Moffie found guilty of fraud

Sentencing is set for January.
YOUNGSTOWN -- A federal court jury has found local businessman Jeffrey J. Moffie guilty of bank fraud and acquitted his co-defendant.
The jury in U.S. District Court here returned the verdicts Tuesday.
Moffie, 54, of Streetsboro, faces 30 to 37 months in prison when sentenced Jan. 11 by U.S. District Judge Peter C. Economus. Moffie's co-defendant was Dale M. Delgado, 39, of Olmsted Falls.
On Nov. 17, 2004, a federal grand jury in Cleveland returned a four-count indictment against Moffie and Delgado that charged them with conspiracy to commit bank fraud. They were accused of devising a scheme to defraud Bank One in Cleveland by providing false financial information to induce the bank to grant loans to their clients.
After the indictment, Sam Moffie, 44, of Boardman, a one-time political activist who ran twice for Mahoning County commissioner and lost, showed no sympathy for his elder brother. He said at the time they are "like Cain and Abel."
About the scheme
The government, represented by James C. Lynch, an assistant U.S. attorney, said the fraud scheme began in January 1994 and continued until the time of the indictment.
Jeffrey Moffie was involved in real estate investments until he declared bankruptcy in 1989, the government said. After that, he was employed as a securities dealer.
In 1993, he and Delgado formed Cambridge Investment Group, a lending consulting business. A public accountant then joined them in a business called WWM Inc., a venture that was to assist clients in obtaining business loans.
The defendants used a "leveraged assistance program" to artificially provide property that the clients of WWM would use as collateral for loans, the government said.
Moffie and Delgado were accused of buying bonds or other securities on behalf of their clients but paying only 10 percent of the purchase price. They were accused of fraudulently making it appear on financial statements that the clients owned the bonds free and clear, the government said.
When loans went into default, the securities of the clients were unavailable as collateral -- as promised by the defendants -- and Bank One suffered substantial losses, the government said, but did not give the actual amount.