Score:   1
Docket Number:   D-MD  1:19-cr-00034
Case Name:   United States v. O'Day et al
  Press Releases:
Baltimore, Maryland – John O’Day, age 48, of Chester and Stevensville, Maryland, and Sarasota, Florida, and Denise White, a/k/a Lisa Young and Lisa White, age 32, of East Point, Georgia, have pleaded guilty to federal charges of bank fraud and aggravated identity theft, in connection with a scheme to defraud at least 20 individuals and five financial institutions of more than $1 million by submitting fraudulent auto loan applications.  White pleaded guilty on August 28, 2019, and O’Day pleaded guilty on June 4, 2019. 

The guilty pleas were announced by United States Attorney for the District of Maryland Robert K. Hur; Special Agent in Charge Rodney A. Davis of the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration; Acting Chief Marcus Jones of the Montgomery County Police Department; and Colonel William M. Pallozzi, Superintendent of the Maryland State Police.

According to their plea agreements, between April 2016 and January 2018, O’Day and his co-conspirators, including White, submitted at least 30 fraudulent applications for auto loans to victim financial institutions falsely listing O’Day as the seller of various motor vehicles, which were listed as collateral.  At least 27 of the fraudulent applications, including 12 in which White was involved as a co-conspirator, were successful and resulted in the disbursement of loan checks totaling approximately $1,167,192, which O’Day deposited in his personal bank accounts in Maryland.  O’Day provided a portion of the fraud proceeds to co-conspirators, including White.  The funds were not used to purchase vehicles.  O’Day attempted to obtain additional loan checks totaling at least $246,000 through several unsuccessful auto loan applications.

Most of the applicants listed in the auto loan applications were recruited by O’Day under false promises and pretenses.  Specifically, O’Day falsely promised that he would pay off the auto loans within up to 90 days and that the borrowers would not be responsible for loan payments. O’Day made payments in smaller amounts to most of the borrowers to assist them temporarily in making periodic payments on the loans and to compensate them for their involvement in the scheme.  However, O’Day eventually stopped assisting borrowers with their payments and failed to pay off the loans as he promised.  Most of the borrowers remained liable for the loans and suffered financial hardship as a result.  At least some of the fraudulent auto loans were eventually converted to unsecured personal loans with higher interest rates as a result of the applicants’ failure to produce proof that they had purchased the vehicles.  Several of the applicants had no knowledge that O’Day and his co-conspirators had submitted applications in their names and never authorized them to do so. 

O’Day, White, and other co-conspirators used the personal identification information of at least five individuals, without their knowledge or approval, to submit fraudulent loan applications.  At least two of the applications were approved and resulted in the disbursement of loan checks totaling $98,000.

White admitted that she personally submitted some of the fraudulent auto loan applications and contacted the financial institutions under false pretenses in order to get the applications approved.  White used multiple e-mail accounts in which she received correspondence from the various financial institutions to which she submitted fraudulent loan applications.  Upon O’Day’s request, White also contacted borrowers whom O’Day had recruited in order to assuage their concerns about their involvement with the auto loans, requests made by the financial institutions for proof of ownership of the vehicles, and O’Day’s failure to pay off the loans taken out in their names, falsely identifying herself as “Lisa.”  White also fabricated documents in support of the fraudulent loan applications and O’Day’s efforts to negotiate the loan checks.

O’Day admitted that he also laundered the proceeds of the fraudulent auto loan scheme through the purchase of a home.  O’Day worked as a loan officer with a mortgage brokerage company located in Maryland between January 2014 and August 2017.  Between January and March 2017, O’Day requested that his employer issue him a company check for his closing costs in return for him transferring funds to the company.  O’Day then deposited $90,000 in fraud proceeds into a bank account he controlled, then wired $33,750 from that account to his employer’s account.  The following day, the employer wired $33,750 to another of O’Day’s accounts and O’Day purchased a cashier’s check in the amount of $30,000 drawn on that account, which he used to pay the closing costs associated with the purchase of his home.

White and O’Day each face a maximum of 30 years in federal prison for bank fraud, and a mandatory minimum sentence of two years in federal prison, consecutive to any other sentence imposed, for aggravated identity theft.   U.S. District Judge Ellen L. Hollander has scheduled sentencing for O’Day on November 8, 2019 and for White on November 15, 2019, both at 10:00 a.m.

United States Attorney Robert K. Hur commended TIGTA, the Montgomery County Police Department, and the Maryland State Police for their work in the investigation.  Mr. Hur thanked Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew J. Maddox, who is prosecuting the case.

# # #

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 event by which a defendant appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: A2

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

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3

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

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE5
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE5
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE5
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