Opinion ID: 866864
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Counts Two through Five: Mail Fraud

Text: Mail fraud consists of “(1) an intentional participation in a scheme to defraud a person of money or property, and (2) the use of the mails in furtherance 8 Case: 11-16123 Date Filed: 05/07/2013 Page: 9 of 14 of the scheme.” United States v. Downs, 870 F.2d 613, 615 (11th Cir. 1989). Fagan and Arthur first argue that the government failed to present evidence that there was an interstate carrier involved and that even if there was, the government failed to prove what was sent and why. This argument is meritless. The government submitted evidence demonstrating that essential documents were either sent via facsimile or mailed through an interstate carrier. Specifically, the evidence at trial showed that documents necessary to the closings were sent via Federal Express and DHL from Johnson to each of the lenders. The receipt of these documents was verified by evidence showing that the lenders’ files included the executed closing records. Second, Fagan and Johnson 1 argue that the evidence against them in counts two through five was insufficient because they did not provide, or even know about, the false information on the loan applications. They contend that they were not involved in any agreement to defraud and that they were unaware of the other co-defendants’ acts and intentions. These arguments are also meritless. The evidence at trial overwhelmingly indicated that both Fagan and Johnson intentionally participated in the scheme to defraud. For each sale, Johnson falsely 1 Arthur has attempted to adopt the sufficiency arguments raised by her co-defendants. However, “the fact-specific nature of an insufficiency claim requires independent briefing” to reach the merits where the defendants performed different roles and the evidence against each differs. United States v. Khoury, 901 F.2d 948, 963 n.13 (11th Cir. 1990). Accordingly, Arthur’s attempt to adopt Fagan’s and Johnson’s sufficiency arguments is not allowed. 9 Case: 11-16123 Date Filed: 05/07/2013 Page: 10 of 14 represented to the lenders that closing costs and escrow payments were made before or during closing. Additionally, Johnson included Fagan’s non-existent and unrecorded mortgages on the lender’s HUD-1s for each sale. Johnson also submitted two different HUD-1s for each sale, indicating vastly different prices and non-matching mortgages. Most importantly, Johnson received approximately $22,000 from Fagan for her participation in the scheme. For his part, Fagan accepted substantial loan disbursements for non-existent mortgages and then used that money to pay the closing costs and escrow deposits for properties in which he was not the purchaser. Additionally, Fagan allowed Johnson to take approximately $22,000 of the loan proceeds for her part in the scheme. Thus, the direct and circumstantial evidence presented against Fagan and Johnson substantially supports their convictions for counts two through five.