1. Fraud – Washington D.C. | Initial Allegations and Case Overview
The defendants were accused of Fraud involving roughly USD 8 million in investment funds, allegedly collected for ventures including automobile secured lending, acquisition of wellness businesses, and inventory based trading.
D.C. law allows felony prosecution when the government believes a suspect obtained money “by means of false pretenses” under D.C. Code § 22-3221, and penalties escalate based on the value of the property involved.
Case Origin and Scale of Allegations
The complainant asserted that the defendants knowingly solicited approximately USD 8 million, exceeding the D.C. high value property threshold, thereby triggering potential felony Fraud review.
The complainant also alleged that the defendants never intended to repay principal or return projected interest.
Complicating matters, one defendant had a prior conviction in another state for a financial offense, giving investigators reason to scrutinize the case with heightened suspicion.
Applicable D.C. Fraud Penalties
Under D.C. Code § 22-3221, penalties for Fraud increase with the amount involved:
• Property value USD 1,000 or more → Felony Fraud, up to 10 years imprisonment and fines.
• Property value greater than USD 2,500 may support additional enhancements at prosecutorial discretion.
Because alleged losses exceeded USD 8 million, the defendants faced potential high level felony exposure if intent to defraud were proven.
2. Fraud – Washington D.C. | Strategic Weaknesses in Complainant’s Claims
Our defense team focused on dismantling the complainant’s assertion that the ventures never existed and that the defendants possessed fraudulent intent at the outset.
Evidence of Legitimate Business Operations
We gathered and submitted documentation demonstrating that each business venture was real and actively developed:
• Signed contracts and vendor agreements for the wellness business acquisition.
• Financial records confirming vehicle secured lending transactions.
• Communications showing an associated business partner (“C”) directly managing the transactions until his unexpected passing.
These records contradicted the claim that the businesses were fabricated to commit Fraud.
Transparent Use of Funds and Partial Reimbursement
Bank records substantiated that nearly all investment funds were applied toward operational costs, acquisition expenses, and payroll not personal enrichment.
Additionally, over USD 4.5 million in principal and interest payments were made to the complainant across a two year period behavior inconsistent with fraudulent schemes.
Recovery Already Obtained by Complainant
Following the death of partner C, the complainant executed a lien on C’s real property and recovered an additional USD 900,000 through liquidation.
These recoveries significantly reduced the complainant’s actual loss assessment, weakening the basis for a Fraud allegation.
3. Fraud – Washington D.C. | Independent Witness Testimony
Because independent witness credibility is significant in D.C. investigations, our team identified and interviewed third-party participants who had no personal interest in the defendants’ outcome.
Testimony Confirming Business Activity
An unrelated investor who had jointly engaged in certain wellness-business transactions with partner C confirmed that:
• The venture operated legitimately.
• Funds were used for business-related purposes.
• No indication existed that the defendants intended to deceive any investor.
This neutral testimony supported our position that no deliberate Fraud occurred.
4. Fraud – Washington D.C. | No Intent Argument and Case Closure
The core element in any Fraud prosecution under D.C. Code is intent to defraud.
Without proof of knowing misrepresentation, criminal liability cannot attach.
Failure to Prove Fraudulent Intent
We provided evidence demonstrating:
• Business operations generated legitimate revenue.
• Substantial repayments were made before partner C’s unexpected death.
• Losses arose from business interruption, not deceit.
• Recovery through collateral liquidation mitigated damages.
The Metropolitan Police Department ultimately concluded that fraudulent intent could not be established, resulting in a “No Further Action / Case Closed” outcome.
How SJKP Guided the Defense
Our team delivered:
• Immediate strategic assessment
• Representation during investigative interviews
• Submission of comprehensive business and financial records
• Witness affidavits confirming legitimate operations
These efforts prevented escalation to the Office of the Attorney General or U.S. Attorney’s Office.
Large-scale financial disputes in D.C. can quickly escalate into Fraud investigations, especially when misunderstandings about investment risk lead to allegations of deception.
Our firm has extensive experience defending high value financial cases and navigating D.C.’s investigative procedures.
If you or your business is facing allegations of Fraud, contact SJKP to discuss immediate defense strategies and protect your rights.
27 Nov, 2025
