Quote from @Joseph Gozlan:
I don't know the man and have zero skin in that game but I read the article and I don't see a scam that hurts investors here...
"...Among those is Onofrio wiring funds from his company to investors’ accounts to temporarily increase their assets when they sought financing from banks. The funds would then be wired back to Onofrio..." - So he funded the investor's down payment? was there an equity share there? That's not illegal.
"...Onofrio would also lend funds to investors — a practice referred to as the “seller carry” — to help them complete real estate buys, but this was not disclosed to banks that financed those deals..." - Seller Carry is a crime now?!
"...Three specific wire transfers made to investor accounts between June 2021 and September 2021 are listed in the indictment to support the three counts of bank fraud Onofrio is charged with..." - and all that only happened 3 times total?! The headline makes it sounds as if he did that for decades.
In BOTH the above charges, seems like the disclosure duty was on the actual investor taking the loan, not on this guy. I don't understand what case they think they have there if these the main arguments. There might be a lot more going on in the lawsuit but all I have to go on is this article.
Again, don't know the guy, I didn't even hear the podcast you guys mentioned, I just think we shouldn't condemn the guy based on a clickbait headline and weak allegations that anyone that knows the business can call BS on...
So with the example of him secretly funding the buyers down payment…
I guess it’s possible that he’d sign a PSA for $5m when it was really $4m and he’d wire the $1m to his buyer before closing.
Then the bank would fund the deal 100% to the TRUE purchase price and Matt would get his $1m back because the buyer would wire it into closing
The bank just didn’t realize it was lending 100%
Pretty clear cut case of bank fraud.
In a case like my potential example, the buyer and Matt would be working together to produce a fraudulent PSA and I'm assuming supporting docs to show the property could meet the bank's DSCR requirements.
Lots of chatter in the CRE world about Matt today. It'll be interesting to see how it pans out but it's not looking good for him from what I've read.
That article was poorly written IMO because it does villainize the seller 2nd. Seller 2nd's are perfectly fine IF you disclose them to the bank and you're buying it in a way (price/terms) that it still meets DSCR metrics.