Reading Time: 27 minutes

Owner of Real Estate Escrow Company Indicted for Bank, Wire and Mail Fraud

Unfortunately there are many examples of ESCROW Fraud.

DON”T DO IT!

DOJ

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Friday, August 4, 2017

Defendant Falsified Documents, Altered Checks and Embezzled Money from Trust Account

The owner of a now defunct real estate escrow firm was indicted last month by a federal grand jury on ten counts of bank fraud, and one count each of mail and wire fraud, announced U.S. Attorney Annette L. Hayes.

LORI LYNN ANDREW

48, of Cashmere, Washington, the owner of Hartman Escrow, Inc., was arrested and arraigned on the indictment August 3, 2017. The Washington State Department of Financial Institutions arranged for a receiver to take over the Tukwila, Washington escrow company in 2012 after finding evidence of fraud. ANDREW had her license to act as an escrow agent suspended in 2013 and her license has since been revoked.

According to the indictment, beginning in about January 2011, and continuing until July 2012, ANDREW used a variety of means to defraud financial institutions and individual home buyers and sellers who were involved in various real estate transactions. ANDREW made, or had others make, false settlement statements on the transactions listing false or inflated fees and charges to hide the fact that she was embezzling money.

ANDREW forged signatures on various statements and created false invoices, statements and bills; she altered and deposited checks to her company account that should have gone to others; she took funds from her trust account and transferred them to her personal account for her own use. ANDREW used the money for casino payments, credit card bills and other personal expenses. ANDREW defrauded individual customers as well as Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citi Bank, Chase and GMAC.

In all the indictment alleges ANDREW defrauded the financial institutions and other customers of approximately $2 million.

The charges contained in the indictment are only allegations. A person is presumed innocent unless and until he or she is proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law.

Each count of bank, mail or wire fraud is punishable by up to 30 years in prison and a fine of up to $1 million.

The case was investigated by the Washington State Department of Financial Institutions, the FBI, the Postal Inspection Service (USPIS) and the Housing and Urban Development Office of Inspector General (HUD-OIG).

The case is being prosecuted by Special Assistant United States Attorney Hugo Torres and Assistant United States Attorney Norman Barbosa. Mr. Torres is a Senior King County Deputy Prosecutor specially designated to prosecute financial fraud cases in federal court.

 

FACTUAL FINDINGS

Failure to Comply with Director’s Authority.

On or about July 10, 2012, the Department served Respondents with a Subpoena to Provide

Documents and Records requiring Respondent Andrew to provide certain records by July 16,2012, or a

Temporary Cease and Desist Order (TCD) would be issued. Respondent Andrew did not provide the

records by the due date and on or about July 18, 2012, the Department issued a TCD requiring

Respondent Andrew to produce the records immediately. The TCD was served on Respondent Andrew

on or about the same day, and served by Federal Express overnight delivery on July 28,2012, but

Respondent Andrew did not provide the records as required.

Providing Altered Bank Statements.

On or about June 21, 2012, Respondent Andrew provided the Department with copies of what she represented to be the monthly statements for Respondent Hartman Escrow’s general account at Key Banle

On or about July 25, 2012, the Department received copies of the actual monthly statements for the general account directly from Key Bank. A comparison of the two sets of statements revealed that among other deceptions, Respondent Andrew had altered the account statements she provided the Department to conceal more than $2.1 million in transfers from the trust account to the general account. The differences between the general account statements provided by Respondent Andrew and those provided by Key Bank are as follows:

Hartman Escrow, Inc. General Account Bank Statements

Dec-II

The statement was altered to conceal 6 transfers totaling $23,754.28 from the trust account to the general account.

Jan-12

The statement was altered to conceal 13 transfers totaling $188,135.42 from the trust account to the general account, and did not include a page listing a $5,000 transfer from the savings account to the general account. Feb-12

The statement was altered to conceal 8 transfers totaling $161,074.45 from the trust account to the general account.

Mar-12

The statement was altered to conceal 7 transfers totaling $359,864.86 from the trust account to the general account, and a separate transfer of$291,164.86 from the trust account to the general account.

Apr-12

The statement was altered to conceal a transfer totaling $145,582.28 from the general account to the trust account, and a $5,000 transfer from the general account to Respondent Andrew’s personal account.

May-12

The statement did not include three pages, two of which listed 18 transfers totaling $237,507.32 from the trust account to the general account. Another missing page listed a $10,404.49 transfer from the general account to the trust account and two credit card payments totaling $45,785.15.

Jun-12

The statement was altered to conceal 15 transfers totaling $762,758.15 from the trust account to the general account, and did not include a page listing a $5,000 transfer from the savings account to Respondent Andrew’s personal account.1.3 Conducting Business in such an Unsafe Manner as to Render its Further Operation Hazardous to the Public.

The Department reviewed bank statements and reconciliation records of Respondent Hartman Escrow, Inc. and noted numerous questionable transactions. For example, two month-end reconciliation Trial Balance reports printed on April 30, 2012, show the escrow trust account of Respondent Hartman Escrow to be significantly overdrawn.

The first report lists  overdrawn escrow accounts with an aggregate negative balance of$I,090,755.09; the second report  lists overdrawn escrow accounts, but with a lower aggregate negative balance of $205,400.94. The overdrawn escrow accounts indicate Respondent Andrew disbursed more money from the accounts 6 than received.

The number and aggregate dollar amount of the overdrawn escrow accounts is unusual, 7 and indicates much larger shortages in the trust account may exist.

The June 2012 general account statement for Respondent Hartman Escrow shows six transfers 10 from the general account to the trust account totaling $678,548.

The number and aggregate dollar amount of these transfers are unusual, and indicates an attempt to “cover” overdrawn escrow accounts.  The Department has identified suspicious transactions in ReSpondent Hartman Escrow’s general 13 account between December 2011 and July 2012 of approximately:

• $2.1 million in transfers from the trust account to the general account;

• $212,000 in checks and transfers payable to Respondent Andrew or her husband;

• $103,000 in checks payable to casinos in Washington and Nevada; and

• $65,000 in checks and transfers payable to a Nordstrom-branded VISA credit card.

Order Taking Possession-Termination of Employment.

On or About July 31,2012, the

Director issued an Order Taking Possession of Hartman Escrow, Inc. and served a copy of the Order

on Respondent Andrew. In its capacity as the controlling entity for Hartman Escrow, Inc., the

Department has terminated the employment of Respondent Andrew as Designated Escrow Officer,

Escrow Officer, and any other employment capacity for Hartman Escrow, Inc.

II. GROUNDS FOR ENTRY OF ORDER

Requirement to Comply with Director’s Authority. Based on the Factual Allegations set

forth in Section I above, Respondent Andrew is in apparent violation ofRCW 18.44.400(1) and RCW

18.44.420(2) by failing to provide documents and other materials required by the Director.

Prohibition against Making Material False Statements.

Based on the Factual Allegations set forth in above, Respondent Andrew is in apparent violation by making materially false statements to the Director concerning the affairs of Hartman Escrow, Inc.

Requirement to Properly Administer Funds held in Trust. Based on the Factual

Allegations set forth  above, Respondent Andrew is in apparent violation failing to properly administer funds held in trust.

Status of Escrow Officer License.

Respondent Andrew’s license to conduct business as an Escrow Officer is no longer in force and must be surrendered to the Department.

ORDER

Based on the above Factual Findings, Grounds for Entry of Order, and Authority to Issue

Temporary Order to Cease and Desist,  the Director finds that the public interest will be irreparably harmed by delay in issuing a cease and desist order. Therefore, the

Director ORDERS that:

  1. Respondent Lori L. Andrew shall immediately cease and desist from engaging in any act or
  2. acts, directly, indirectly, or through any 3rd party, which in any way affects Hartman Escrow, Inc. Such
  3. acts include, but are not limited to, conducting any escrow transaction or any part of any escrow
  4. transaction, conducting any contract collection activity, accessing or attempting to access any account
  5. in the name of Hartman Escrow, Inc. in or at any financial institution of any kind, obtaining or
  6. attempting to obtain credit of any kind on behalf of Hartman Escrow, Inc., incurring any debt on behalf
  7. of Hartman Escrow, Inc., accessing or attempting to access any computer system, telephone messaging
  8. system, or any other business system of Hartman Escrow, Inc., accessing any real or personal property
  9. owned by or registered in the name of Hartman Escrow, Inc., or any other act having any relationship to Hartman Escrow, Inc.

Hartman Escrow, Inc. regardless of the status of the file or the current location of the file (other than those at the Tukwila office), and including any and all copies of said files. Further, Respondent Andrew shall immediately surrender to the Department any and all other files related to the business operations of Hartman Escrow, Inc., any and all title and ownership documents for property owned by Hartman Escrow, Inc., any and all documents and contracts evidencing property or services leased or rented in the name of Hartman Escrow, Inc., and any and all documents of any nature belonging to Hartman Escrow, Inc. Respondent Lori L. Andrew shall immediately surrender to the Department all business related equipment owned, leased, or rented by Hartman Escrow, Inc., including, but not limited to: cell phones, smart phones, computers, and all other business equipment of any nature, regardless of whose possession such equipment is currently in.

Respondent Lori L. Andrew shall immediately surrender to the Department all credit cards for any and all accounts in the name of Hartman Escrow, Inc, and all keys to any property owned, rented, or leased by Hartman Escrow, Inc, including office keys and truck keys, regardless of whose possession such credit cards and keys are currently in.

All files, documents, and property which Respondent Andrew has been ordered to immediately surrender must be surrendered at the Hartman Escrow, Inc. Tukwila office location between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. no later than the first business day following service of this Order on Respondent Hartman.

This order shall take effect immediately and shall remain in effect unless set aside, limited, or suspended in writing by an authorized court.

NOTICE

PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 18.44 RCW, YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A HEARING WITHIN

14 DAYS OF REQUEST TO DETERMINE WHETHER THIS ORDER SHALL BECOME

PERMANENT. IF YOU DESIRE A HEARING, THEN YOU MUST RETURN THE

ACCOMPANYING APPLICATION FOR ADJUDICATIVE HEARING, INCORPORATED HEREIN

BY THIS REFERENCE. FAILURE TO COMPLETE AND RETURN THE APPLICATION FOR

ADJUDICATIVE HEARING FORM SO THAT IT IS RECEIVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THE DATE THAT THIS ORDER WAS

SERVED ON YOU WILL CONSTITUTE A DEFAULT AND WILL RESULT IN THE LOSS OF

YOUR RIGHT TO A HEARING AND THE ENTRY OF A PERMANENT ORDER TO CEASE AND

DESIST ON THE 21ST DAY FOLLOWING SERVICE OF THIS ORDER UPON YOu. SERVICE ON

YOU IS DEFINED AS POSTING IN THE U.S. MAIL. POSTAGE PREP AID, TO YOUR LAST

KNOWN ADDRESS.

WITHIN 10 DAYS AFTER YOU HAVE BEEN SERVED WITH THIS TEMPORARY

ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST, YOU MAY APPLY TO THE SUPERIOR COURT IN THE

COUNTY OF YOUR PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS FOR AN INJUNCTION SETTING

ASIDE, LIMITING, OR SUSPENDING THIS ORDER PENDING THE COMPLETION OF THE

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THIS NOTICE.

UPDATE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Friday, August 10, 2018

OWNER OF NOW-DEFUNCT REAL ESTATE ESCROW COMPANY SENTENCED TO 24 MONTHS IN PRISON FOR BANK FRAUD

Defendant Falsified Documents, Altered Checks and Embezzled more than $2 Million from Trust Account

The owner of a former real estate escrow firm was sentenced today in U.S. District Court in Seattle to 24 months in prison for bank fraud, announced U.S. Attorney Annette L. Hayes. LORI LYNN ANDREW, 49, of Cashmere, Washington, the owner of Hartman Escrow, Inc., pleaded guilty to one count of bank fraud.  ANDREW stole more than $2.1 million through a variety of techniques, including making false entries in escrow closing documents, altering accounting records, and depositing checks into the general account instead of the trust account.  At the sentencing hearing, U.S. District Judge Richard A. Jones said, “Every single time you had an opportunity to change your mind and say ‘this is wrong,’ you kept doing it.”

“This defendant chose to victimize people when they were buying or selling a home–often the most important financial transaction of their lives,” said U.S. Attorney Annette L. Hayes.  “Like all real estate escrow agents, the defendant was responsible for ensuring large amounts of money went where they belonged.  When she decided to line her own pockets rather than do her job, she crossed the line and earned the prison sentence that the court imposed today.”

According to records in the case, beginning in about January 2011, and continuing until July 2012, ANDREW used a variety of means to defraud financial institutions and individual home buyers and sellers who were involved in various real estate transactions.  ANDREW made, or had others make, false settlement statements on closing transactions listing false or inflated fees and charges.  ANDREW forged signatures on various statements and created false invoices, statements, and bills; she altered and deposited checks to her company account that should have gone to others; and she took client funds from her trust account and transferred them to her personal account for her own use.  ANDREW used the money for casino payments, credit card bills, and other personal expenses.  ANDREW defrauded individual customers, as well as Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citi Bank, Chase, and GMAC.

In all ANDREW defrauded the financial institutions and other customers of $2.185 million.  In July 2012, the Washington State Department of Financial Institutions arranged for a receiver to take over the Tukwila, Washington, escrow company after finding evidence of fraud.  ANDREW had her license to act as an escrow agent suspended in 2013, and her license has since been revoked. The receiver was able to recover some funds for unsecured claimants, but just over $1 million is still owed to defrauded clients.

The case was investigated by the Washington State Department of Financial Institutions, the FBI, the Postal Inspection Service (USPIS), and the Housing and Urban Development Office of Inspector General (HUD-OIG).

The case is being prosecuted by Special Assistant United States Attorney Hugo Torres. Mr. Torres is a King County Senior Deputy Prosecutor specially designated to prosecute financial fraud cases in federal court.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-wdwa/pr/owner-now-defunct-real-estate-escrow-company-sentenced-24-months-prison-bank-fraud

FINAL ORDER 

Based upon the foregoing, and the Director having considered the record and being otherwise  fully advised, NOW, THEREFORE:

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, That:

1. The license of Respondent LORI LYNN ANDREW to conduct business as a designated escrow officer is revoked.

2. Respondent LORI LYNN ANDREW is prohibited from participation in the conduct of the affairs of any licensed escrow agent for a period of twenty-five (25) years.

3. Respondent LORI LYNN ANDREW shall pay to the Washington State Department of Financial Institutions, within thirty (30) days of receipt ofthis Final Order, an examination fee of One Hundred Fifty Thousand dollars ($150,000).

STATE OF WASHINGTON

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

CONSUMER SERVICES DIVISION

IN THE MATTER OF DETERMINING

Whether there has been a violation of the

Escrow Agent Registration Act of Washington

by:

HARTMAN ESCROW, INC. and

LORI L. ANDREW,

C-12-1 020-12-TD02

TEMPORARY ORDER TO

CEASE AND DESIST

Owner and Designated Escrow Officer,

 Res ondents.

THE STATE OF WASHINGTON TO: LORI L. ANDREW

COMES NOW the Director of the Washington State Department of Financial Institutions

(Director), by and through his designee Deborah Bortner, Division Director, Division of Consumer

Services (designee), and finding that the public interest will be irreparably harmed by delay in issuing

an order to cease and desist, enters this temporary order to cease and desist pursuant to chapter 18.44

RCW, the Escrow Agent Registration Act (Act), based on the following findings:

I. FACTUAL FINDINGS

1.1 Failure to Comply with Director’s Authority.

On or about July 10, 2012, the Department served Respondents with a Subpoena to Provide

Documents and Records requiring Respondent Andrew to provide certain records by July 16,2012, or a

Temporary Cease and Desist Order (TCD) would be issued. Respondent Andrew did not provide the

records by the due date and on or about July 18, 2012, the Department issued a TCD requiring

Respondent Andrew to produce the records immediately. The TCD was served on Respondent Andrew

on or about the same day, and served by Federal Express overnight delivery on July 28,2012, but

Respondent Andrew did not provide the records as required.

1.2 Providing Altered Bank Statements. On or about June 21, 2012, Respondent Andrew provided

the Department with copies of what she represented to be the monthly statements for Respondent

Hartman Escrow’s general account at Key Banle On or about July 25, 2012, the Department received

copies of the actual monthly statements for the general account directly from Key Bank. A comparison

of the two sets of statements revealed that among other deceptions, Respondent Andrew had altered the

account statements she provided the Department to conceal more than $2.1 million in transfers from the

trust account to the general account. The differences between the general account statements provided by

Respondent Andrew and those provided by Key Bank are as follows:

Hartman Escrow, Inc. General Account Bank Statements

Dec-II The statement was altered to conceal 6 transfers totaling $23,754.28 from the

trust account to the general account.

Jan-12 The statement was altered to conceal 13 transfers totaling $188,135.42 from the

trust account to the general account, and did not include a page listing a $5,000

transfer from the savings account to the general account.

Feb-12 The statement was altered to conceal 8 transfers totaling $161,074.45 from the

trust account to the general account.

Mar-12 The statement was altered to conceal 7 transfers totaling $359,864.86 from the

trust account to the general account, and a separate transfer of$291,164.86 from

the trust account to the general account.

Apr-12 The statement was altered to conceal a transfer totaling $145,582.28 from the

general account to the trust account, and a $5,000 transfer from the general

account to Respondent Andrew’s personal account.

May-12 The statement did not include three pages, two of which listed 18 transfers

totaling $237,507.32 from the trust account to the general account. Another

missing page listed a $10,404.49 transfer from the general account to the trust

account and two credit card payments totaling $45,785.15.

Jun-12 The statement was altered to conceal 15 transfers totaling $762,758.15 from the

trust account to the general account, and did not include a page listing a $5,000

transfer from the savings account to Respondent Andrew’s personal account.

1.3 Conducting Business in such an Unsafe Manner as to Render its Further Operation

Hazardous to the Public. The Department reviewed bank statements and reconciliation records of

Respondent Hartman Escrow, Inc. and noted numerous questionable transactions. For example, two

month-end reconciliation Trial Balance reports printed on April 30, 2012, show the escrow trust

 account of Respondent Hartman Escrow to be significantly overdrawn. The first report lists 13

overdrawn escrow accounts with an aggregate negative balance of$I,090,755.09; the second report

lists 13 overdrawn escrow accounts, but with a lower aggregate negative balance of $205,400.94. The

overdrawn escrow accounts indicate Respondent Andrew disbursed more money from the accounts

than received. The number and aggregate dollar amount of the overdrawn escrow accounts is unusual,

and indicates much larger shortages in the trust account may exist.

The June 2012 general account statement for Respondent Hartman Escrow shows six transfers

from the general account to the trust account totaling $678,548. The number and aggregate dollar

 amount of these transfers are unusual, and indicates an attempt to “cover” overdrawn escrow accounts.

 The Department has identified suspicious transactions in ReSpondent Hartman Escrow’s general

 account between December 2011 and July 2012 of approximately:

• $2.1 million in transfers from the trust account to the general account;

 • $212,000 in checks and transfers payable to Respondent Andrew or her husband;

• $103,000 in checks payable to casinos in Washington and Nevada; and

• $65,000 in checks and transfers payable to a Nordstrom-branded VISA credit card.

1.4 Order Taking PossessionlTermination of Employment. On or About July 31,2012, the

Director issued an Order Taking Possession of Hartman Escrow, Inc. and served a copy of the Order

on Respondent Andrew. In its capacity as the controlling entity for Hartman Escrow, Inc., the

Department has terminated the employment of Respondent Andrew as Designated Escrow Officer,

Escrow Officer, and any other employment capacity for Hartman Escrow, Inc.

II. GROUNDS FOR ENTRY OF ORDER

2 2.1 Requirement to Comply with Director’s Authority. Based on the Factual Allegations set

forth in Section I above, Respondent Andrew is in apparent violation ofRCW 18.44.400(1) and RCW

18.44.420(2) by failing to provide documents and other materials required by the Director.

2.2 Prohibition against Making Material False Statements. Based on the Factual Allegations set

forth in Section I above, Respondent Andrew is in apparent violation ofRCW 18.44.301(7) by making

materially false statements to the Director concerning the affairs of Hartman Escrow, Inc.

2.3 Requirement to Properly Administer Funds held in Trust. Based on the Factual

Allegations set forth in Section I above, Respondent Andrew is in apparent violation of RCW

18.44.301(2) and WAC 208-680-410 by failing to properly administer funds held in trust.

2.4 Status of Escrow Officer License. Based on the Factual Allegations set forth in Section I

above, and pursuant to RCW 18.44.101, Respondent Andrew’s license to conduct business as an

Escrow Officer is no longer in force and must be surrendered to the Department.

III. AUTHORITY TO ISSUE TEMPORARY ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST

3.1 Authority to Issue Temporary Order to Cease and Desist. Pursuant to RCW 18.44.440, the

Director is authorized to issue a temporary order to cease and desist whenever the Director makes a

finding, in writing, that the public interest will be irreparably harmed by delay in issuing a cease and

desist order.

IV. ORDER

Based on the above Factual Findings, Grounds for Entry of Order, and Authority to Issue

Temporary Order to Cease and Desist, and pursuant to RCW 18.44.440, the Director finds that the

public interest will be irreparably harmed by delay in issuing a cease and desist order. Therefore, the

Director ORDERS that:

Respondent Lori L. Andrew shall immediately cease and desist from engaging in any act or

acts, directly, indirectly, or through any 3rd party, which in any way affects Hartman Escrow, Inc. Such

acts include, but are not limited to, conducting any escrow transaction or any part of any escrow

transaction, conducting any contract collection activity, accessing or attempting to access any account

in the name of Hartman Escrow, Inc. in or at any financial institution of any kind, obtaining or

attempting to obtain credit of any kind on behalf of Hartman Escrow, Inc., incurring any debt on behalf

of Hartman Escrow, Inc., accessing or attempting to access any computer system, telephone messaging

system, or any other business system of Hartman Escrow, Inc., accessing any real or personal property

 owned by or registered in the name of Hartman Escrow, Inc., or any other act having any relationship

to Hartman Escrow, Inc.

4.2 Respondent Lori L. Andrew shall immediately surrender to the Department all escrow files of

Hartman Escrow, Inc. regardless of the status of the file or the current location of the file (other than

those at the Tukwila office), and including any and all copies of said files. Further, Respondent

Andrew shall immediately surrender to the Department any and all other files related to the business

operations of Hartman Escrow, Inc., any and all title and ownership documents for property owned by

Hartman Escrow, Inc., any and all documents and contracts evidencing property or services leased or

rented in the name of Hartman Escrow, Inc., and any and all documents of any nature belonging to

Hartman Escrow, Inc.

4.3 Respondent Lori L. Andrew shall immediately surrender to the Department all business related

equipment owned, leased, or rented by Hartman Escrow, Inc., including, but not limited to: cell

phones, smart phones, computers, and all other business equipment of any nature, regardless of whose

possession such equipment is currently in.

TEMPORARY ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST

C-12-1020-12-TD02

Lori L. Andrew

5 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

150 Israel Rd SW

PO Box 41200

Olympia, WA 98504-1200

 

4.4 RESPONDENT LORI L. ANDREW SHALL IMMEDIATELY SURRENDER TO THE DEPARTMENT ALL CREDIT CARDS FOR

any and all accounts in the name of Hartman Escrow, Inc, and all keys to any property owned, rented,

or leased by Hartman Escrow, Inc, including office keys and truck keys, regardless of whose

possession such credit cards and keys are currently in.

4.5 All files, documents, and property which Respondent Andrew has been ordered to immediately

surrender must be surrendered at the Hartman Escrow, Inc. Tukwila office location between 8:00 a.m.

and 5:00 p.m. no later than the first business day following service of this Order on Respondent

Hartman.

4.6 This order shall take effect immediately and shall remain in effect unless set aside, limited, or

suspended in writing by an authorized court.

NOTICE

PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 18.44 RCW, YOU ARE ENTITLED TO A HEARING WITHIN

14 DAYS OF REQUEST TO DETERMINE WHETHER THIS ORDER SHALL BECOME

PERMANENT. IF YOU DESIRE A HEARING, THEN YOU MUST RETURN THE

ACCOMPANYING APPLICATION FOR ADJUDICATIVE HEARING, INCORPORATED HEREIN

BY THIS REFERENCE. FAILURE TO COMPLETE AND RETURN THE APPLICATION FOR

ADJUDICATIVE HEARING FORM SO THAT IT IS RECEIVED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS WITHIN 20 DAYS OF THE DATE THAT THIS ORDER WAS

SERVED ON YOU WILL CONSTITUTE A DEFAULT AND WILL RESULT IN THE LOSS OF

YOUR RIGHT TO A HEARING AND THE ENTRY OF A PERMANENT ORDER TO CEASE AND

DESIST ON THE 21ST DAY FOLLOWING SERVICE OF THIS ORDER UPON YOu. SERVICE ON

YOU IS DEFINED AS POSTING IN THE U.S. MAIL. POSTAGE PREP AID, TO YOUR LAST

KNOWN ADDRESS.

WITHIN 10 DAYS AFTER YOU HAVE BEEN SERVED WITH THIS TEMPORARY

ORDER TO CEASE AND DESIST, YOU MAY APPLY TO THE SUPERIOR COURT IN THE

COUNTY OF YOUR PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS FOR AN INJUNCTION SETTING

ASIDE, LIMITING, OR SUSPENDING THIS ORDER PENDING THE COMPLETION OF THE

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THIS NOTICE.

DATED this ‘1 ay of August, 2012.

SEVEN C. SHERMAN

Financial Legal Examiner Supervisor

DEB

Director

Division of Consumer Services

Department of Financial Institutions

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

150 Israel Rd SW

PO Box 41200

Olympia, WA 98504-1200

 

In an effort to persuade a wary Internet auction participant, the perpetrator will propose the use of a third-party escrow service to facilitate the exchange of money and merchandise. The victim is unaware the perpetrator has actually compromised a true escrow site and, in actuality, created one that closely resembles a legitimate escrow service. The victim sends payment to the phony escrow and receives nothing in return. Or, the victim sends merchandise to the subject and waits for his/her payment through the escrow site which is never received because it is not a legitimate service.

Complaint Referral Form
Internet Crime Complaint Center

IC3 logo

Prior to filing a complaint with the IC3, please read the following information regarding terms and conditions. Should you have additional questions prior to filing your complaint, view FAQ for more information on inquiries such as:

  • What details will I be asked to include in my complaint?
  • What happens after I file a complaint?
  • How are complaints resolved?
  • Should I retain evidence related to my complaint?

The information I’ve provided on this form is correct to the best of my knowledge.

I understand that providing false information could make me subject to fine, imprisonment, or both. (Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 1001)

Complaints filed via this website are processed and may be referred to federal, state, local or international law enforcement or regulatory agencies for possible investigation. I understand any investigation opened on any complaint I file on this website is initiated at the discretion of the law enforcement and/or regulatory agency receiving the complaint information.

Filing a complaint with the IC3 in no way serves as notification to my credit card company that I am disputing unauthorized charges placed on my card or that my credit card number may have been compromised. I should contact my credit card company directly to notify them of my specific concerns.

The complaint information you submit to this site is encrypted via secure socket layer (SSL) encryption. Please see the Privacy Policy for further information.

Prior To Filing A Complaint

Q: Who should file a complaint with the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3)?

You may file a complaint with the IC3 if you believe you have been the victim of an Internet crime or if you want to file on behalf of another person you believe has been such a victim.Q: What details will I be asked to include in my complaint?

The IC3’s ability to process your complaint will be based upon the accuracy and completeness of the information provided. The following is the type of information we ask for in the complaint form:

  1. Victim’s name, address, telephone, and email
  2. This will be your information if you are the victim, or another person if you are filing on behalf of a third party
  3. Financial transaction information (e.g., account information, transaction date and amount, who received the money)
  4. Subject’s name, address, telephone, email, website, and IP address
  5. The subject is the person/entity allegedly committing the Internet crime
  6. Specific details on how you were victimized
  7. Email header(s)
  8. Any other relevant information you believe is necessary to support your complaint

Q: How does the IC3 define Internet crime?

Internet crime includes any illegal activity involving one or more components of the Internet, such as websites, chat rooms, and/or email. Internet crime involves the use of the Internet to communicate false or fraudulent representations to consumers. These crimes may include but are not limited to, advance-fee schemes, non-delivery of goods or services, computer hacking, or employment/business opportunity schemes.

Q: Can I file a complaint if I am a citizen of the United States but have been victimized by an individual or company outside of the United States?

If either the victim or the alleged subject of the Internet crime is located within the United States, you may file a complaint with the IC3.

Q: Can I file a complaint if I have been victimized by an individual or company in the United States, but I am not a citizen of the United States?

Yes, if either you or the alleged subject of the Internet crime is located within the United States, regardless of citizenship, you may file a complaint with the IC3.

After A Complaint Is Filed

Q: What happens after I file a complaint?

Trained analysts at the IC3 review and research the complaints, disseminating information to the appropriate federal, state, local, or international law enforcement or regulatory agencies for criminal, civil, or administrative action, as appropriate.

Q: When will I be updated on the status of the investigation of my complaint?

After you file a complaint with the IC3, the information is reviewed by an analyst and forwarded to federal, state, local, or international law enforcement or regulatory agencies with jurisdiction. The IC3 does not conduct investigations and, therefore, is not able to provide the investigative status of a previously filed complaint. Investigation and prosecution is at the discretion of the receiving agencies.

Q: Will I be informed that my complaint was received successfully?

Once you file a complaint with the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3), you will receive the following message at the top of your filed complaint:

Thank you for submitting your complaint to the IC3. Please save or print a copy for your records. This is the only time you will have to make a copy of your complaint.

Q: How do I cancel my complaint that I filed?

Once a complaint has been filed with the IC3, it cannot be canceled.

 

 

TOP 10 STATES BY NUMBER OF VICTIMS

 

Related Evidence

Q: Should I retain evidence that supports my complaint or send it to the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3)?

IC3 does not collect evidence regarding complaints. While you may cut and paste information into your complaint (e.g., email headers), you must be sure to keep all original documents in a secure location. In the event that a law enforcement or regulatory agency opens an investigation, they may request the information directly from you.

Q: What type of information would possibly be considered evidence in regard to my complaint?

It is important that you keep any evidence you may have related to your complaint. Evidence may include, but is not limited to, the following:

  • Canceled checks
  • Credit card receipts
  • Money order receipts
  • Certified or other mail receipts
  • Wire receipts
  • Virtual currency receipts
  • Pre-paid card receipts
  • Envelopes (if you received items via FedEx, UPS, or U.S. Mail)
  • Facsimiles
  • Pamphlets or brochures
  • Phone bills
  • Printed or preferably electronic copies of emails (if printed, include full email header information)
  • Printed or preferably electronic copies of web pages
  • Hard drive images
  • PCAP files containing malicious network traffic
  • Network, host system, and/or security appliance logs
  • Copies of malware
  • Chat transcripts and/or telephony logs

Keep items in a safe location in the event you are requested to provide them for investigative or prosecutive evidence.

Urgent Complaints

Q: Can I file a complaint if I have been threatened over the Internet via email, chat room, website, etc?

If you or someone else is in immediate danger, please call 911 or your local police.

Q: What should I do if I believe my complaint is time sensitive?

After you file a complaint with the IC3, the information is reviewed by an analyst and forwarded to federal, state, local, or international law enforcement or regulatory agencies with jurisdiction. As investigation and prosecution is at the discretion of the receiving agencies, please contact local law enforcement directly if you believe your matter is time sensitive.

 

Disclosure of Information

Q: What information can the Internet Crime Complaint Center provide regarding the legitimacy of a company?

The IC3 cannot provide information on a specific company. The IC3 serves as the FBI’s central repository for the collection of Internet crime complaints.

Q: What information can the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3) provide If I think that a complaint has been filed against myself or company?

The IC3 is not a resource available to the general public for answering questions arising from the complaint information it receives. IC3 does not release information about specific complaints and/or the resolution of those complaints. Therefore, IC3 is unable to provide you with such information.

 

Spam Emails

Q: Is there an email address I can forward SPAM emails that I receive?

The IC3 does not have an email address established for the receipt of such information. When filing a complaint at the IC3, be sure to copy and paste the entire email, including the header information, in the complaint.

[pdf-embedder url=”https://www.getreti.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/2018_IC3Report.pdf”]

Download

Financial Fraud Kill Chain

  1. Kill Chain Process
  2. Criteria
  3. Information to Provide

Hit by Wire Transfer Fraud? Use the Kill Chain Process

FBI

January 31, 2019

Criminals launder billions of dollars overseas through financial fraud schemes like wire transfer fraud, corporate account takeovers, business e-mail compromise scams, and other financially motivated crimes.

The FBI offers a Financial Fraud Kill Chain (FFKC) process to help recover large international wire transfers stolen from the United States.

The FFKC is intended to be utilized as another potential avenue for U.S. financial institutions to get victim funds returned. Normal bank procedures to recover fraudulent funds should also be conducted.

The FFKC can only be implemented if the fraudulent wire transfer meets the following criteria:

  1. the wire transfer is $50,000 or above
  2. the wire transfer is international
  3. a SWIFT recall notice has been initiated
  4. the wire transfer has occurred within the last 72 hours.

Information to Provide

To initiate the FFKC process, provide the following information to your local FBI office, which you can locate by visiting fbi.gov/contact-us/field-offices.

 

  1. Summary of the incident
  2. Name of victim
  3. Location of the victim (City and state)
  4. Originating bank name
  5. Originating bank account number
  6. Beneficiary name
  7. Beneficiary bank
  8. Beneficiary account number
  9. Beneficiary bank location (if known)
  10. Intermediary bank name (if known)
  11. SWIFT number
  12. Date
  13. Amount of transaction
  14. Any additional information that may be available, such as “for further credit,” or “in favor of”

Any wire transfers that occur outside of these thresholds should still be reported to law enforcement but the FFKC cannot be utilized to return the fraudulent funds.

Use these resources to help raise awareness about wire fraud:

 
 
00:00
buying and selling a home is an exciting
00:03
time but there can be pitfalls for
00:05
unsuspecting consumers the American land
00:08
title Association wants homeowners and
00:10
sellers to be aware that criminals are
00:12
using wire fraud schemes to steal money
00:14
meant for home purchases or the proceeds
00:16
from the sale of the property criminals
00:19
often begin the wire fraud process by
00:21
using email messages website forms or
00:24
phone calls to steal your email login
00:26
and password information then hackers
00:29
will monitor your email messages to
00:31
learn if you are involved in a real
00:33
estate transaction if you are criminals
00:36
will email you fraudulent wire transfer
00:38
instructions disguise to appear as if
00:40
they came from professional your working
00:42
life if you receive an email with wiring
00:44
instructions don’t respond if you take
00:48
the bait your money could be gone in
00:50
minutes here are four tips to protect
00:53
against wire fraud call don’t even
00:57
confirm all wiring instructions by phone
01:00
using a phone number from the title
01:01
company’s website or business talk if
01:04
you received an email without changing
01:06
wire instructions do not call the number
01:08
in the email
01:09
[Music]
01:10
be suspicious it’s unusual for title
01:14
companies to change wiring instructions
01:15
and payment info confirm everything ask
01:20
your bank to confirm the account number
01:22
and also the name on the account before
01:24
sending a wire verify immediately you
01:29
should call the title company or real
01:31
estate agent to validate to the phone’s
01:33
were received if you have been targeted
01:35
by a scam you should immediately call
01:38
your bank and ask them to issue a recall
01:40
notice for the wire transfer report the
01:43
crime to IC 3 gov call your regional FBI
01:48
office and local fleet for more on the
01:51
closing process go to Home closing 101
01:54
or
 

 

 

 

 

[pdf-embedder url=”https://www.getreti.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/04.2016_ffkc_bank_outreach.pdf”]