‘STATE OF MICHIGAN DISTRICT: 36 JUDICIAL DISTRICT COMPLAINT lciRcurr: 3RD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT FELONY ICTN: 96-16900648-01 MSP #: District Gourt ORE MIBZ0365 Gircut Cour ORT MIB2 1008) ‘AG ORI: MI820025A ‘THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN v Vita oF complamnant STATE OF MICHIGAN/DETROIT METROPOLITAN CREDIT UNION. ‘Complaining Witness BRIAN RODERICK BANKS 21456 NEWCASTLE ROAD HARPER WOODS, MI 48225 IS/A PETER ACKERLY Co-defendanis) [Date: On oF about (06/29/2010 - 12/31/2010 CyiTup Milage inty in Michigan] Defendant SID Defendant DOB DETROIT, fayne. 1115/1976; CCharge(s) [Maximum Penalty See Below |See Below TIA sample for chemical testing for DNA identification profiing fs on fle with the Michigan State Police froma previous Case, STATE OF MICHIGAN, COUNTY OF WAYNE The complaining witness says that on the date above and atfor in the City of Detroit, the defendant, contrary to law, COUNT 4: UTTERING AND PUBLISHING. did utter and publish as true, a certain false, forged, altered or counterfeit writing, with intent to injure or defraud, nc it to be false, altered, forged or counterfeit, said writing more fully described as follows: an accountable receipt for money, to wit: a pay statement for Brian R. Banks from IHI Attorneys & Consultants LLC for the period from 5/30/2010 to 6/12/2010 in the gross amount of $3,696.00; contrary to MCL 750.249. [750.249] FELONY: 14 Years COUNT 2: UTTERING AND PUBLISHING did utter and publish as true, a certain false, forged, altered or counterfeit writing, with intent to injure or defraud, knowing it to be false, altered, forged or counterfeit, said writing more fully described as follows: an accountable receipt for money, to wit: a pay statement for Brian R. Banks from IHI Attorneys & Consultants LLC for the period from 6/13/2010 to 6/25/2010 in the gross amount of $3,696.00; contrary to MCL 750.249. [750.249] FELONY: 14 Years COUNT 3: FALSE PRETENSES - $1,000.00 OR MORE BUT LESS THAN $20,000.00 did, with the intent to defraud or cheat, make or use a false pretense to obtain from a person money, or the use of an instrument, facility, article, or other valuable thing or service, having a value of $1,000.00 or more but less. than $20,000.00; contrary to MCL 750.218(4)(a). [750.2184A] FELONY: 5 Years and/or $10,000.00, or 3 times the value of the money or property involved, whichever is greater. To impose a fine of 3 times the value, the defendant must admit the amount, or it must be determined by the trier of fact at trial. See Southern Union Co. v United States 132 S. Ct. 2344 (2012) COUNT 4: FALSE STATEMENTS - FINANCIAL CONDITION did, procure a loan, credit, or an extension of credit on the basis of a previously executed statement to Detroit Metropolitan Credit Union (now Diversified Members Credit Union) regarding his own financial condition with knowledge that the previous statement is in a material particular way false in regard to his present financial condition; contrary to MCL 750.219. [750.219]MISDEMEANOR: 1 Year or $1,000.00 HABITUAL OFFENDER - FOURTH OFFENSE NOTICE Take notice that the defendant was previously convicted of three or more felonies or attempts to commit felonies in that: (1) On or about 10/23/2000, he was convicted of the offense of Financial Transaction Device-Ilegal use/sale in violation of MCL 750.157q and he was convicted of the offense of Uttering & Publishing in violation of MCL 750.249; in the 6th Circuit Court for Oakland County, State of Michigan; (2) And on or about 11/1/1999, he was convicted of the offense of Check, NSF - 3 within 10 days in MCL 750.131a(2); in the 6th Circuit Court for Oakland County, State of Michigan; lation of (3) And on or about 12/17/2003, he was convicted of the offense of Check, NSF - $600 or more in violation of MCL 750.131a(1); in the 3rd Circuit Court for Wayne County, State of Michigan; (4) And on or about 6/1/2005, he was convicted of the offense of 2 counts: Check - no account in violation of MCL 750.131a(1); in the 56th Circuit Court for Eaton County, State of Michigan; Therefore, defendant is subject to the penalties provided by MCL 769.12. [769.12] PENALTY: Life if primary offense has penalty of 5 Years or more; 15 Years or less if primary offense has penalty under 5 Years. The maximum penalty cannot be less than the maximum term for a first conviction. Upon conviction of a felony or an attempted felony court shall order law enforcement to collect DNA identification profiling samples. ‘The complaining witness asks that defendant be apprehended and dealt with according to law. Reessasae muse al Ji / f hs Cadilac Piace Building / V {3030 W. Grand Blvd, Suite 10-200 J l/ (Detroit, mi 48202 Teena aTATR 7 Barn t security for cats posted / eee Dari comeYAO BUAT A mae TEState of Michigan 36th Judicial District 3rd Judicial Circuit AFFIDAVIT Case No: IN SUPPORT OF COMPLAINT | D'strc! Circuit: ‘THE COMPLAINING WITNESS, ON INFORMATION AND BELIEF, SAYS: 1. I, Affiant PETER ACKERLY, am a Special Agent Investigator with the Michigan Department of Attorney General. I have 28 years of experience in law enforcement, with 20 years direct experience in criminal investigations. I am assigned to the FBI Detroit Area Public Corruption Task Force. My job duties include the investigation of criminal activity as assigned by the Department and Task Force 2. In the regular course of my duties I learned of an investigation into credit union fraud and the related publishing of false documents to a credit union for the purpose of obtaining a loan or other credit facility by suspect Brian Roderick Banks (hereafter, “Banks”). 3. The investigation revealed that Banks sought a personal loan from the Detroit Metropolitan Credit Union (hereafter, “DMCU”) by submitting an Application for Credit or Loan and various documents in support of it, including multiple employment pay statements that the investigation revealed are fraudulent. DMCU is located at 1480 East Jefferson Avenue, Detroit, Michigan. DMCU is now Diversified Members Credit Union. 4, Banks submitted to DMCU an Application for Credit or Loan with a requested loan amount of $7,500.00. In the Application he states his employer's name is IHI Attorneys + Consultants, located at 38652 Evonshire Ct., Suite 110, Farmington Hills, Michigan. Banks states in this Application that he has been employed full time with this entity for 9 months as a Research Attorney in the Research Department. Banks states his annual salary is $92,400.00, and his monthly income salary is $7,392.00. He states his address is 21553 Newcastle Rd., Harper Woods, Michigan. 5. Banks on June 29, 2010 submitted the Application for Credit or Loan to DMCU bearing his signature and this handwritten date. Above Banks’ signature it states: “Everything I have stated in this application is true to the best of my knowledge and is an accurate statement of my obligations and the income upon which I will rely to repay the credit or loan requested. I fully understand that it is a federal crime punishable by fine or imprisonment or both, to knowingly make any false statements concerning any of the above facts as applicable under the provisions of Title 18, United States Code Sec. 1014.” 6. Banks on June 29, 2010 submitted to DMCU for the loan an employment pay statement bearing the name of IHI Attorneys & consultants LLC, 3865 Evonshire Ct., Farmington Hills, Michigan in the total gross amount of $3,696.00 for the period from People of the State of Michigan v Brian Roderick Banks Page 1 of 4 Affidavit In Support of Complaint5/30/2010 to 6/12/2010. The pay statement is for Brian R. Banks of Harper Woods of 21553 Newcastle Rd., Harper Woods, Michigan. It states Banks is a salaried employee. 7. Banks on June 30, 2010 submitted to DMCU concerning the above loan a letter from THI Attorneys & Consultants RE: Brain Banks Employee No. B28232 certifying Banks submitted a direct deposit request form on June 29, 2010 to have 100% of his bi-weekly payroll directly deposited into checking account 273225000 with DMCU. Banks had opened a checking account assigned this number with DMCU. The letter is purportedly signed by a Holly Reimbernt, HR/Payroll Analyst. The investigation showed Banks was expected to make payments from this account for a DMCU loan. 8. Banks on July 1, 2010 submitted to DMCU for the loan an employment pay statement bearing the name of IHI Attorneys & consultants LLC, 3865 Evonshire Ct., Farmington Hills, Michigan in the total gross amount of $3,696.00 for the period from 6/13/2010 to 6/25/2010. The pay statement is for Brian R. Banks of Harper Woods of 21553 Newcastle Rd., Harper Woods, Michigan. It states Banks is a salaried employee. 9. Banks submitted documents to DMCU stating the purpose of the loan was for a bar review course. He also submitted to DCMU an invoice from “barbri” for a summer 2010 Michigan Bar Review for the price of $2,565.00. The investigation revealed that Banks paid the deposit of $250.00, received the barbri materials and full access to the live training and the on-line training. The investigation further revealed that Banks failed to pay the balance of the fee of $2,637.90. 10. In the course of this investigation Witness 1 (hereafter, “W-1") was interviewed. He/she knows Brain Roderick Banks. W-1 identified the two pay statements to Brain Banks from IHI Attorney & Consultants as documents that he/she created for Banks, at Banks’ request. These documents are described more fully in paragraphs 6 and 8. For this Banks paid W-1 between $25.00 and $100.00. W-1 stated the documents in paragraphs 6 and 8 are false. 11, W-1 stated that Banks was never an employee of any of his/her company(ies) at any time. 12. W-1 stated she established In His Image Consultants LLC, known as IHI Consultants. It never issued payroll checks or used a payroll service. It never had sufficient revenue to hire regular staff. 13. W-1 stated that Banks never received a paycheck or a direct deposit of any kind from her or from her companies. 14. W-1 stated he/she also created a letter and gave it to Banks. This letter was purportedly from IHI Attorneys & Consultants with a signature block by Holly Reimbert and is described more fully in paragraph 7. W-1 stated that he/she did not sign this letter that he/she gave to Banks. People of the State of Michigan v Brian Roderick Banks Page 2 of 4 Affidavit In Support of Complaint15. Pauline Foreman was interviewed. She stated she was employed by DMCU and was the loan officer assigned to the Banks loan application and review. She explained that Banks did not submit all his loan documentation at the same time. The additional documentation, including a second pay statement, may have been submitted by Banks at her request. In making her decisions on Banks’ loan she relied on the pay statements that Banks submitted and the letter from THI Attorneys & Consultants stating that Banks’ pay would be directly deposited into his DMCU account. Foreman called the telephone number on this letter to verify the information in it and spoke to a women that verified Banks’ employment and the direct deposit as provided in the letter. 16, Foreman stated that Banks also submitted other letters to DMCU about the lower minority pass rate for the Michigan Bar Examination as apparent support for the purpose of his requested $7,500.00 loan. Foreman considered denying this loan request based on this letter but forward it to DMCU CEO Kathie Trembach. Foreman stated CEO Trembach recommended Foreman should approve a $3,000.00 loan to Banks. 17. Kathie Trembach was interviewed. She stated she was the CEO of DMCU when Banks applied for the $7,500.00 loan. Part of her duties was participating in the loan approval process with loan officers. In doing so she relies on the authenticity of documents submitted such as pay statements and employer verification when making her decisions on loan applications. She would not have approved Banks for a loan if she knew the pay statements Banks submitted where false or fraudulent. Trembach stated repayment of every loan, regardless of the amount, is important. Any loss effects the credit union’s money, which is its members’ money. 18. On July 1, 2010 Banks signed and dated a DMCU promissory note for $3,000.00 secured only by present and future accounts that Banks had with DMCU. The loaned funds were deposited into Banks’ DMCU account. 19. The investigation showed that Banks made one payment on the DMCU loan then ceased making payments until after a lawsuit was brought by DMCU. 20. Foremen stated she spoke to Banks concerning his non-payment and failure to implement direct deposit of his THI pay into his DMCU account. Banks stated an excuse why his IHI pay was not directly deposited. Banks missed more installments payments. Foreman referred the Banks loan to the collection Department and its lawyers. 21, The investigation showed DMCU filed a lawsuit against Brain Roderick Banks for non-payment of the loan: Detroit Metropolitan Credit Union vs. Brian Roderick Banks, 36% District Court case number 12103410. A judgment was entered against Banks in favor of DMCU. People of the State of Michigan v Brian Roderick Banks Page 3 of 4 Affidavit In Support of Complaint22, Banks sought to negotiate a 50% decrease in the loan repayment amount. DMCU rejected this. The parties agreed to repayment of 90% of the loan amount plus interest. Banks made installment payments then a lump sum payment and eventually repaid this reduced amount, — a J, [ S/A. PETER ACKERLY (Affiant) el G. Frezza Phesash i Michigan Department of Attorney General Agsistant Attorney Genera ‘Subscribed and Sworn before me on: o~ Li cI G 3030 W. Grand Blvd. 7 Date Detroit, MI 48202 (313) 456-0180 J Judge,/Magistrate — 36" District Court ATRUE . my Dau cia People ofthe State of Michigan v Brian Roderick Banks Page 4of4 Affidavit In Support of ComplaintYIGO SATA Wen