Coconspirators Enhance Probability of Conviction for Fraud
The government brought an 11-count indictment against David Jackson and Alex Hurt in the District of Connecticut. Jackson and Hurt allegedly used a number of pseudonyms to scam business owners out of advance fees for loans they were supposedly going to secure. They now face multiple charges related to wire fraud. Those charges expose the defendants to multiple decades in prison. Defendant Jackson has been held in pretrial custody for longer than four months, and Hurt was ordered to report to Delaware for his initial appearance.
According to the indictment, the two defendants preyed upon people who wanted to secure business loans. They were affiliated with Jalin Reality Capital Advisors, American Capital Holdings, and Brightway Financial group. Through those companies, Jackson and Hurt deceived customers. In exchange for upfront fees that they described as application fees, collateral fees, or commitment fees, the defendants said that they could broker large business loans. If they couldn’t deliver on the loans, the defendants said that they would refund the fees. They enlisted help from an accomplice, who vouched for Jackson and Hurt. The accomplice said that she had received a business loan without any complications.
Since the government has brought charges against the defendants, each will retain a defense attorney. The defense attorney will operate independently, looking out for the interests of his or her client. But the interests of one defendant may not be the same as the other defendant. When some defendants face multiple decades in prison, they choose to cooperate with prosecutors in exchange for the possibility of a less severe sanction. When coconspirators testify against each other, the probability for a conviction rises.
Both Jackson and Hurt are at the earliest stages of the criminal justice proceedings. While their defense attorneys strategize on the best possible response to the charges, Jackson and Hurt should begin strategizing for the best possible outcome from the entire proceeding. That means they need to think far beyond the pleading stage. They need to begin positioning themselves for the following:
This process will result in a report that has enormous implications. If they’re not prepared for the PSI, they will miss opportunities that could influence their time in prison and their prospects for an early release.
They should begin to work on a sentence-mitigation strategy that will show them as something more than what the indictment alleges. If they fail to act now, the judge will only have the prosecutor’s version of events.
They should begin to position themselves to enhance their possibility of serving the sentence in the easiest possible prison.
They should establish a deliberate strategy that will ensure they emerge with their dignity intact, ready to launch the next phase of their life.
They need to contemplate deliberate steps to ensure that their family remains strong throughout the proceedings and sanction.
They should begin building a record that will result in more favorable treatment from the U.S. Probation Officer who will supervise their release.
They should create a plan that will position them for income opportunities after release.
On the other hand, the defendants can choose to wait out the proceedings. Many defendants pursue that “do-nothing” choice. Rather than taking a proactive approach to prepare for the best, too many defendants choose to pull covers over their head and sink into feelings of self-pity. The strategy doesn’t offer much promise, but a surprising number of defendants allow a criminal prosecution to derail them. For that reason, a criminal prosecution leads many into a series of cascading failures that continue long after the prison term ends.
Defendants who choose to pursue a deliberate path to restore their confidence and ability to emerge successfully will find enormous value in the guidance that PrisonProfessor.com offers.