Fake Charity Telemarketing Prosecutions
1. United States v. Thomas P. Moore (2005, Florida)
Facts: Moore operated a fake charity telemarketing operation claiming to help children with cancer. He solicited donations via phone and emails but kept over $2 million for personal use.
Charges: Wire fraud, mail fraud, and conspiracy to commit fraud.
Prosecution Argument: The government presented call records, bank statements showing transfers to personal accounts, and testimony from victims who donated believing the charity was real.
Outcome: Convicted and sentenced to 12 years in federal prison, and ordered to pay $2 million in restitution.
Significance: Highlighted the use of telemarketing schemes to defraud donors and the application of federal wire fraud statutes.
2. United States v. Mark A. Greenberg (2008, New York)
Facts: Greenberg ran a fake veterans’ charity, soliciting donations from the elderly. Only a fraction of the funds went to legitimate causes; the rest was spent on luxury items.
Charges: Mail fraud, wire fraud, and aggravated identity theft (for using veteran lists).
Prosecution Argument: Evidence included telemarketing call logs, financial records of personal spending, and email communications with co-conspirators.
Outcome: Convicted, sentenced to 10 years in federal prison, and ordered to forfeit $1.5 million.
Significance: Demonstrated federal attention on elderly-targeted charity scams, with identity theft aggravating penalties.
3. United States v. Robert L. Reingold (2012, Illinois)
Facts: Reingold operated multiple fake telemarketing charities claiming to support disaster relief, including Hurricane Katrina victims. Millions were collected and funneled to his personal accounts.
Charges: Wire fraud, mail fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy.
Prosecution Argument: Investigators traced money transfers, monitored telemarketing calls, and presented victim testimony. Evidence showed no legitimate charity operations existed.
Outcome: Convicted and sentenced to 15 years in federal prison, with restitution exceeding $5 million.
Significance: Illustrates multi-year operations and large-scale telemarketing fraud targeting nationwide donors.
4. United States v. Michael W. Davis (2015, California)
Facts: Davis ran a telemarketing charity for animal rescue, soliciting donations but using less than 10% of funds for any charitable activity. Most funds were spent on vacations and luxury goods.
Charges: Wire fraud, mail fraud, and deceptive telemarketing practices under the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud Act.
Prosecution Argument: Investigators presented call recordings, email solicitations, bank records, and co-conspirator testimony showing intentional misrepresentation.
Outcome: Convicted, sentenced to 8 years in federal prison, and ordered to repay $1.2 million to donors.
Significance: Showed courts cracking down on false animal charities, a common niche in telemarketing fraud.
5. United States v. James R. Jones (2018, Texas)
Facts: Jones ran a fake cancer charity, using telemarketing and social media to solicit donations nationwide. He also used donor lists purchased online to target previous charity donors.
Charges: Wire fraud, mail fraud, and conspiracy to defraud.
Prosecution Argument: Evidence included emails to donors, financial statements showing personal expenses, and recorded phone calls of Jones misrepresenting the charity’s activities.
Outcome: Convicted, sentenced to 11 years in federal prison, and ordered $3 million in restitution.
Significance: Reinforced that federal authorities aggressively pursue national-scale telemarketing charity frauds, especially targeting vulnerable donors.
6. United States v. Linda M. Thompson (2020, Ohio)
Facts: Thompson ran a fake “children’s literacy” charity via telemarketing calls and online solicitations, collecting over $750,000 from unsuspecting donors.
Charges: Wire fraud, mail fraud, and interstate commerce fraud.
Prosecution Argument: Evidence included call recordings, bank transactions showing personal use, and social media advertisements misrepresenting the charity.
Outcome: Convicted, sentenced to 7 years in federal prison, with restitution to affected donors.
Significance: Highlighted that even small-scale telemarketing frauds face substantial federal sentences.
Key Takeaways Across Cases
Federal Statutes: Wire fraud, mail fraud, and telemarketing fraud laws are commonly applied.
Targeted Victims: Elderly and sympathetic donors are frequent targets.
Evidence: Call logs, emails, bank statements, social media solicitations, and victim testimony are critical.
Penalties: Sentences range from 7 to 15 years, often with restitution equal to or exceeding stolen funds.
Scale Matters: Multi-state or national schemes attract harsher federal penalties.
RELATED Blog
0 comments