of his home, A:B. asked when he would receive money from the sale, and defendant MICHAEL RICHARD ROBERTS falsely told A.B. that the money would be held in an escrow account and A.B. would get the money when A.B. re-purchased his home. 24. A DeMarco REI employee recruited S.R. to be a straw purchaser of A.B.'s 25. Settlement Engine closed the transaction on or about December 5, 2008. home. Defendant SEAN RYAN MCBRJDE took approximately $39,620.62 of the cash due to A.B. and disbursed this money to the personal accounts of defendants ANTHONY JAMES DEMARCO, 7 Case 2:10-cr-·0-MMB Document 1 Filed 121m. Page 8 of 28 Ill, MICHAEL ROBERTS, and MCBRIDE, and to an account ofC.C. Defendant MCBRIDE wired the remainder to DeMarco REI's account. 26. Defendants ANTHONY JAMES DEMARCO, Ill, MICHAEL ROBERTS, and SEAN RYAN MCBRIDE caused a false settlement statement to be prepared. None of the disbursements described above was retlected on the settlement statement. Rather, it showed that A.B. received $104,673.79 from the sale of his house. In reality, A.B. never received a penny. The Sale of R.H. 's Home to Investor S.R. 27. On or about December 9, 2008, in relation to a closing for the sale of R.H.'s home in Pennsauken, New Jersey, to investor S.R., defendant MICHAEL RICHARD ROBERTS sent an e-mail to P.D. attaching a computer-generated image of a non-existent TD Bank Official Check, purportedly purchased by the buyer and payable to the seller for approximately $41,136.93. In reality, there was no such check, and the seller received nothing from the sale of her home. All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1349. 8 Case 2:10-cr-·0-MMB Document 1 Filed 12108 Page 9 of 28 COUNT TWO THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES THAT: I. Pamgraphs I through 7 and 9-12 of Count One of this indictment are incorporated here. THE SCHE.\IE 2. From approximately in or about 2006 to in or about April2009, ANTHONY JAMES DEMARCO, Ill, knowingly devised and intended to devise a scheme to defraud, and to obtain money and property by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises. 3. In total, from approximately 2006 through April 2009, defendant ANTHONY JAMES DEMARCO, !II, and his criminal associates fraudulently obtained approximately $31 million of new mortgage loans on approximately 114 properties through this scheme. From this new mortgage money, defendant DEMARCO obtained approximately $11 million of proceeds due to the sellers (i.e., their equity). MANNER AND MEANS It was part of the scheme that: The Sale of M.S. and L.S.'s Home to M.B. 4. In 2007, M.S. and L.S. were having financial difficulties and were facing foreclosure on their home in Spotswood, New Jersey. A DeMarco REI employee told M.S. that DeMarco REI would purchase M.S. and L.S. 's home and M.S. and L.S. would lease the house, paying rent to DeMarco REI, while DeMarco REI restored their credit. A DeMarco REI 9 ,. Case 2:10-cr-O ¢-MMB Document 1 Filed 12/091. Page 10 of 28 employee told M.S. that after a year he would be able to purchase the house back from DeMarco REI. 5. DeMarco REI employees prepared a fraudulent contract for the sale of M.S. and L.S.'s home to DeMarco REI which the employees presented to M.S. and L.S. for signature. DeMarco REI employees also prepared a contract for the sale of the M.S. and L.S. 's home to M.B., a DeMarco REI investor. On or about November 19, 2007, the home was sold to M.B. 6. Over the course of the next year, M.S. and L.S. acquired the funds tore- purchase their house. They contacted defendant ANTHONY JAMES DEMARCO, III, who told them to wire funds to a particular account at Sovereign Bank. 7. On or about March 5, 2009, at defendant ANTHONY JAMES DEMARCO, lll's direction, M.S. and L.S. wired $245,000 from M.S.'s bank account in New Jersey to defendant DEMARCO's personal account at Sovereign Bank, which M.S. believed was a DeMarco REI account. 8. On or about March 6, 2009, defendant ANTHONY JAMES DEMARCO, lll used these funds to purchase a Ferrari and to buy jewelry and used none of the funds for the purchase of M.S. and L.S.'s house. 9. On or about March 5, 2009, in Philadelphia, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and elsewhere, defendant ANTHONY JAMES DEMARCO, Ill, for the purpose of executing the scheme described above, and attempting to do so, caused to be transmitted by means of wire communication in interstate commerce $245,000 from M.S.'s 10 Case 2:10-cr-O ¢-MMB Document 1 Filed 12/09. Page 11 of 28 account in New Jersey to defendant DEMARCO's personal account at Sovereign Bank in Pennsylvania. All in violation ofTitle 18, United States Code, Section 1343. II Case 2:10-cr-O·-MMB Document 1 Filed 12/09/. Page 12 of 28 COUNT THREE THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES THAT: I. Paragraphs l through 7 and 9 through 12 of Count One, and paragraphs 2 through 8 of Count Two, are incorporated here. 2. On or about March 6, 2009, in Philadelphia, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and elsewhere, defendant Al'ITHONY JAMES DEMARCO, Ill knowingly engaged in a monetary transaction atTecting interstate commerce in criminally derived property of a value greater than $10,000, and such property was derived from a specified unlawful activity, that is wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343. All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1957. 12 Case 2:10-cr-O ¢-MMB Document 1 Filed 12/09/. Page 13 of 28 COUNT FOUR THE G~'ID JURY FURTHER CHARGES THAT: ' I. Paragraphs I through 7 and 9 through 17 of Count One of this indictment are incorporated here. 2. ln or about October 2008, in Philadelphia, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and elsewhere, defendants MICHAEL RICHARD ROBERTS ERIC BASCOVE, and SEAN RYAJ.'\1 MCBRIDE knowingly executed, and attempted to execute, and aided and abetted the execution of, a scheme to defraud Flagstar Bank FSB, and to obtain monies owned by and under the care, custody, and control of that bank by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises. In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1344 and 2. 13 Case 2: 10-cr-O ¢-MMB Document 1 Filed 12/09/1.age 14 of 28 COUNT FIVE THE GRAi"D JURY FURTHER CHARGES THAT: I. Paragraphs I through 7 and 9 through 17 of Count One of this indictment are incorporated here. THE SCHEME 2. From in or about September 2008 to October I, 2008, defendant MICHAEL RICHARD ROBERTS and SEAN RYA.t"' MCBRIDE knowingly devised and intended to devise a scheme to defraud, and to obtain money and property by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises. 3. On or about October I, 2008, in Pittsburgh, in the Western District of Pennsylvania, and elsewhere, defendants MICHAEL RICHARD ROBERTS and SEAN RYAN MCBRIDE for the purpose of executing the scheme described above, and aiding and abetting its execution, caused to be transmitted by means of wire communication in interstate commerce, a wire transfer of$114,932.20 from Flagstar Bank in Troy, Michigan, to the escrow account of Settlement Engine, Inc. at PNC Bank in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2. 14 1· 1' Case 2:10-cr-·JO-MMB Document 1 Filed 12/0. Page 15 of 28 COUNT SIX THE GRA;>o~D JURY FURTHER CHARGES THAT: I. Paragraphs I through 7 and 9 through 17 of Count One of this indictment are incorporated here. THE SCHE:VIE 2. From in or about September 2008 to October I, 2008, defendant MICHAEL RICHARD ROBERTS and SEAN RYAN MCBRIDE knowingly devised and intended to devise a scheme to defraud, and to obtain money and property by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises. 3. On or about September 30, 2008, in Philadelphia, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and elsewhere, defendants MICHAEL RICHARD ROBERTS and SEAN RYAN MCBRIDE for the purpose of executing the scheme described above, and aiding and abetting its execution, caused to be transmitted by means of wire communication in interstate commerce, an e-mail message from C.S. at Settlement Engine in Pittsburgh to P.M. at DeMarco REI in Philadelphia, attaching a copy of the HUD for the sale of P.H. 's home to M.D.B. and asking P.M. whether the HUD was "OK." All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2. 15 ·, Case 2:10-cr-oeto-MMB Document 1 Filed 12/09. Page 16 of 28 COUNT SEVEN THE GRAi'ID .JURY FURTHER CHARGES THAT: 1. Paragraphs I through 7, 9 through 14, and 18 through 21 of Count One of this indictment are incorporated here. 2. In or about October 2008, in Philadelphia, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and elsewhere, defendants ANTHONY JAMES DEMARCO, III MICHAEL RICHARD ROBERTS, and SEAN RYAl"' MCBRIDE knowingly executed, and aided and abetted the execution of, a scheme to defraud Flags tar Bank FSB, and to obtain monies owned by and under the care, custody, and control of that bank by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises. In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1344 and 2. 16 Case 2:10-cr-·0-MMB Document 1 Filed 12/09. Page 17 of 28 COU;'iT EIGHT THE GIU,'ID JURY FURTHER CHARGES THAT: I. Paragraphs 1 through 7, 9 through 14, and 18 through 21 of Count One of this indictment are incorporated here. THE SCHEME 2. In or about October 2008, defendant ANTHONY JAMES DEMARCO, III MICHAEL RICHARD ROBERTS, and SEAN RYA.c"' MCBRIDE knowingly devised and intended to devise a scheme to defraud, and to obtain money and property by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises. 3. On or about October 9, 2008, in the Western District of Pennsylvania, and elsewhere, defendants ANTHONY JAMES DEMARCO, III, iVIICHAEL RICHARD ROBERTS, and SEAN RYA.c'i MCBRIDE for the purpose of executing the scheme described above, and aiding and abetting its execution, caused to be transmitted by means of wire communication in interstate commerce, a wire transfer of $300,875.48 from Flagstar Bank in Troy, Michigan, to the escrow account of Settlement Engine, Inc. at PNC Bank in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2. 17 Case 2:10-cr-·0-MMB Document 1 Filed 12/09. Page 18 of 28 COUNT NINE THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES THAT: l. Paragraphs 1 through 9, 9 through 14, and 18 through 21 of Count One of this indictment are incorporated here. THE SCHEME 2. ln or about October 2008, defendant ANTHONY JAMES DEMARCO, III MICHAEL RICHARD ROBERTS, and SEAN RYAN MCBRIDE knowingly devised and intended to devise a scheme to defraud, and to obtain money and property by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises. 3. On or about October 9, 2008, in Philadelphia, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and elsewhere, defendants ANTHONY JAMES DEi\'iARCO, lll, MICHAEL RICHARD ROBERTS, and SEAN RYAN MCBRIDE for the purpose of executing the scheme described above, and aiding and abetting its execution, caused to be transmitted by means of wire communication in interstate commerce, an e-mail message from C.S. at Settlement Engine in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, to defendant MICHAEL RICHARD ROBERTS at DeMarco REI in Philadelphia, advising him that she is sending the HUD, for the sale ofR.P.'s home to D.P., to P.M. at DeMarco REI and will then send P.M. the seller packet to give to "you guys." All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2. 18 Case 2:10-cr-·0-MMB Document 1 Filed 12/09. Page 19 of 28 COUNT TEN THE GRAt''ID JURY FURTHER CHARGES THAT: 1. Paragraphs l through 7, 9 through 14, and 22 through 26 of Count One of this indictment are incorporated here. 2. In or about December 2008, in Philadelphia, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and elsewhere, defendants A1'1THONY JAMES DEMARCO, Ill, .\UCHAEL RICHARD ROBERTS, and SEAN RYAN MCBRIDE knowingly executed, and aided and abetted the execution of, a scheme to defraud American Partners Bank, also known as Waterfield Bank, and to obtain monies owned by and under the care, custody, and control of that bank by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises. In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1344 and 2. 19 ', I Case 2:10-cr-·0-MMB Document 1 Filed 12/0. Page 20 of 28 COUNT ELEVEN THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES THAT: I. Paragraphs l through 7, 9 through 12, and 22 through 26 of Count One of this indictment are incorporated here. THE SCHEME 2. In or about December 2008, defendants ANTHONY JAMES DEMARCO, lll, MICHAEL RICHARD ROBERTS, and SEAN RYAl"' MCBRIDE knowingly devised and intended to devise a scheme to defraud, and to obtain money and property by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises. 3. On or about December 5, 2008, in Pittsburgh, in the Western District of Pennsylvania, and elsewhere, defendants ANTHONY JAMES DEMARCO, III, MICHAEL RICHARD ROBERTS, and SEAN RYAN MCBRIDE, for the purpose of executing the scheme described above, and aiding and abetting its execution, caused to be transmitted by means of wire communication in interstate commerce, a wire transfer of $206,808.38 from American Partners Bank in Carmel, Indiana, to the escrow account of Settlement Engine, Inc. at PNC Bank in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2. 20 Case 2:10-cr-O ¢-MMB Document 1 Filed 12/09/.age 21 of 28 COUNT TWELVE THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES THAT: l. Paragraphs I through 7, 9 through 14, and 22 through 26 of Count One of this indictment are incorporated here. THE SCHEME 2. In or about December 2008, defendants ANTHONY JAMES DEMARCO, III, MICHAEL RICHARD ROBERTS, and SEAN RYAl'l MCBRIDE knowingly devised and intended to devise a scheme to defraud, and to obtain money and property by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises. 3. On or about December 5, 2008, in Philadelphia, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and elsewhere, defendants ANTHONY JAMES DEMARCO, III, MICHAEL RICHARD ROBERTS, and SEAN RYAN MCBRIDE, for the purpose of executing the scheme described above, and aiding and abetting its execution, caused to be transmitted by means of wire communication in interstate commerce, an e-mail message from C.S. at Settlement Engine in Pittsburgh to P.M. at DeMarco REI in Philadelphia, attaching a revised HUD for the sale of A.B.'s home to S.R. and asking "How's this one?" All in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 and 2. 21 Case 2:10-cr-O ¢-MMB Document 1 Filed 12/09/.Page 22 of 28 COUNT THIRTEEN THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES THAT: I. Paragraphs I through 7 and 9 through 12 of Count One of this indictment are incorporated here. 2. B.M. inherited his residence in Elizabeth, Pennsylvania, in about 2000. Several years later, B.M. was in the process of divorcing his wife. Their property settlement provided that she would receive half of the appraised value of the home, approximately $60,000. B. M. needed to sell or mortgage his house to obtain this money. 3. B.M. met with defendant SEAN RYAN MCBRIDE at Settlement Engine in Pittsburgh. Defendant MCBRIDE told B.M. that defendant MCBRIDE would arrange for an investor to purchase the M.S.'s home on a short-term basis, the $60,000 would be paid to S.M.'s wife, and B.M. would be able to r~·purchasc his home as soon as defendant MCBRIDE could lind him the right mortgage lender. B.M. agreed to defendant MCBRIDE's proposal. 4. Defendant SEAN RYAN MCBRIDE arranged for a straw buyer, J.S., to take title to B.M. 's home. J.S. put no money into the transaction. 5. Settlement Engine was the settlement agent for this transaction. On or about October 31, 2008, Everbank in Jacksonville, Florida, wired $102,090.77 to Settlement Engine, the new mortgage money. Defendant SEAN RYAN MCBRIDE took approximately $21,000 of the cash due to B.M. and instead disbursed this money to, among others, himself and J .S. the buyer, who put no money into this transaction. Defendant MCBRIDE also diverted approximately $34,204.02 of the cash due to B.M. to make the "down payment" and pay closing costs. These disbursements are not reflected on the settlement statement. 22 I / Case 2:10-cr-·0-MMB Document 1 Filed 12/09/. Page 23 of 28 6. B.M. then became a renter, paying approximately $1,050 per month to Lake Haven Management, LLC, a company of which defendant MCBRJDE was president. 7. In or about October 2008, in Pittsburgh, in the Western District of Pennsylvania, and elsewhere, defendant SEAL'I RYAL'I MCBRIDE knowingly executed, and attempted to execute, a scheme to defraud Everbank, and to obtain monies owned by and under the care, custody, and control of that bank by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises. In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sectionl344. 23 Case 2:10-cr-O·-MMB Document 1 Filed 12/09/.age 24 of 28 COUNT FOURTEEN THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES THAT: 1. Paragraphs 1 through 7 and paragraphs 9 through 12 of Count One and paragraphs 2 through 6 of Count Thirteen of this indictment are incorporated here. THE SCHEME 2. In or about October 2008, defendant SEAN RY Ac"' :\'ICBRIDE knowingly devised and intended to devise a scheme to defraud, and to obtain money and property by means of false and fraudulent pretenses, representations and promises. 3. On or about October 31, in Pittsburgh, in the Western District of Pennsylvania, and elsewhere, defendant SEAN RYAN MCBRIDE for the purpose of executing the scheme described above, and attempting to do so, caused to be transmitted by means of wire communication in interstate commerce, a wire transfer of approximately $102,090.77 from Everbank in Jacksonville, Florida, to the escrow account of Settlement Engine, Inc. at PNC Bank in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. All in violation of Title I 8, United States Code, Section I 343. 24 ! I Case 2:10-cr-0.0-MMB Document 1 Filed 12/09/. Page 25 of 28 COUNT FIFTEEN THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES THAT: I. Paragraphs I through 7 and 9 through 12 of Count One of this indictment are incorporated here. 2. In July 2009, defendant ANTHONY JAMES DEMARCO, Ill, left 3. From in or about July 2009 through in or about December 2009, defendant DeMarco REI. ANTHONY JAMES DEMARCO, ill was the Chief Executive Officer of Optima Property Management Group ("OPM Group"), in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania. 4. In or about the Summer 2009, G.C., an elderly widow on Primrose Street in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was facing foreclosure. 5. Defendant ANTHONY JAMES DEMARCO, Ill, arranged for the sale of G.C.'s house to J.M., an investor. 6. A.A. Inc. was the settlement agent for this transaction, which closed on or about September 15,2009. The settlement sheet falsely shows that J.M. paid $49,561.74 to cover the down payment and closing costs. In fact, J .M. paid nothing; instead, OPM Group paid J.M. an investor fee for purchasing G.C. 's house. 7. On or about September 17,2009, A.A. wired $49,561.74, the exact amount of the buyer's down payment and closing costs, from the seller's funds to OPM Group. Thereafter, OPM Group wired back $49,561.74 to A.A., the pay the buyer's funds to close. 8. After the sale of her home to J.M., G.C. remained in her home, paying rent to OPM Group. 25 i I Case 2:10-cr-O ¢-MMB Document 1 Filed 12/09/.age 26 of 28 9. On or about October 14, 2009, G. C. sent a Citizens Bank Official Check payable to OPM Group for $1,000 to OPM Group in King of Prussia by Express Mail, for her rent. On or about October 19, 2009, this check was deposited into OPM Group's bank account. 10. Although the first mortgage payment on G.C.'s house was due on November I, 2009, defendant ANTHONY JAMES DEMARCO, III, caused a check backed by insufficient funds to be sent to the mortgage company. The check ultimately bounced. 11, On or about October 14, 2009, in Philadelphia, in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and elsewhere, defendant Al'ITHONY JAMES DEi\'IARCO, III, for the purpose of executing the scheme described above, and attempting to do so, knowingly caused to be delivered by mail according to the directions thereon, an Express Mail package from G.C. in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to OPM Group, LLC, in King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, which contained a Citizens Bank Official Check payable to OPM Group for $1,000 to OPM Group. In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 134!. 26 '' I I Case 2:10-cr-O ¢-MMB Document 1 Filed 12/09/.Page 27 of 28 NOTICE OF FORFEITURE THE GRAND JURY FURTHER CHARGES THAT: I. As a result of the violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1341, 1343, and 1349, set forth in this indictment, defendants ANTHONY JAMES DEMARCO, III, MICHAEL RICHARD ROBERTS, SEAN RYAN MCBRIDE, and ERIC BASCOVE shall forfeit to the United States of America any property constituting, or derived from, proceeds obtained directly or indirectly from the commission of such offenses, including, but not limited to the sum of $31,202,684. 2. If any of the property described above, as a result of any actor omission of the defendant: a. cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence; b. has been transferred to, sold to, or deposited with a third party; c. has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of this Court; d. has been substantially diminished in value; or e. has been commingled with other property which cannot be divided without difficulty; it is the intention of the United States, pursuant to 21 U.S.C. § 853(p), to seek forfeiture of any other property of the defendant up to the value of the property subject to forfeiture. 27 : : I· Case 2:10-cr-OO.MMB Document 1 Filed 12/09/l.age 28 of 28 All pursuant to Title !8, United States Code, Section 98l(a)(l)(C), 28 U.S.C. § 246!, and United States Code, Section 853. A TRUE BILL: GRAND JURY FOREPERSON ECF ZANE DAVID MEMEGER United States Attorney DOCUMENT I hlnlly 111M1 and ClftifY lllallhllll 1 printed CC11Y ole ~ which wu eleclronlc8ily fl141d With the Unilld St-.11 · a.lcll CoUit for the Fa Qfn ol P~ 0 1:2 28 tt (0 ¢ Case 2:10-cr-00790-MI'vlB FOI~ Document 81 ¢ Filed 03/13/12 Page 1 of 9 TilE E.\STFUN ll!STHICI' OF I'FN,'ISYI.V \,'H.\ I !:'iiTED ST.\TFS OF .\\1 EIHC\ CIO\IIN.\L .\'0. lfl~7')U-HJ SF,\N RY.\N MCBHII>I<: llmkr R1ile II ni'tht: Fcderul Rules .,I.Criminull'roecdure. rhc gu\enmwnl. the rcll:rcnce Ill 1he I :nitcd States or the gnvcr111nent in this ;Igrccmc!lt shall meal\ the Oi'llc~ of the [In ired Stutes Attorney li>r the /'.astern District nf l'cnnwlvania. I. The tldcndant ;rgrces In plc:~d guilty I<> Count I and oi' the lndictmcnl. charging him'' ith conspiracy tn C<>lllmit viol:~tinn ul' I.~ t .1.S.C. ,-ioi<ltiun of I X II char~cs ~ S.C.~ I }-J'l: win: limHL in violation win~ ('<Hillis 4 through I·+ !bud and bank lhlud. in ,,j' I H l !.S.C. ~ IJ--1 ;: f'>:!llk lhwd. in I .l-!4: cmd aiding and abdting. in vi,,Jatiun .,rIg II.S.C'. ~ 2. These ari:>t..: from the Jct"cndant's conduct in aiding ;md ;!betting a IJll)rtg~lgt.! 1()/·cdosure ,,·heme cnnductecl hy /\ntlwny lk.\.iarco .ltlllc' cOilS through ~;!rl) rnnrtgagc tr;lll"!clion in ikrc!1lhcr ~()()X_ l'i!lshur~h. \1 :IIlli r~lhc·rs <!lld from rl'SClll' at I lc\.larcu [{Fl. Inc.. i'r<.lnl approximately tile' defendant''' CUilllllissi ¢Hl nf a fr:ll!dulc~!l! hich he· l'<'lldtJclcd thr<High f:1kc l b,·cn IIPidings. I.IJ'. in nr ahtHrt l )cluhcr 200R. I he· dcli:ndant l'unhcr acknr_i\, kdgc·s his\\ ;li~c-r .,r rights. '"set t(H·th in ¢ Case 2:10-cr-00790-MMB ¢ Filed 03/13/12 Page 2 of 9 Document 81 ~·Ill!. <lllltllllll ,,r ~ 1.21Jil heti\J"l' the time of sentL'm:ing and shall provide a receipt ii·om the Clc ¢rk tot he gu1ernment bcli.1rc sentencing as prooftlfthis payrn..:nt. -1. I lie del<:ndant <lgrecs ltJ nwke re,litution as directed hy the Cnurt, In order to li1cilitatc the cnlkctiun or tinancial ubligations 1<1 he imroscd in connc<:tiun with this pmsccution. the ddend;mt ;tgrccs lttlly to disdc>sc all assds in which he has any int<.'rest <1r over "hich the dclt·ndant cx.:reises control. directly or indirc·clly. induuing thc>se held hy a spoust.:. rllHnirrcT. tlf t>tlwr third party. ,\cctlrdingly: a. ·1 he defendant will promptly submit a cnmpktcd linancial ,t,licnrcrli to tire I '.S. ,\trorney's Onicc .. in a l[>rm it provides and as it directs. lhe deli.:ndant prumises thai his linnncial statcmcnt and disc!LJsures will he corn pick. :Jecuratc. and truthful. b. I he Jetendant c.~prcssly authorizes the { I.S. Attorney's Onice In t>htain a credit report on him in order to cv;rlu;rt.: the tklemlant'-; ability In '<ttisl)' any linnncial dhli!-l<tlion irnpnscd hy lh~ Court. 5. !"ln.: dc!i;.·n<.ianr \Vnin:~ any daim undt.:t the r-fyd~.?. \m~ndllll'llf. I X I J.S.( ' . .) .>!lor,.\ tSliltutory Not.:). l(>r <lltorney's lees :rllll other liti[Illlion opcnscs arising nut ol' the Case 2:10-cr-0~0-MMB '" Filed 03/~2 Page 3 of 9 Document 81 Th<: parties agree that this pk:1 agrccm.:nt is made purst1:111t tn l'c'lkr:tl Ruk oi"Criminall'roceuurc II (cl( I )(C) and thar the following specific sentenc<.J is the :tpprupriatc disposition of this case: 6} months incan:eration. a live-yGar pc·rind of supcrvi:;cd rckasc. :111d a $1.200 special assessment. The amount of lines. restitution. ;tml fi.>rleiturc will he Jckrmincd by the Court nt sentencing. If the Cnurt docs not accept this plea agreement. then cithc·r the defendant or the government will have the ri!lht to withdraw from the plea ag,reement :1110 in:-:ist that the case proceed to trial. 7. The defendant understands, agrees. and has hau explained to him by counsel that the Court may impose the t()Jiowing statutory maximum S¢11t~nccs: On each of Coums 1 and Counts 4 through 14 (charging conspiracy. bank IJ·atld, wire traud. and ;1iuing and abetting). Jl) years' imprisonment. a live-year period of supervised a-~ I ()I) rel~asc, a$ l million tine, and special assessment. g_ Thus. the t\llal Maximum Sentence is: 360 years' imprisonment, a Jive ycclr period of supervised rcleas~. $12 million line. and a $1 .200 special assessment. Full restitution also shall be ordered. Forteiture of :ill property constituting, or derived from, proceeds obtained directly or indirectly from the commission of such offenses, also may be ordereu. '!. !'he defendant further understands that supervised release may be revoked if its terms and conditions are violated. When supervised release is revoked. Ihe original term of imprisomncnt mGy be increased lly up to three years per count of conviction. 'rhus, a violation of _,upcrviscd release increases the rossihk period of incarceration ;lnJ mak<:s it possillle that the dc!Cndant willltave to serve the ociginal sentence. plus -:rdit t'or time already spent on supervised rdcasc. ' _) 3 subst:111tial additional period. without Case 2:10-cr-l-O-MMB Ill. lidlo\\' :my· Ill~ ddl:ndantlllciY 1111t withdraw his l'k:1 rc·c:omrn~ndation. l'l'illlliscd or ~Jur:mic ¢ed II. Document 81 Filed 03~12 Page 4 of 9 hc'l'dllS~ th~ ('our! declines to Jlll>tion. ur stipulation hy the l':trtks to this Jg,rccment. ~o Oltt' lws l11th.: dt'ii.:ndanl 11h:11 sc·nit:m·c the ( 'mm will impose. l'ursuant i<l l.ISS(i ~ 1>131.·+. the l'arti.:s cnll:r into the 1\>llowing stipulations under the· Sc ¢ntc11<;ing tiuidclines \lanual. It is unckrstood and agrcc·d that: (I) the partks :1rc J'rcc 1o :.1rgue iht' applicability of any <1lh..:r pruvisirlll of the Sent~ncing Ciuiddincs. including ,,ITcnse condu<:t. olfcns.: charactcristir:s. criminal history. :Ldjustmcnts. and departures: (2) these stipulations :ll'e not binding upon either tl1<.: l'rnbation Oi'lke or the Court: and (J) the Courtmav make 1\,cllial ami !.:gal dclcnninations that ditrer li'<Hn these stipulatinm and that muy result in <Ill increase or dccrcas~.: intht ¢ Sentencing (iuicklincs range and the s..:nLL·nce that may he impnsct.!: (a) f'hc purtics a~ret: and stipul:llc that the tl·:llld loss was more than S..'.5 milli"n but less th<111 'S7 million. thl >ictims I h.: parties agree and stipulate that 1hcre were more than I 0 hut kll'cr than :ill 1·ictimo. (c) l'ht: parties agree and stipulate that the udi:ndanl abused a position of public or private trust. or used cl .speciul skill. in a manner that signitic;mlly E1c i litatcd tin: cornm iss ion of concealment oft he o i'll:nsc. (d) lite panks agree :md SLipulme lh:tL as of' the date uf this . 1grcr:ment. the defendant has dcnlllllstrateu acceptance of' rcspPnsihilitv lt>r his oHense. ma~ing !lie dcfcnuant eligible i' ¢>r a ..'-kvd chmnl'.ard <tdjt~.>tmcnt unckr US SCi~ .lE 1.1 (a). t ,·J file f':trl i,,, c1grce a!lll 'iii pu l:lle that, a.-; c ¢f th.: dale nf 111 i:< :~~~rccm~n!. thl..' d\.~!L·nd~m! h~L" ~hsi:-,t~..~d :.uuhuritics in till..' itJvcslig~ttion nr proSl...'Cillion nfhis n\\ 11 l ¢ case 2:10-cr-00790-MMB Document 81 Flied 03/~12 Page 5 of 9 llliSl'OtldtiCt !Jy I imcil' ¢ tllllifvjn~ the :;<1\L'fllllll'!l[ of hi.< intl'llltt> pic: ad guilty. till:rcbl' jll'rllli!lillg the: gnlc'llllllL'Ilt tn ;tvuid preparing. i·(,r tricll and pc·rmitting till! gtl\'C.:I'llllll'!ll :llld the C<l!irltn ;i/[ucat~ tlll:ir resources ct'ticicntly. resulting. in a l-ln·L'I.dol\111\ard <~diuslmcnl under I 'SSCI ~ 1l:l.ltb). 12. pic<~ In exchang~ fur th~ undertakings mad~: hy til~ gt)\'L'l'tl!lll..~nl in l'llkring this "grecmt:nt. the defendanl vulun!Jrily and <:Xjm·ssly waives all rights to e~ppcnl or coll;llcr:llly at lack the dc!'emhmt's conviction. sent.:nce, or any olht'r matter rdating to this prosecution, "hether such a right to :1ppeal or collateral a track arises under I il U.S.C. ~ 12 1) I. ~S l J.S.C. ~ 1~55. :1. c~ppc·als ~ 3742. 23 lJ.S.C. or any othL·r provision of law. Nntwithstnnding the lvaiver pmvisinn abnve. if the government ll·om the sen knee. then the dc!~ndant may Iii~ a direct appeal of his ~cntencc. b. l'''~''''ision II' the government does not :~ppeal. set I(Jrth in this paral\ruph. the dcli:nJant may life ;t then notwithstanding the \vaivcr direct appeal hut may raise only t:liiims that: (I) the Jctl:ndant's sentence llll any coutlt of convktiun o:cectls the statutory maximum i'nr that count as set t(Jrth in paragraph 12) Ill ~ a hove: the sentencing .i udgc erroneously Jcpartcd upward pursuant !he S-.:ntcndntr CluiUclith..'S~ and/or (_1) rlw sentencing judge. exercising rile Cuurr'.s discretion pursuant to l.lnitc·d States v. flnu~,:r. 543 U ..>; ..cell (2005). imposed an umcasonahlc sentence ah<ll c the li n;Ji Scnteneing ( iuiddi ne 1·:mge tktc:nni nc·d hv 1he C. nu-t. ¢ Case 2:10-cr-00790-MMB Document 81 Page 6 of 9 :Ill) records that may h<: """!,!Ill under the l'rcc·dnlll oi' lnt(mn:llion ,\ct. 5 l !.S.t '. ~ 5:"2. or the dckncl;lnt's la\\yer: the dc:li:ndnnl :md this lawyl'f have li!lly discuss<.'<! this pka the dt'i~ndunt a~rccmcnt: :md i.s :1grcdng to plcnd guilty bcc:wsc the ckkndant <ldmit:<that he is guilty. 15. It is agrc·cd that the parties· g11ilty plea agrccmcnt contains no addilional prnmiscs. Cll;fCemcnts. or u11der:;tandings otlwr thnn tlhlSC set Ji1rth i11 this \ITitll:n guilty pka Jlllkss in \\riling :111d s.i!c!llcJ hy .!II p:~rtics. lnaddilitHl. ilw r>riur ulf-the-JTc<>rd prni'fcr letter /,\NEIl.\ VIIJ !VIU.!E(ii:R / . -~,-::.c I ( ,.. ¢ T) fr'.\N I<Y.-\N \iCBRln'E l kkud<uH .. ,/- _, ¢J "'. ----· 1'1''11-:R F. SCIIENCK Chief Crimin:1l Divisi<lll .-\s·;ist:lllt llnitcd Stales .'\lltll'llCY ) / ' ,I \.J .-,/· .:..----~-·---·--~ \IIC! I·\ II. I:N'cill'. l ¢<tJllll<t: ·,,,!llsd till· I Jci'cnd<lllt I> 2 10 Case : -cr-. - 00790 MMB Document 81 Filed 03/..wi_·. /12 V Page 7 of 9 . \ILtchmcnt 1:-J 111/·:ttN!TUJST:\II·S ll!SrRICft'tH'RT Hll{ !!IF L:\STI·RN DIS fRICT ()/' 1'1'\1\ISYIV.\:-il.\ l \111·/)ST.\ITS 01' .\.\11 RIC.\ CRI/I.IIN:\1. 1\!0. I0-7'l0-ll.\ v. :\CI<NU\VLI'DCj/1./FNT C!/' RICi!ITS I hereby a.:kntl\Ykdgc that I h:n c ccrtnin rights llwt L "ill h~ git ing up hy pleading guilty. I. f understand that I do not ha1e to pk:.td guilty. 2. I may plead not guilty and insist upon a trial. 1. ,\t that trial. lumkrstand a. tlwt I would have the right to he lriL ¢d hv u _iury th"t \\l'tdd he st'kcted t"rn111 the !'astern District of l'cnnsylvania <1nd that along with my :lllorncv. I \lllUid hnv.; tlw ri~ht In fl:tl"!icipatc in th.: sc·kctinn ""that jmy: b. th::llthc_iury ctndd tlltl~,. convict me if' all l2.iurors agreed th<tt they were .:nt!Vinccd ,,fmy guilt hcytlnd a t·casonnhk donbt: c. that the government would have the hun.kn of proving my g.uilt beyond a rc:l.stlll:!hle doubt and that r ll·nu/d not hav:: to prove anything: 1\as eumine,~d d. that I 1\'0tdd he pre~umcd innncent unkss and until such time as th.:jury beyond a reasnn<Ihle dnubt that the government had proven that [ wns guilty: e. that l would have Ihe right to he represented by a lawyer at this Irial ami at any appealli>lfowing the Irial. and that if I could not artlml to hin~ a /nwyer. the court wou[J ~1ppoint one for n1c t'rel.! of cfurg.:: 1: I hat throu~h mv laiVt·er I ~<ould hat·c tile: righli<l confront ;uJd crnss- C\.~IIltilll' the witncs:\l:s against 1n~..·: th:H I could t~stif}· in Ill!''"' n deknsc' if' f 11 :ullc·d to :111d I CtlUid ''-"'P"<~Il:t \\ itrH..'::;ses In testilY in 1ny deknse il' I w:llltcd tn: ;uh.f t!· ¢ Filed 03~12 Page 8 of 9 case 2:10-cr-00790-MMB Document 81 ¢ II. that l 1\lJUid not huve In t<:.stil)' or nth~n\ist:: present uny deknsc if I did r1<1t want tn and tll:rt if I did not pres<:nt :rny evidence. the jury could nPt hold tlwt against me. +. I understand tlwt il'l pk·ad [!Uilty.there .rll ,,flhe ri!;hts listed above. ~Viii be no trial and I would be gi1ing 11p :\. lunucrstand thm if I ,b.:idc In erlter n pka ,,r~uilty. the iuJge will :rsk me qucstirms umkr oath :u1llih:rt ii' I lie in answering !hose questions. I could he pmsccukd ti>r !he crilllL' nt'['Crjury. that is. li>r lyiug under n;rth. lumkrslund that it' l pk:1d guilty. I ha1c gi\en up my forth in the appellate wai1w rmvisions uJ' my plea agreement. 6. th~m l'i~htto ;rppeal. exee1't as set 7. lJnderstanding rlmt I huve <til these rights and that hy pkading guilty I a!1l giving up. I .still wish to plead guilty. I :.tcknowkdge that no nr1l! hns promis~d me \\·hut sentence the Court will impose. I am aware and have discussed with rny attorney that at sentencing. the Court will calculate I hoc s~ntcndng <iuidelincs mngc (including wh.:tlwr any deparlurcs npply). and then, in determining my sentence, will consiuer the Guideline range and all relevant pulicy statements in the .~c·ntc·ncing Ciuidclincs, along with other sentencing lcJctnrs set forth in IS U.S.C. ~ .1551(a), including S. (I) the nature anJ circumsranecs of the ofticnse :md my personal history and c hcrrac I cri st ics: (.2) the n~ed li1r the senlencc imposcu-- (:\)to r~Jlccl the scri(ltrsncss of the offense. trl prunl<>lc respect I(H the la>v. and to provide just p11ni~:hment l(lr the ullense: ( !1) to at'lilJ'll :~dequatc detem:ncc to ciimin3l conduct; (C) lo protect the public !'rom ti.trther crime.~,,,. the dcti.,nd:rnt; and (D) to provide the ddcndanl with needed educational or \'ncati,,n;rl training. medical care. <lr other corrcctionaltre~tm<;nl in the most di'ective man;1cr: (.i) th<.: kinds of sentences available: 1 ¢ Case 2:10-cr-00790-MMB ¢ .' {·flth~ rccnrds ¢ Document 81 Filed 03/13/12 Page 9 of 9 need to avoid 1111\\,IIT:tnkJ sentence disparities anmng. ddl:ndants with similar 11lt!l havl! hcen t~>1111d >.!Uiltv of>imililr conduct·. and . t5itlw nl!c·d to pn>vide rcslitutinntn any \iclims ni'thc DDl:nse. ' -~-;:-;_ l' "F (l (r:·\01 f{Yc~ I )d\.-ndant f) ~·!CilRIDI· ECF DOCUMENT I herlby lhll and centfy that lhla Is 11 printed copy of I dclcul'*ll which wa1 electronically tiled with the UnHed Sllllel . Dlllllct C<Jult lor the E tem Dlatrlct of PennsylVania. ~!ICIIAEL 1-?JGi.E. l;o~<)U!RE Counsel fi.Jr'tlw D.:fendant /I___-_,...._.. __ _;··/ ___ 'I l Datcd: __ -: ......_ ~ ·---- '5 (3 ¢ ¢ case 2:10-cr-00790-MMB Document 137 Filed 10/03/12 Page 1 of 6 ;f).,\0 2AS8'· tReY. OWOHJuJgrnclit itt iJ CrimrmU CaseSht:el I UNITED STATES. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN PENNSYLVANIA District of UNITED STATES OF AM ERIC~ .JUDGMENT IN A CRll'\1INAL CASID v. SEAN RYAN MCBRJDE. Case Number: DPAE2:0IOCR000790-00l USMNumber: 66851-066· MichneiJ. Engle, Esq. Dcftndanfs 1\ltom~. THE DEFENDANTI Xpli:ad~d guilty 0 to coum(s) 1,~.5.6;7.8,9.10,11,12,13, 14 ple~ded nolb contendere to count(s), which IYaS accepted by the court. Ow~ fo)md guilty on,count(s) plea of hot guilty. aile~, a ·nH~ dei'Cndant is adjudicated guilty.· of tHese otTenses: Title & Section I &USC§I349 ISUS ¬§§1344 and2 I SUSC§§ 1343 :md 2 Nature of OrrenseConspiracy to commit wire fraud and bank fraud Bunk fraud and aiding and ubenlng Wire fraud and aiding and abening The defendunt is sentenced as provided in pages 2 througll the Sentencing Refonn Act of 198<1: Offense Ended Qmn1 7131/0<) 7/31/09 713!/09 I 4,7,10,13 5,6,8,9, I U2, 14 _....:t.6__ ofthls)udgment. The sentence is imposed pursuant to Onle·defendllnt has. been found not guilty on count(s) OCount($~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 is 0 are dismissed ol'i the mot-ion of th~ United State5. · . It is ordered tltat the defendant must notil)o tho Uolted.Statesatromey tar this district within 30 days ofimy chnnge of name, residence, mailing addr~ until, all fines, rcstitutfoJI,, cosis, and special assessmef\ls imP.Osed \'Y thisjudgment are fully paid, 'If ordered to pay restitution. the defenilant must nou fY the court and Umted States· anomey of matertal chang.es '" ec.onomtc elrcumstrwces.. oF. ECF DOCUMENT . h t this Is a printed oapy of 1 herebY attest and certify 1 a . llv llled w1tn the United StaiM 1 doCument which was alectroniell ol Penns~l~anla. Dlslri<:t Court for the Mh:t1ucl M. lhyi'S('I!\. U.S.llC.J. Name and Tille of Jud~e Document 137 Filed 10-12 Page 2 of 6 Case 2:10-cr-0~0-MMB !_R~:v. Ufv05) Judgmcnr In Crmunal Sll('cf 1- lmpris1111m~nt cV Judgment- Page DEFENDANT: CASE NUMBER: _.._2_ u( ,, SEAN RYAN MCBRIDE DI' A£2: l 0-000790-003 IMPRISONMENT n1e defendant is hereby commined to the CU>tody of the United Stat"" Bureau of Prisons to be imprisoned for a total tenn of: 63 months on each X count to be served concurrently. The court makes the following recommendations to the Bureau of Prisons: Designation ofMCI Morgantown, WY or Elkton, OH 0 The defendant Is remanded to. the custody of the· United States Mar.~hnl. 0 The defi:ndant shall surrender to the United SuiteJt, Mar.~hal tor this distriCt: 0 0 X a D a.m. 0 as notilied by the United States Marshal. p.m. on llie defendant shall surrender for service ofsentence at the institution designated by the Bureau of Prisons: bclbre 2 p.m. on ufthe instinne by the Bur~au !Jf Prisons to that i!1Stir~te; or to the US .Marshal. of the Western D1stnct of PI\ If no d~s1gnnnon made, October 15, 2012 0. as notified by the United States MarshaL 0 as notitied by the Probation or Pretrial Services Ot1lce, RETURN I have e.'ecuted this judgment <U follows: Defendant delivered at to with a cerlitied copy of this judgment. UNITED STATES MARSHAL B case 2:10-cr-0~0-MMB Document 137 Filed 10,12 Page 3 of 6 ,\D 2-HIJ (Rev. 06105) Judgm'i:nt inn Crinnnul ShF.'et J.- Supcrvi..;c:d /~clcas,IS! DEFENDANT: CASE NUMBER: SEAN RYAN MCBRIDE DPAE2: I 0-000790-003 SUPERVISED RELEASE Upon release from Imprisonment, the defendant shall be on supervised release tbr a tenn of: 5 years consisting ofn tenn of five years on each of Counts 1,4,5,6;7,8,9,10,11, 11, IJ and 14, all such tenns to run concurrently. Tile defendant mu ¢t report Ia the probation otlice in the district to which the defendant is released within 72 hours of release from the custody of the Bureau of Pr1son·s. · ·111e defendant shall not commit another federal, state or local crim(>. The defendant shall not unlawfully P'! ¢sess a controlled ~b~tance-; The defendant shal.l ref'!'in from anx unlawful use of. a cpntrolled: substance. TI!e defendant shall, submtt to one drug. test Wllhtn 15 days or release from ·tmpnsonment ana at least two pertodte drug.tests thereafter. as determined by the· court · o.· The above drug testing condition is suspended; based on the court's determinatien lhar the defendant poses a low risk of fltture substance abuse, (Check, ifapplicabli,..) X The defendant snail not possess a tireann, aniniunitfon, destroctive device; or any other dangerous weapon. (Check; if applicable.)· X The defendant shall cooperate in the collcc(ion of DNA as directed by the probatiort oltTcer. (Check, if applicable.) 0 The defendant shall register with the state se>roffunder registration ng~ncy in the state where the defendant resides, works, or i's a student, as directed by the probation officer. (Check. lfnppllcnble.) 0 ·me defendant shall participate in an approved program for domestic violence; (Check, if applicable.) If this Judgment imposes a tine or restillltion, it is a condition of superviS.:d rele!L<e that the defendant pay in nccordnncowith tho Scl1edu le o( Payments s~eet of lfiisjudgment, Tite defendant must comply wilh the standard conditions that have been adopted by this court as well as with any additional conditions on the attached page. STANDARD CONDITIONS OF SUPERVISION I) the defendant shall not leave tho judicial district without the permission of th« court or probation ollker; 2) the defendant shall report. to the probation offu:er and shall submit a truth!lJJ and complete Written report within the lirst five days of each month;, . 3) the defendant shall answer troth fully all inquiries by the probation officer and toll ow the instructions ofthe probat.ion officer; 4) the defendant shall support his or her dependents and meet other family responsibilities; 5} the defendant shall work regularly alit lawful occ1tpadon; unless. excused by the pt:uba!lon. offieer accept~ble reasons; · ~otlfy f()r· schooling; training; or other 6) the dcfendanrshall 7} the defendant shall retfuin from excessive use. of alcohol and shall not purchase,' posseu, use; distribute, or administer an)i controlled substance or any paraphernalia related to any controlled substances, except as prescribed by"' physician;· 8) the defendant shall not frequent places· where controlled substances are illegally sold, used, distributed, or administered;· 9) Ihe the probation officer at leBStten days prior to any change in residence or employment;. defendant shall not associate with any persons cnga&ed in criminal activity and shall not associate with any person convicted of a felony, unless grnnted permission to do. so by the pro5atton officer; · · ·· 10) the defend ani shall permit a probation o!Ttcer to visit hfm or her at any time at home or elsewhere and shall permit conflscation of any contraband observed in plain view of the pro!>ationofflce<: I t) the defendant shall notifY the probation officer within seventy-two hours of being arrested or questioned by a law enforcement ofTiccr; 11) the d~fendant shall· not enter into any agreement to act as an informer or a speCial perrmss10n of the court: and 13) ;1s directed by tfie probation offi-cer. the defendant shall notify third p>1rties of risks that may he occasioned by the dt!fendant'~ criminal record or personal history or characteristics and shall permit the probation olticer to make such nolitications and 10 contirnt lhe defendant's compliance with sucl> notiticatioo requirement. agc~tt of a law enforcement agency without the ¢ Case 2:10-cr-00.-MMB Document 137 Filed 10/03/12 Page 4 of 6 ,,l) 24511 ( R~,'Y_ OM!)5) JuJgmenl m a C11minal "jfu:ct JA- SllfH!rvlsC'd ltt:lc:b&! DEFENDANT: CASE NUMBER: SEAN RYAN ,'vtCBRIDE DPAE2: 10-000790-003 JuJg.mcnt-Png~ \J( ADDITIONAL SUPERVISED Rli:LEASE TERMS The defendant shall provide the US Probation Office with full disclosure of his financial records to include yearly income taX rctl1ms upcn the request of the US Probation Office .. ne defendant shall cooperate with the probation officer in the investigation of his financial dealings and shall provide tnuhlul statements of his income, ·me defendal)t is prohibited from incurring any ryew cred!tcharg~ or. opening additional,lines c( credit wiq10u.t the nP,pro,val of the probat1on otftcer, unless tile defendant Jsm compliance wtth a payment schedule lor any !me o.r resutut10n obligation. The defendant shall not encumber or liquidate interest·m any assets unless it is in direct service ofthe fine or restitution· obligation or otherwise has the express approval of the Court ¢ · · ne defendant shailpnrticipate in a mental health program for evaluation and/or treatment as approved by the Court afte~ receiving a recommendation by the U.S. Probation Office. The defendant shall remain in treatment until satisfactorily discharged with the approval of the Court, . Page 5 of 6 MB Document 137 Filed ,\l),.:!.S.Sil DEFENDANT: CASE NUMBER: SEAN RY1\N MCBRIDE DP AE2: l 0-000790-003 CRIMINAL MONETARY PENAL TIES The de lendant must pay the total criminal monetary penalties under the schedule of payments on Sheet 6, TOTALS s .\~sessmcnt Restitution s l ,200.00 S TBD 0 The determination of restitution is deferred until _ _ _. An Amended Judgment in a Criminal Cuse (AO 245C) will be entered after such determination; 0 The defendant must make restitution (including community restitution) to the following payee ¢ in the nmow1t listed below. lfthe detendantmakcs a· partial payment. each payee shall receive an approximately proQonionod payment, unless specified otherwise in tile priority order or percentago payment column below. However, pursuant to 18· U.S. C. § 3664~1), all non federal victims must be paid before the United States is pa1d. Prlorjty or Pc.rccntag!! Rcs11tution Ordered Totul Loss· ¢ Name of Pav ¢! TOTALS 0. 0 0' Restitution amount ordered pursuant to plea agreement S 0 ·nte defendant must. pay interest on rcstiWtion and a fine of1nore than $2,500, unless the restitution or fino is paid irt full belbre the liflecnlh day after the date of the judgment, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3612(1). All of the payment options on Sheet 6 may be subject to penalties for delinquency and default, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3612(g). X The court determined that the defendant does not have the ability to pay interest and it is ordered that; X the interest requirement is waived for the 0 the interes' requircm~nt lbr the 0 line X tine 0 X restitution. restitution is modi lied as follows: ¢ Findings fbrthe total amount oriosses are requil·ed under Chapters I09A, I I0, I 1OA, and ll3t\ ofTitle 18 for ot!enscs committed on or at,er September 13. 1994, but betbre April 23, 1996. · ,\l)~...t:Hi ~Rev_ Case 2:10-cr-00~0-MMB Document 137 Page 6 of 6 ll0105) Jm!gnnm1111 ;s t"timlll.tl L' ¢ Sheet b- S~.:ho:dult:! of Paymcnl.i Jmlgmcnt- P:Jgt DEFENDANT: CASE NUI\·tBER: SEAN RYAN MCBRIDE -.l!."- nf DPAE2: I 0-000790-003 SCHEDULE OF PAYMENTS Having assessed the defendant's abilfty to pay, payment of the total criminal monetary penalties are due as follows: X Lump sum payment ofS 0 X IJ 0 C O' not later than in accordance due immediately, balance due 1.200.00 0 C. 0 D, 0 , or E, or Payment to begin immediately (may oe combined with Payment in equal (e.g~ X oc. r below; or 0 D; or 0 r below); or weekly, monthly, quarterly) installments of $ over a period of (e.g., JO or 60 days) after the date of this judgment; or - - - - - (e;g:, months or years), to commence 0 0 Payment ill equal (e:g., weekly, monthly, quarterly) Installments of $ over a period of (e.g, months or years), to commence (e.g;, JO or 60 days) niter release from· imprisonment to a tenn ofsupervisi'on~ or E 0 Payment during tile tonn of supervised release will commence within (e.g., 30 or 60 day ¢) after release trom imprisonment. The court will set the pnymem plan based on WI assessment ~fthe dctendant's ability to pay at that time; or F X Special instmctions regarding u,., payment of criminal moneta')' penalties: The defendant may participate. in the Bureau of Prisons Inmate Financial Responsibility Prosram and provide a minimum payment of$25 per quarter towards the line/restitution; In the event the fme/restitution is nor paid prtQr to the commencement of supervision, the de!i:ndant shall satisfY. th.e amount due in· monthly installments of not less than $500.00 tO commence 30 days at\er rde""e fromconlinemenL TI1e defenoant shall notifY the· US. Attorney For this distriCt within 30 days. of ony change of moiling address. or residence tha.l occurs while any portion oi the flnelrestilU!ion remains unpaid. · Unless the coUrt has ¢.xpressl{ ordered otherwise, ifthlsjudgment imposes imprisonmen~. payment ofcrhninal monet!UY penalties is due during imprisonment. All crunina mo. netary pcnnltie.'l, except lhose payment$ made througll the Federal Bureau of Pmons' Inmate Financial Responsibility Prosram, arc made to the clerk of the court. · The defendant shall receive credit. for all payments previously made toward any criminal monetary penalties imposed, 0 Joint and Several Defendant and Co-Defendant Names and Case Numbers (including defendant number), Total Amount, Joint and Several Amount, and corresponding payee, if appropriate. Anthony James DeMarco. Ill I 0.-790-1: Michael Richard Roberts I0-790-2; Eric Bascovo I 0-790-4 0 The deti:ndant shall pay the cost of prosecution. D. The defendant shall pay the following court cost(s): 0 The defendant shall forfeit the defendant's interest in the following property to the United St;ues: Payments shall be applied in rhe following order: ( 11 assessment. (2) restitution principal, (J) restitution interest. (4) tine principal, (:i) fine interest, (6) community restitution, (7) pcna tics, :md (8) costs. including cost of prosecution and cotut costs.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.