SCRANTON - The United States Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Pennsylvania announced that John Law, age 41, of Rochester, New York, was indicted on July 28, 2020, by a federal grand jury on fraud charges.
According to United States Attorney David J. Freed, the indictment alleges that Law conspired with Perry Santillo and others to defraud investors as part of a Ponzi scheme that netted over $115 million nationwide. Law is charged with conspiracy to commit mail fraud, wire fraud, and bank fraud, and with four counts of mail fraud.
Previously, Perry Santillo pled guilty to felony charges in Rochester and Scranton, and admitted to defrauding investors around the country as part of a Ponzi scheme that included victims in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Santillo admitted as part of his plea that the scheme took in approximately $115 million in fraudulent investments, and resulted in a total loss to investors of $70.7 million.
Perry Santillo was a founder, member, manager, and CEO of First Nationle Solution, LLC. Law joined Santillo in offering and selling securities in First Nationle, Boyles America, and other issuers to investors. Law also provided investment advice to those same investors.
In fact, First Nationle, Boyles America, and other issuers did not conduct their purported businesses. Rather, Santillo and others working with him operated each business primarily as a Ponzi scheme by issuing securities in the form of promissory notes, soliciting and then misappropriating substantial amounts of investor funds, and using some remaining investor funds to pay off redeeming investors.
As part of the scheme, Santillo and others travelled the country and bought books of business from investment professionals such as registered representatives and investment advisors.
In the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Santillo, Law and those who aided and abetted them purchased a book of business from an investment advisor and conducted their fraud scheme under the guise of an “investment business” located in Scotrun, Monroe County, using various business names, including Advice and Life Group, Poconos Investments, First American Securities, and Financial Planners Group of America.
Santillo and Law, with the help of others, then solicited investors from within those acquired books of business to withdraw money from traditional investments such as annuities, and reinvest the funds in issuers controlled by Santillo and others, including First Nationle, Percipience, and United RL, sometimes without disclosing that Santillo and his confederates controlled those issuers.
Through offering documents, company websites, and in-person pitches, Santillo and his confederates, including Law, falsely indicated that investments would be used to fund legitimate businesses. However, rather than use investors’ funds for purported legitimate business purposes, Santillo and his confederates misappropriated vast amounts of the funds for their personal use and used some of the funds to pay redeeming investors to perpetuate the Ponzi scheme. Santillo, Law, and their associates also misrepresented the ongoing performance – or lack thereof – of investors’ investments. Santillo, Law, and others provided account statements to investors falsely stating that investor funds were invested, falsely stating investment returns, and in some cases falsely stating that a bonus had been credited to investor accounts. In certain instances, Santillo and others provided investors with bonus funds or interest payments, and in other cases Santillo and others provided redeeming investors with all or part of their funds, at times with returns. These were Ponzi payments derived from new investor funds rather than actual investment returns. In other cases, Santillo and others failed to fulfill the requests of investors to redeem their investments.
Among the victim investors defrauded in the Middle District of Pennsylvania was an individual with the initials “JP.” Victim JP first invested $159,000 in First Nationle in September 2015, and invested another $380,000 in June 2016. In 2017, JP also invested twice in United RL, the first an investment of $20,000 and the second $52,000. Santillo and confederates also induced JP to invest $325,000 in a third fraudulent issuer. JP was repaid only $15,000, and was defrauded of the remainder of the $936,000 total investment. The specific charge in the information to which Santillo pled guilty related to a mailing sent in relation to the fraudulent investments JP was sold by Santillo and his confederates.
The case was investigated by the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigations; the Securities and Exchange Commission; United States Postal Inspection Service; the Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation Division; the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Inspector General, Office of Investigations – Labor Racketeering and Fraud; the New York State Department of Financial Services; and the Harrisburg Police Department, and is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Sean A. Camoni in Scranton, and Assistant United States Attorney John Field in Rochester.
A sentence following a finding of guilt is imposed by the Judge after consideration of the applicable federal sentencing statutes and the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.
The maximum penalty under federal law for this offense is 20 years of imprisonment, a term of supervised release following imprisonment, and a fine. Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines, the Judge is also required to consider and weigh a number of factors, including the nature, circumstances and seriousness of the offense; the history and characteristics of the defendant; and the need to punish the defendant, protect the public and provide for the defendant's educational, vocational and medical needs. For these reasons, the statutory maximum penalty for the offense is not an accurate indicator of the potential sentence for a specific defendant.
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 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