Score:   1
Docket Number:   WD-NC  3:18-cr-00157
Case Name:   USA v. Latif et al
  Press Releases:
CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Today, U.S. District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr. sentenced three men for conspiring to defraud the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) through a fraudulent loan scheme, announced Andrew Murray, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of North Carolina.

Rafid Latif, 54, of Charlotte, N.C., was sentenced to 84 months in prison; Imtiaz Shareef, 40, of Bossier City, Louisiana, was sentenced to 57 months in prison; and Ejaz Shareef, 42, of Mt. Royal, New Jersey, was handed down a 48-month prison sentence.  In addition to the prison terms imposed, Judge Conrad ordered each defendant to serve two years under court supervision upon completion of their prison terms, and to pay $795,435.33 as restitution. Latif was ordered to pay additional restitution in the amount of $999,487.99.  

In December 2018, a federal jury convicted the three men of conspiracy to commit wire and bank fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering A fourth co-defendant, Biren Seth, 42, of West Caldwell, New Jersey, previously pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit wire and bank fraud for his role in the scheme, and was sentenced to 33 months in prison, followed by two years of supervised release.

According to filed court documents, evidence presented at trial, and today’s sentencing hearing, from 2010 to 2018, Latif, Ejaz Shareef, and Imtiaz Shareef, conspired with each other and Sheth to defraud the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), various banks, and an insurance company through the operation and sale of two Charlotte-area hotels, the Days Inn located at 1408 West Sugar Creek Road, and the Arlington Suites located at 4416 South Tryon street. 

Trial evidence established that the conspiracy involved three inter-related schemes: an insurance fraud scheme; a fraudulent loan-kickback scheme; and a short-sale scheme.  According to court records, in 2010, Latif, Ejaz Shareef and Imtiaz Shareef were the operators of the Days Inn hotel.  In that capacity, the three co-defendants engaged in a scheme to obtain fraudulent reimbursements from an insurance company for fictitious repairs and remodeling expenses at the Days Inn hotel.  By submitting fake documents and bogus proofs of payment, the co-defendants obtained more than $825,000 from the insurance company, and then used a portion of the money to facilitate bank loan fraud schemes involving the two hotels. 

According to trial evidence, in 2012, the defendants obtained an SBA loan from a bank in order to finance the purchase of the Days Inn hotel.  The co-conspirators obtained the loan by making several false material representations including presenting the bank with fraudulent documents such as an inflated lease-purchase agreement; by misrepresenting the source of the down payment, which was the fraudulently-obtained insurance money; and by failing to disclose to the bank that the co-conspirators would receive nearly $700,000 as a kickback from the hotel’s inflated sale price.

In addition to the fraudulent scheme involving the Days Inn hotel, Sheth and Latif engaged in separate fraudulent loan scheme involving the Arlington Suites hotel. Trial evidence established that, as a favor for Sheth’s assistance in facilitating the purchase of the Days Inn hotel, Latif agreed to help Sheth with the fraudulent short sale of the Arlington Suites hotel. Sheth owned the Arlington Suites hotel, which was in part financed with an SBA loan.  With Latif’s help, Sheth defrauded SBA by convincing SBA to agree to a short-sale when Sheth fell behind on his payments.  According to trial evidence, Sheth arranged to “sell” the Arlington Suites hotel to a corporation in Latif’s name.  This sham sale was in name only. According to trial evidence, Sheth convinced SBA to charge off nearly $1 million of the balance Sheth owed on the existing loan.  Because Latif was only a straw purchaser and Sheth remained the true owner of the hotel, the $1 million represented an immediate increase in Sheth’s equity in the Arlington Suites hotel.

According to evidence presented at trial, Latif further defrauded SBA in connection with the Arlington Suites sale by obtaining another SBA loan to finance the purported purchase of the hotel.  Latif secured the SBA loan by using false and fraudulent documentation and making material representations about the down-payment money, among other things. 

In 2014, Sheth transferred to Latif $690,000 in kickback funds from the Days Inn sale, after Latif threatened to expose the Arlington Suites short-sale fraud.

In handing down today’s sentences, Judge Conrad said that the defendants used a “web of lies” to defraud “multiple institutions,” and noted the importance of deterring “this type of criminal activity.”  

U.S. Attorney Murray credited the Charlotte Division of the FBI for the investigation of this case, and thanked the SBA for its invaluable assistance.

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Caryn Finley and William Miller, of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Charlotte, prosecuted the case.

 

CHARLOTTE, N.C. – Late yesterday, a Charlotte federal jury convicted Rafid Latif, 54, of Charlotte, N.C., Ejaz Shareef, 42, of Mt. Royal, New Jersey, and Imtiaz Shareef, 39, of Bossier City, Louisiana, of conspiracy to commit wire and bank fraud and conspiracy to commit money laundering through a fraudulent loan scheme, announced Andrew Murray, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of North Carolina. A fourth co-defendant, Biren Sheth, 52, of West Caldwell, New Jersey, previously pleaded guilty on May 16, 2018, to conspiracy to commit wire and bank fraud, for his role in the scheme.

According to filed court documents and evidence presented at trial, from 2010 to 2018, Latif, Ejaz Shareef, and Imtiaz Shareef, conspired with each other and Sheth to defraud the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA), various banks, and an insurance company through the operation and sale of two Charlotte-area hotels, the Days Inn located at 1408 West Sugar Creek Road, and the Arlington Suites located at 4416 South Tryon street. 

Trial evidence established that the conspiracy involved three inter-related schemes: an insurance fraud scheme; a fraudulent loan-kickback scheme; and a short-sale scheme.  According to court records, in 2010, Latif, Ejaz Shareef and Imtiaz Shareef were the operators of the Days Inn hotel.  In that capacity, the three co-defendants engaged in a scheme to obtain fraudulent reimbursements from an insurance company for fictitious repairs and remodeling expenses at the Days Inn hotel.  By submitting fake documents and bogus proofs of payment, the co-defendants obtained more than $825,000 from the insurance company, and then used a portion of the money to facilitate bank loan fraud schemes involving the two hotels. 

According to trial evidence, in 2012, the defendants obtained an SBA loan from a bank in order to finance the purchase of the Days Inn hotel.  The co-conspirators obtained the loan by making several false material representations including presenting the bank with fraudulent documents such as an inflated lease-purchase agreement; by misrepresenting the source of the down payment, which was the fraudulently-obtained insurance money; and by failing to disclose to the bank that the co-conspirators would receive nearly $700,000 as a kickback from the hotel’s inflated sale price.

In addition to the fraudulent scheme involving the Days Inn hotel, Sheth and Latif engaged in separate fraudulent loan scheme involving the Arlington Suites hotel. Trial evidence established that, as a favor for Sheth’s assistance in facilitating the purchase of the Days Inn hotel, Latif agreed to help Sheth with the fraudulent short sale of the Arlington Suites hotel. Sheth owned the Arlington Suites hotel, which was in part financed with an SBA loan.  With Latif’s help, Sheth defrauded SBA by convincing SBA to agree to a short-sale when Sheth fell behind on his payments.  According to trial evidence, Sheth arranged to “sell” the Arlington Suites hotel to a corporation in Latif’s name.  This sham sale was in name only. According to trial evidence, Sheth convinced SBA to charge off nearly $1 million of the balance Sheth owed on the existing loan.  Because Latif was only a straw purchaser and Sheth remained the true owner of the hotel, the $1 million represented an immediate increase in Sheth’s equity in the Arlington Suites hotel.

According to evidence presented at trial, Latif further defrauded SBA in connection with the Arlington Suites sale by obtaining another SBA loan to finance the purported purchase of the hotel.  Latif secured the SBA loan by using false and fraudulent documentation and making material representations about the down-payment money, among other things. 

In 2014, Sheth transferred to Latif $690,000 in kickback funds from the Days Inn sale, after Latif threatened to expose the Arlington Suites short-sale fraud.

At sentencing, Latif, Ejaz Shareef, and Imtiaz Shareef face a statutory maximum sentence of 30 years in prison and a $1,000,000 fine.  A sentencing date for the defendants has not been set.

In making today’s announcement, U.S. Attorney Murray credited the Charlotte Division of the FBI for its investigation of this case and thanked the SBA for its invaluable assistance.

Assistant U.S. Attorneys Caryn Finley and William Miller, of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Charlotte, are in charge of the prosecution.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1_VqSmVQQTUhfk6hMXCo1cPC9h2UZ16MF2URLCoz4K58
  Last Updated: 2024-01-25 13:50:22 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: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
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 docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3

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
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
Magistrate Docket Number:   WD-NC  3:18-mj-00107
Case Name:   United States v. Sheth
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: Case type associated with a magistrate case if the current case was merged from a magistrate case
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 docket number originally given to a case assigned to a magistrate judge and subsequently merged into a criminal case
Format: A7

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a magistrate case
Format: A3

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
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