Score:   1
Docket Number:   SD-FL  1:19-cr-20178
Case Name:   USA v. Shapiro et al
  Press Releases:
On August 7, 2019, Sherman Oaks, California native, Robert Shapiro, 61, pled guilty to orchestrating and leading a massive investment fraud scheme, in which more than 7,000 victims suffered financial losses, as well as tax evasion, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1349 and 26 U.S.C. § 7201.  Shapiro is the former owner, president, and CEO of Woodbridge Group of Companies LLC (“Woodbridge”). Shapiro is scheduled for sentencing on October 15, 2019, at 8:30 a.m. before United States District Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga.  He faces a possible maximum sentence of 25 years in prison.

Ariana Fajardo Orshan, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, George L. Piro, Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Miami Field Office, Michael J. De Palma, Special Agent in Charge, Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI), and the Florida Office of Financial Regulation (OFR), made the announcement.

According to the indictment and court documents, Shapiro spearheaded and concealed an enormous Ponzi scheme through his business, Woodbridge.  Woodbridge employed approximately 130 people and had offices located throughout the United States, including in Boca Raton, Florida; Sherman Oaks, California; Colorado; Tennessee; and Connecticut.  The scheme ran from at least July 2012 to December 2017, when Woodbridge filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy and defaulted on its obligations to investors.

Throughout the conspiracy, Woodbridge’s main business model was to solicit money from investors and, in exchange, issue investors promissory notes reflecting purported loans to Woodbridge that paid high monthly interest rates.  Woodbridge falsely claimed that these investments were tied to real property owned by third parties and that the third parties would be making the interest payments to Woodbridge and its investors; it was portrayed as an investment in a hard-money lending business.  Using high pressure sales tactics, Shapiro and his co-conspirators marketed and promoted these investments as low-risk, safe, simple, and conservative.  And at minimum, investors were made to believe that Woodbridge’s real estate dealings would generate the funds used to pay the return on their investments. 

Despite Woodbridge’s claims that these investments would be backed by properties owned by third-parties, in fact, to the extent that the properties existed, they were secretly owned by Shapiro.  Unbeknownst to investors, Shapiro created and controlled a network of more than 270 limited liability companies, which he used to acquire and sell the properties pitched to investors. 

Shapiro and his co-conspirators falsely claimed that Woodbridge was profitable and advertised high rates of return to investors.  However, Shapiro’s real estate portfolio failed to generate sufficient cash flow to satisfy the loan obligations and interest payments owed to investors.  To make up for the cash deficiency, Shapiro and his co-conspirators resorted to making Ponzi payments, i.e., hundreds of millions of dollars invested by new investors were used to pay “returns” to older, existing Woodbridge investors.  In some instances, Shapiro made these fraudulent “interest” payments even when the advertised investment properties were never acquired. 

The Woodbridge sales operation functioned as a “boiler room” and featured high-pressure sales tactics, deception, and manipulation.  Woodbridge promoted investments through telephone and in-person conversations, emails and website displays.  The scheme also involved misrepresentations to financial planners who helped Woodbridge to sell investments to potential investors. 

At least five states issued cease and desist orders against one or more of the Woodbridge entities based on their unregistered sale of securities. Shapiro and his co-conspirators nonetheless continued to sell Woodbridge investments to residents of those states, and engaged in deceptive conduct with respect to pending state regulatory actions against Woodbridge, in violation of the cease and desist orders.

At some point in 2017, Shapiro made the decision that Woodbridge would file for bankruptcy. Without disclosing to investors that Woodbridge was insolvent and on the verge of bankruptcy, Shapiro caused Woodbridge to collect additional money from investors through the filing of Woodbridge’s bankruptcy in December 2017.  Shapiro also admitted that, immediately prior to Woodbridge’s bankruptcy filing, he diverted millions of dollars in investor funds to several bank accounts opened in the name of his wife, J.S., which he used for new ventures. 

In total, Shapiro and his co-conspirators convinced more than approximately 9,000 investors to invest more than $1.29 billion to Woodbridge.  According to the Indictment, at least 2,600 of these investor victims invested their retirement savings, totaling approximately $400 million.  Of that, Shapiro misappropriated approximately $25 million to $95 million in investor money for himself and for the benefit of his immediate family members.  Shapiro spent millions on personal expenditures, such as $3.1 million for chartering private planes and travel, $6.7 million on a personal home, $2.6 million on home improvements, $1.8 million on personal income taxes, and over $672,000 on luxury automobiles.  Shapiro further admitted that he used bank accounts and credit cards opened in the name of his wife, J.S., to divert millions of dollars to his family.

Shapiro also pled guilty to tax evasion based upon his failure to pay more than $6 million in taxes due and owing to the IRS for calendar years 2000 through 2005.

As part of his plea, Shapiro and his wife agreed to forfeit certain assets, many of which were seized during a search executed by federal agents at his home in Sherman Oaks, California.  They include, but are not limited to: artworks by Pablo Picasso, Alberto Giacometti, Marc Chagall, and Pierre-August Renoir; a collection of 603 bottles of wine; a 1969 Mercury convertible; luxury jewelry, including a pair of 14-karat, white gold earrings with two black diamonds (61.81 carats), two grey diamonds (23.92 carats), two rose-cut diamonds, and 266 round diamonds; a platinum ring with an oval-cut ruby (10.91 carats), two trapezoid diamonds and 70 round-cut diamonds; a platinum ring with certified Colombia emerald-cut emerald (9.54 carats), trapezoid-cut diamonds, and 166 round-cut diamonds; and other items detailed in court documents.

The indictment also charged two co-defendants, Dane Roseman, a/k/a “Dayne Roseman,” and Ivan Acevedo, who are scheduled for trial in February 2020.  The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed parallel civil enforcement actions against Woodbridge, Shapiro, his wife, and co-defendants Acevedo and Roseman related to the Ponzi scheme. 

U.S. Attorney Fajardo Orshan commended the investigative efforts of the FBI, IRS-CI and OFR in this matter.  She thanked the SEC Miami Regional Office and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California for their assistance.  This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Roger Cruz and Lisa H. Miller.  Assistant U.S. Attorneys Nalina Sombuntham and Alison Lehr are 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 on http://pacer.flsd.uscourts.gov.

The owner of Woodbridge Group of Companies LLC and two former directors of investments have been charged criminally, in the Southern District of Florida, with orchestrating a massive investment fraud (Ponzi) scheme. 

Ariana Fajardo Orshan, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, George L. Piro, Special Agent in Charge, Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Miami Field Office, Michael J. De Palma, Special Agent in Charge, Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI), and Ronald L. Rubin, Commissioner, Florida Office of Financial Regulation (OFR), made the announcement.

Robert Shapiro, 61, of Sherman Oaks, California, Dane R. Roseman, a/k/a “Dayne Roseman,” 35, of Encino, California, and Ivan Acevedo, 42, of Chatsworth, California, were charged, by an indictment out of the Southern District of Florida that was unsealed today, with conspiracy to commit mail and wire fraud and substantive mail fraud counts (Case No. 19-20178-CR-Altonaga/Goodman). Shapiro and Roseman were also charged with substantive wire fraud counts.  In addition, Shapiro was charged with conspiracy to commit money laundering and evasion of payment of federal income taxes.  Shapiro, Roseman and Acevedo were arrested today in California and had their initial appearances before a U.S. Magistrate Judge in the Central District of California.  Shapiro was ordered to be detained in prison.  Roseman and Acevedo were ordered to appear in the Southern District Florida for their arraignment.  An arraignment date has not yet been scheduled.

According to the indictment, the owner of Woodbridge Group of Companies LLC (Woodbridge) Shapiro, and his former Directors of Investments, Acevedo and Roseman, orchestrated a massive Ponzi scheme through the business.  They ran their scheme through Woodbridge offices located throughout the United States, including Boca Raton, Florida and Sherman Oaks, California.  The conspiracy ran from July 2012 to December 2017, and involved material misrepresentations and material omissions to investors in the sale of Woodbridge investments.  Through telephone and in-person conversations, emails and website displays, Shapiro, Acevedo, Roseman and their co-conspirators promoted speculative and fraudulent securities to potential investors, targeting elderly investors who had Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs).  Shapiro hired sales agents to solicit potential investors from the Woodbridge “phone room” that Roseman and Acevedo managed.  The phone room functioned as a “boiler room,” and featured high-pressure sales tactics, deception, material misrepresentations, and investor manipulation. Through telemarketing, Woodbridge sales agents contacted potential investors located throughout the United States, and solicited, offered, and sold Woodbridge investments to them.  For the fraud-based investments, the defendants and their co-conspirators’ main business model was to solicit money from investors and, in exchange, issue investors promissory notes reflecting purported loans to Woodbridge that paid monthly interest and matured in twelve to eighteen months.  The defendants claimed that the investments were tied to real property owned by third-party property owners.

The indictment alleges that Shapiro, Acevedo, Roseman and their co-conspirators, made and caused others to make materially false and fraudulent statements to induce investors to provide money, such as, that Woodbridge investments were “low risk,” “simpler,” “safe” and “conservative;” that Woodbridge was profitable, but in reality new Woodbridge investor money was used to pay prior Woodbridge investors, and that third-party affiliates were property owners, when in fact Shapiro owned nearly all of the real property at the center of every investment product offered by Woodbridge. 

According to the indictment, Shapiro took approximately $35 million in investor money for his benefit, spending millions on personal expenditures, such as $3.1 million for chartering private planes and travel, $6.7 million on a personal home, $2.6 million on home improvements, $1.8 million on personal income taxes, $1.4 million to his ex-wife, and over $672,000 on luxury automobiles. 

The indictment further alleges that Shapiro caused most of the Woodbridge companies to file Chapter 11 bankruptcy, which caused investors to suffer substantial losses, as they were owed close to $1 billion in principal. 

At least 2,600 of these investor victims invested their retirement savings, totaling approximately $400 million.

According to information presented to the court, search warrants related to the indictment were executed today in California.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed parallel civil enforcement actions against Acevedo and Roseman related to the Ponzi scheme.

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

U.S. Attorney Fajardo Orshan commended the investigative efforts of the FBI, IRS-CI and OFR in this matter.  She thanked the SEC Miami Regional Office and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Central District of California for their assistance.  This case is being prosecuted by Assistant U. S. Attorneys Roger Cruz and Michael Sherwin.

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/1PFc86pb3CLfOHala97tLeKfuNJ8wiQJ4NC2ovPzjomE
  Last Updated: 2024-04-13 04:44:33 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