Score:   1
Docket Number:   SD-FL  1:19-cr-20447
Case Name:   USA v. McConley et al
  Press Releases:
Two film producers and a former Wells Fargo Bank employee arrested on fraud and money laundering charges in connection with a scheme to steal money from investors and producers seeking financing for motion pictures and theater performances. 

Ariana Fajardo Orshan, United States Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, and George L. Piro, Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), made the announcement.

According to the indictment, Benjamin McConley, 37, of South Florida, and Jason Van Eman, 41, of Oklahoma, held themselves out as film producers and financiers.  In those roles, McConley and Van Eman offered to provide financing to investors and producers seeking funds to produce motion pictures, theater performances, and other projects.  McConley and Van Eman promised the victims that, in exchange for the victims’ cash contribution, McConley would match the contribution and use the combined funds to secure financing from financial institutions in South Florida and elsewhere.  The indictment charges McConley and Van Eman with: conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1349; wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343; conspiracy to commit money laundering, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1956(h); and money laundering, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1957.

South Florida resident and former Wells Fargo Bank employee Benjamin Rafael, 30 years old, was arrested on the same charges on August 17, 2019.

The indictment also alleges that McConley and Van Eman entered into false and fraudulent short-term loan agreements with third-party lenders who were willing to provide low-interest bridge loans to McConley and Van Eman on behalf of investors and producers.

According to the indictment, in order to lure investors, producers, and lenders, McConley and Van Eman executed false and fraudulent “funding agreements,” which guaranteed that the victims’ cash contributions or loans would be “matched” dollar-for-dollar by McConley.  McConley and Van Eman further assured the victims that their monies would be held in a secure bank account and would not be transferred without the victims’ consent.

The funding agreements required McConley to deposit funds into the secure bank account shortly after the victims provided their contribution or loan.  To that end, Van Eman instructed victims to transfer money to bank accounts that were actually controlled by McConley and his co-conspirators.  According to the funding agreements, McConley and Van Eman were to apply for a line of credit from the bank using the monies held in the secure bank account as collateral. 

In some instances, the funding agreements required the prompt return of the victims’ funds, plus interest, once the bank associated with the purportedly secure account authorized a line of credit.  In other instances, the line of credit was to be used to finance the victims’ projects, pay production costs, and cover other expenses associated with the projects.  During the course of the alleged scheme, McConley and Van Eman falsely and fraudulently assured victims that lines of credit had been applied for and approved by the financial institutions associated with the purportedly secure bank accounts.

At times, McConley and Van Eman promised that victims’ contributions or loans would be secured by a financial guarantee called a “performance bond.”  McConley and Van Eman claimed they would pay for the performance bonds to be issued by a third-party insurance company.

According to the indictment, victims relied on McConley and Van Eman’s false and fraudulent representations and promises concerning the return of their funds and the protections afforded by the funding agreements and performance bonds.

As alleged, based on these false representations and promises, and at Van Eman’s direction, victims sent tens of millions of dollars to accounts controlled by McConley and his co-conspirators. In truth, McConley never “matched” the victims’ contributions or loans as promised in the funding agreements.  Neither McConley nor Van Eman applied for lines of credit on behalf of victims.  Neither McConley nor Van Eman paid for or otherwise secured performance bonds on behalf of victims. 

Instead of fulfilling their promises to victims, it is alleged that McConley and Van Eman stole the victims’ money by transferring funds from the purportedly secure bank accounts to McConley and Van Eman’s personal and corporate bank accounts, often within days of the victims’ contributions or loans.

It is alleged that McConley and Van Eman directed Benjamin Rafael, 30, of Miami, a one-time Wells Fargo Bank employee to falsely assure victims about the security of their funds.   During the course of the scheme, Rafael falsely told victims that their contributions or loans had been “matched” and that McConley and Van Eman had applied for lines of credit at Wells Fargo Bank as promised in the funding agreements.  

According to the indictment, up to and after his termination from Wells Fargo Bank in June 2015, Rafael routinely sent false and fraudulent emails to victims from his Wells Fargo Bank and personal email accounts.  Following Rafael’s termination from Wells Fargo Bank, McConley and Van Eman falsely assured victims that Rafael was still a bank employee. 

McConley, Van Eman, and Rafael also created and transmitted false and fraudulent bank documents, including purported bank letters, account signature cards, and deposit account balance summaries.  

When victims demanded the return of their money, McConley and Van Eman usually refused to return the victims’ funds as promised in the funding agreements, often blaming bank “compliance” issues.  As a result, several victims filed civil lawsuits and other legal actions against McConley and Van Eman in Florida, California, and Texas. 

During the pendency of the lawsuits and legal actions, McConley and Van Eman continued to lure victims with false and fraudulent promises and documents.  In order to resolve the various lawsuits and legal actions filed by earlier victims, and to pay attorneys’ fees, McConley and Van Eman directed later victims’ funds to the earlier victims and attorneys; all without the later victims’ knowledge or authorization.  In order to conceal from the public news of the lawsuits and legal actions, McConley and Van Eman engaged an “online reputation management” firm to “suppress” or hide negative information about them.

Throughout the course of the charged scheme, McConley, Van Eman, and Rafael used stolen money to purchase luxury automobiles, personal watercraft, real estate, jewelry, home furnishings, designer clothes, hotel accommodations, and private and commercial air travel.

On August 19, 2019, McConley and Rafael made their initial appearances on the charges before United States Magistrate Lisette M. Reid in Miami, Florida. Van Eman previously made his initial appearance on August 16, 2019, in Tulsa, Oklahoma.

If convicted, the defendants can be sentenced to up to 20 years in prison on the wire fraud conspiracy and wire fraud charges, and up to 10 years in prison on each of the money laundering conspiracy and money laundering charges. 

U.S. Attorney Fajardo Orshan commended the investigative efforts of the FBI Miami Field Division and thanked FBI Tulsa Resident Agency, Oklahoma Field Office, for its assistance.  The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Christopher Browne and Maurice Johnson.  Assistant U.S. Attorney Adrienne Rosen is responsible for the asset forfeiture component of the case.

An indictment contains mere allegations.  A defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law.

A copy of this press release may be found on the website of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida at www.usdoj.gov/usao/fls. Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or on http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov.

A South Florida movie financier pled guilty in connection with a scheme to steal over $60 million from investors and producers seeking financing for motion pictures and theater performances. 

U. S. Attorney Ariana Fajardo Orshan for the Southern District of Florida and Special Agent in Charge George L. Piro of the FBI’s Miami Field Office made the announcement.

Benjamin McConley, 37, of South Florida, admitted his role in orchestrating the sophisticated fraud scheme during a change-of-plea hearing before U.S. District Judge Ursula M. Ungaro. McConley pled guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1349 (Case No. 19-CR-20447). McConley faces a maximum possible sentence of twenty years’ in prison.

According to court records, McConley held himself out as a film producer and financier.  In those roles, McConley offered to provide financing to investors and producers seeking funds to produce motion pictures, theater performances, and other projects. McConley promised the victims that, in exchange for the victims’ cash contribution, McConley would match the contribution and use the combined funds to secure financing from financial institutions in South Florida and elsewhere. 

Based on these false representations and promises, victims sent tens of millions of dollars to accounts controlled by McConley and his co-conspirators. In truth, McConley never “matched” the victims’ contributions as promised in the funding agreements. 

Instead of fulfilling their promises to victims, McConley and his co-conspirators stole the victims’ money by transferring the funds to their personal and corporate bank accounts, often within days of the victims’ contributions or loans.

U.S. Attorney Fajardo Orshan commended the investigative efforts of the FBI Miami Field Office.  The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Christopher Browne and Maurice Johnson.  Assistant U.S. Attorney Adrienne Rosen is responsible for the asset forfeiture component of the case.

Related court documents and information may be found on the website of the District Court for the Southern District of Florida at www.flsd.uscourts.gov or at http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1cnwIXpJxAwhyemLZtiKS7rASmq2pKVg9ftxYEGDBW6g
  Last Updated: 2025-05-12 03:36:56 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 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