Score:   1
Docket Number:   SD-NY  7:19-cr-00645
Case Name:   USA v. Crossland et al.
  Press Releases:
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, and Philip R. Bartlett, Inspector-in-Charge of the New York Field Division of the United States Postal Inspection Service (“USPIS”), announced today the unsealing of an indictment charging JEFFREY N. CROSSLAND, RAYMOND E. ROBINSON, and STEPHEN C. PARENTE with participating in a conspiracy to defraud four churches and a development company out of more than $3.5 million.  CROSSLAND was arrested this morning at his home in Santa Monica, California, ROBINSON was arrested this morning at his home in Leander, Texas, and PARENTE was arrested this morning at his home in Buford, Georgia. 

Manhattan U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said:  “As alleged, these three defendants devised a complex scheme to provide unconventional construction loans to churches and other development projects.  But instead of helping to build houses of worship, the defendants allegedly built a house-of-cards, Ponzi-like scheme.  Now all three have been arrested and face 20 years in prison for their crimes.”

USPIS Inspector-in-Charge Philip R. Bartlett said:  “This case highlights the fact that when money is involved scammers don’t care where it comes from, even if it comes from parishioners at local churches.  There will always be a day of reckoning and today is that day.”

According to the allegations contained in the Indictment[1]:  

CROSSLAND was a managing member of Crossland Capital Partners, LLC (“Crossland Capital”), a purported broker dealer focused on “real estate related capital raising,” located in Santa Monica, California.  He also controlled JC Funding Group, also located in Santa Monica, which was represented to be a corporate entity overseeing various subsidiary lending companies under the JC Funding name.  PARENTE controlled Eagle Capital Investment Partners, LP (“Eagle Capital”), a purported private financial advisory consultancy practice based in Georgia.  ROBINSON was a minister, and was employed by a church-building company based in Missouri, ran Ray Robinson Ministries – a purported consulting firm for churches – and, along with PARENTE, had an ownership interest in Eagle Capital.

In early 2013, CROSSLAND, ROBINSON, and PARENTE began working together purporting to offer unconventional loans to churches and others for construction projects.  They targeted victims, particularly churches, by capitalizing on ROBINSON’s role as a minister and builder of churches.  ROBINSON was responsible for finding clients, PARENTE was responsible for reviewing clients’ financial profiles and assisting them through the loan application process, and CROSSLAND was supposed to provide the funding for the loans. 

CROSSLAND, ROBINSON, and PARENTE perpetrated a scheme in which they defrauded clients (the “Victims”) by inducing them to enter into purported loan agreements, in which the Victims were required to deposit money into a “production account” or “escrow holding account” at an Ohio bank (the “Escrow Account”).  Based on the defendants’ false representations that the deposited money would remain safe and secure in the Escrow Account, the Victims deposited a total of more than $3.5 million into the Escrow Account.  

Contrary to the defendants’ representations, the money did not remain in the Escrow Account.  Shortly after the Victims wire-transferred their deposit money, an attorney who controlled the Escrow Account (“Attorney-1”), acting on CROSSLAND’s instructions, transferred more than half of the deposit money to bank accounts controlled by an individual in Michigan (“Individual-1”) and an entity controlled by Individual-1.  Individual-1 then transferred much of that deposit money to bank accounts outside the United States.  Attorney-1 also transferred nearly $1 million of the deposit money to the bank account of a New Jersey law firm.  Thereafter, approximately $400,000 was transferred to a bank account controlled by a second individual (“Individual-2”), and the remaining approximately $600,000 was used to pay Individual-2’s tax obligations and legal fees.

In order to perpetuate the scheme and conceal the fraud, CROSSLAND had Attorney-1 and Individual-1 transfer some of certain Victims’ deposit money to other Victims and falsely represent that these money transfers were loan draw payments.  In actuality, CROSSLAND never had money to fund the Victims’ loans.  In addition to providing certain Victims with funds the defendants claimed to be loan draw payments, in order to perpetuate the scheme and conceal the fraud, CROSSLAND and ROBINSON also participated in telephone conversations with, and sent emails to, the Victims, with the intention of (a) lulling them into believing that their loans would be funded and/or their deposits returned, and (b) preventing them from reporting their conduct to law enforcement authorities and/or taking legal action against them.

In this way, from April 2013 through March 2015, CROSSLAND, ROBINSON, and PARENTE fraudulently induced Victims to transfer more than $3.5 million to the Escrow Account.  The purported loans were never funded and millions of dollars in deposits were lost.  

*                *                *

CROSSLAND, 63, of Santa Monica, California, ROBINSON, 67, of Leander, Texas, and PARENTE, 51, of Buford, Georgia, are each charged with one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison and a maximum fine of $250,000 or twice the gross gain or loss from the offense.  The maximum potential sentence in this case is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes only, as any sentencings of the defendants will be determined by the judge.

Mr. Berman praised the outstanding investigative work of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service and Special Agents of the United States Attorney’s Office.  Mr. Berman also thanked the Westchester County District Attorney’s Office, the Knoxville, Tennessee, field office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Tennessee for their assistance.

The case is being prosecuted by the Office’s White Plains Division.  Assistant U.S. Attorney Margery B. Feinzig is in charge of the prosecution.

 



[1]  As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Indictment charging the defendants and the descriptions of the Indictment constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.

 





Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1JweK_no3mDNRR96t7yQ7HD0DaAXfKKuJHdFO2t3PSSo
  Last Updated: 2025-03-21 17:24:05 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 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