Score:   1
Docket Number:   D-MA  3:19-cr-30007
Case Name:   USA v. Murray et al
  Press Releases:
BOSTON – A Ludlow couple was sentenced yesterday in federal court in Springfield for a six-year bid-rigging and kickback scheme.

Joanne Murray, 54, and James Murray, 53, both of Ludlow, were each sentenced by U.S. District Court Judge Mark G. Mastroianni to 18 months in prison and three years of supervised release. In February 2019, the defendants pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit mail fraud, aggravated identity theft and tax evasion.  

From approximately 2010 through 2015, the Murrays, along with others, engaged in a scheme to defraud the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, commonly known as Freddie Mac. Joanne worked at a Springfield real estate brokerage, which managed hundreds of foreclosed properties owned by Freddie Mac. In the scheme, Joanne, James and others agreed to submit fraudulent “reimbursements” by the brokerage to Freddie Mac for James’s company, amounting to approximately $1,372,099 in repair, improvement and maintenance projects.  After Freddie Mac paid the purported reimbursements, the brokerage paid James approximately 90% of those amounts and retained an approximately 10% skim. Joanne ensured that James’s company would win these projects by submitting fraudulent bids to Freddie Mac by purported competitors. To avoid detection by Freddie Mac, Joanne submitted bids in the name of a friend of the Murrays, without his knowledge, instead of James’s company, for work that was ultimately performed by James’s company. The Murrays and others also agreed to submit similar fraudulent requests for reimbursement of minor cleaning projects for James’s relative, amounting to approximately $68,960, in exchange for the brokerage’s retention of approximately 10% of the relative’s payments.  

In addition, from 2012 through 2014, the Murrays evaded payment on outstanding federal tax debts based upon their 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 tax years by cashing numerous checks from the brokerage totaling approximately $461,030 rather than depositing those checks into their bank accounts. Lastly, in 2014, the Murrays jointly filed an individual federal income tax return that under-reported their gross receipts by approximately $151,178. 

United States Attorney Andrew E. Lelling; Robert Manchak, Acting Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Housing Finance Agency; Kristina O’Connell, Special Agent In Charge of the Internal Revenue Service’s Criminal Investigations in Boston; Joseph R. Bonavolonta, Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Boston Field Division; and Joseph W. Cronin, Inspector in Charge of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, Boston Division, made the announcement today. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Steven H. Breslow and Deepika Shukla of Lelling’s Springfield Branch Office prosecuted the case.

BOSTON – A Ludlow couple pleaded guilty yesterday in federal court in Springfield to mail fraud, identity theft, and tax evasion.

Joanne Murray, 54, and James Murray, 53, each pleaded guilty to an Information charging them with one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, aggravated identity theft, and tax evasion. 

From approximately 2010 through 2015, the Murrays, along with others, engaged in a scheme to defraud the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, commonly known as Freddie Mac. Joanne worked at a Springfield real estate brokerage, which managed hundreds of foreclosed properties owned by Freddie Mac. 

In the scheme, Joanne, James, and others, agreed to submit fraudulent “reimbursements” by the brokerage to Freddie Mac for James’ company, amounting to approximately $1,372,099 in repair, improvement, and maintenance projects. After Freddie Mac paid the purported reimbursements, the brokerage paid James approximately 90% of those amounts and retained an approximate 10% skim. Joanne ensured that James’s company would win these projects by submitting fraudulent bids to Freddie Mac by purported competitors. To avoid detection by Freddie Mac, Joanne submitted bids in a friend’s name, without his knowledge, instead of James’ company, for work that was ultimately performed by James’ company. The Murrays also agreed to submit similar fraudulent requests for reimbursement of minor cleaning projects for James’ relative, amounting to approximately $68,960, in exchange for the brokerage’s retention of approximately 10% of the relative’s payments.  

In addition, from 2012 through 2014, the Murrays willfully evaded payment on outstanding federal tax debts based upon their 2008, 2009, 2010, and 2011 tax years by cashing numerous checks from the brokerage totaling approximately $461,030 rather than depositing those checks into their bank accounts. Lastly, in 2014, the Murrays jointly filed an individual federal income tax return that under-reported their gross receipts by approximately $151,178. 

The conspiracy charge provides for a sentence of no greater than five years in prison, up to five years of supervised release, and a fine of $250,000. The aggravated identity theft charges provide for a mandatory two year sentence consecutive to any other term of imprisonment. The tax evasion charge provides for a sentence of no greater than of five years in prison, a maximum of five years of supervised release, and a fine of $100,000. Sentences are imposed based upon the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.   

United States Attorney Andrew E. Lelling; Robert Manchak, Acting Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Housing Finance Agency; Kristina O’Connell, Special Agent In Charge of the Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation, New England Field Division; John Bonavolonta, Special Agent in Charge of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Boston Field Division; and Joseph W. Cronin, Inspector in Charge of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service, Boston Division, made the announcement. Assistant U.S. Attorneys Steven H. Breslow and Deepika Shukla of Lelling’s Springfield Branch Office are prosecuting the case.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1KXlBmrYjYq2VXkrvqzFVUEXpiA6Z7tOVhqy-r-fQG-M
  Last Updated: 2024-04-11 13:26:21 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5

Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15

Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1

Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2

Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3

Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5

Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8

Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10

Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2

Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
F U C K I N G P E D O S R E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E