Score:   1
Docket Number:   SD-NY  7:18-cr-00589
Case Name:   USA v. Parisi
  Press Releases:
Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, announced that GUY PARISI, a Westchester attorney, pled guilty today to a mail fraud charge arising from his attempt to embezzle funds from a decedent’s estate for which he served as a court-appointed administrator.  PARISI entered the plea in White Plains federal court before U.S. Magistrate Judge Lisa Margaret Smith.

U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said:  “As he admitted today, Guy Parisi, a Westchester attorney, flouted his fiduciary duty to the estate for which he was administrator.  He attempted to direct fees from the estate to a company he himself formed with a relative.  Now Parisi awaits sentencing for his crime.”

According to the allegations contained in the Indictment:

PARISI was appointed administrator of the estate of a former resident of Mt. Vernon, in or about April 2017.  His duties as administrator included collecting the assets of the estate.  As an administrator, PARISI had a fiduciary duty to the estate and to the decedent’s son, the sole beneficiary of his father’s will.  New York law provided for a fee for estate administrators like PARISI based on a percentage of the value of the estate’s assets.

A substantial part of the estate’s assets escheated to the State of New York as abandoned property between 2000 and 2008, when the estate was first presented to the Surrogate’s Court.  These assets were held in the custody of the New York State Comptroller.

In or about June 2017, PARISI, on behalf of the estate, retained Stokes Asset Recovery Services (“Stokes”) as the estate’s abandoned property location service in exchange for a fee of 15 percent of the value of the estate’s assets held by the Comptroller, which is the maximum fee allowed by New York law.  PARISI did not disclose, and actively concealed, that Stokes was owned by his relative, and that he and the relative had formed Stokes less than two weeks before he notified the Comptroller of his retention of Stokes, as he was required to do under New York law.  PARISI and the relative named Stokes after a Southampton, New York, street on which PARISI owned a waterfront vacation home.  At the time he retained Stokes, PARISI knew that the estate’s assets held by the Comptroller were worth several million dollars.

*                *                *

PARISI, 71, of Rye, New York, pled guilty to one count of mail fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison.  The maximum potential sentence is prescribed by Congress and is provided here for informational purposes only, as the sentence will be determined by the court.

PARISI is scheduled to be sentenced by U.S. District Judge Kenneth M. Karas on May 29, 2019.

Mr. Berman praised the outstanding investigative work of the Postal Inspection Service and the New York State Comptroller. 

This case is being handled by the Office’s White Plains Division.  Assistant United States Attorney James McMahon is in charge of the prosecution.

Geoffrey S. Berman, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, Philip R. Bartlett, Inspector-in-Charge of the New York Office of the U.S. Postal Inspection Service (“USPIS”), and Thomas P. DiNapoli, New York State Comptroller, announced that a federal grand jury in White Plains, New York returned an Indictment yesterday charging GUY PARISI, a Westchester attorney, with conspiracy, mail fraud and false statements.  These charges arise from PARISI’s attempt to embezzle funds from a decedent’s estate for which he served as a court-appointed administrator.  PARISI was arrested yesterday morning and was presented before the United States District Judge Paul E. Davison

U.S. Attorney Geoffrey S. Berman said:  “Guy Parisi, a Westchester attorney, allegedly embezzled funds from an estate which he was a court-appointed fiduciary. Parisi allegedly shirked his responsibilities to the estate in order to serve his own greed. Now he faces justice in a criminal court.”

Inspector-in-Charge Peter R. Rendina said:  “Mr. Parisi allegedly took advantage of the trust given to him by his client, when instead of doing the right thing, he created a company to greedily enrich himself of fees he would not lawfully be entitled to receive. Postal Inspectors and their law enforcement partners uphold the truth and those who do not must face justice.”

Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli said:  “Instead of protecting the interests of the estate, Mr. Parisi abused the trust placed in him by allegedly attempting to pocket millions of dollars meant for the beneficiaries by using a fictitious company.  Thanks to my ongoing partnerships with United States Attorney Geoffrey Berman and the United States Postal Inspection Service, he will now be held accountable for his actions.  My office will continue to work with law enforcement across the State to protect unclaimed funds in our custody.”

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

PARISI, an attorney in Westchester County, was appointed administrator of the estate of a former resident of Mt. Vernon, in or about April 2017.  His duties as administrator included collecting the assets of the estate.  As an administrator, PARISI had a fiduciary duty to the estate and to the decedent’s son, the sole beneficiary of his father’s will.  New York law provided for a fee for estate administrators like PARISI based on a percentage of the value of the estate’s assets.

A substantial part of the estate’s assets escheated to the State of New York as abandoned property between 2000 and 2008, when the estate was first presented to the Surrogate’s Court.  These assets were held in the custody of the New York State Comptroller.

In or about June 2017, PARISI, on behalf of the estate, retained Stokes Asset Recovery Services (“Stokes”) as the estate’s abandoned property location service in exchange for a fee of fifteen percent of the value of the estate’s assets held by the Comptroller, which is the maximum fee allowed by New York law.  PARISI did not disclose, and actively concealed, that Stokes was owned by his relative, and that he and the relative had formed Stokes less than two weeks before he notified the Comptroller of his retention of Stokes, as he was required to do under New York law.  PARISI and the relative named Stokes after a Southampton, New York, street on which PARISI owned a waterfront vacation home.  At the time he retained Stokes, PARISI knew that the estate’s assets held by the Comptroller were worth several million dollars.

PARISI was interviewed by a Postal Inspector in or about November 2017.  He falsely told the Postal Inspector that he had worked with Stokes in the past and that Stokes’s fee was five percent of the value of the assets held by the Comptroller.

*                *                *

PARISI, 71, of Rye, New York, is charged with one count of conspiracy, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison; one count of mail fraud, which carries a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison; and one count of making a false statement, which carries a maximum sentence of five years in prison.  The maximum potential sentences are prescribed by Congress and are provided here for informational purposes only, as the sentence will be determined by the court.

Mr. Berman praised the outstanding investigative work of the Postal Inspection Service and the New York State Comptroller. 

This case is being handled by the Office’s White Plains Division.  Assistant United States Attorney James McMahon is in charge of the prosecution.

The charges contained in the Indictment are merely accusations, and the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

 

 



[1] As the introductory phrase signifies, the entirety of the text of the Indictment and the description of the Indictment set forth herein constitute only allegations, and every fact described should be treated as an allegation.





Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1MTzWcAdEKQJoYMFEUIys1qCBvTiDg98eWnabGFFm4Ww
  Last Updated: 2024-04-09 14:17:24 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 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