Indictment Charging Two New Jersey Men With Mortgage Fraud, Making False Statements, And Conspiracy To Defraud The United States Unsealed Following Arrest
The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that an indictment charging two New Jersey residents for conspiring to defraud the United States, using false documents and making false statements in connection with a Monroe County residence mortgage loan insured by the Federal Housing Administration of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development was unsealed today. The indictment returned on January 8, was sealed pending their arrest.
According to United States Attorney Peter J. Smith, the defendants, David Sacci, age 46, of Bradley Beach, New Jersey, and Martin Sacci, age 64, of South Plainfield, New Jersey, are charged with committing the offenses in 2007 and 2008, when both men worked as loan officers for Aurora Financial, a financial services firm operating in Pennsylvania, New Jersey and other states. The fraud and false statements were allegedly in connection with a mortgage insured by the FHA for a residential property in Long Pond, Monroe County, Pennsylvania.
The indictment also seeks the forfeiture of all property and proceeds obtained as a result of the alleged fraudulent conduct.
Both defendants were arraigned before U.S. Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Blewitt. Trial in the case is scheduled for March 18, 2013. Both defendants were released pending trial.
The charges stem from an investigation by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Another defendant connected to the scheme, Patricia Chmura, previously pleaded guilty to HUD fraud charges and is awaiting sentencing.
The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Francis P. Sempa.
Indictments and Criminal Informations are only allegations. All persons charged are presumed to be innocent unless and until found guilty in court.
A sentence following a finding of guilty is imposed by the Judge after consideration of the applicable federal sentencing statutes and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
In this particular case, the maximum penalty under the federal statute is 14 years’ imprisonment, a term of supervised release following imprisonment, and a fine. Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the Judge is also required to consider and weigh a number of factors, including the nature, circumstances and seriousness of the offense; the history and characteristics of the defendant; and the need to punish the defendant, protect the public and provide for the defendant’s educational, vocational and medical needs. For these reasons, the statutory maximum penalty for the offense is not an accurate indicator of the potential sentence for a specific defendant.