McTigue Plea Agreement

Case 1:14-cr-00010-CBM Document 192 Filed 07/22/15 Page 1 of 18
PageID #: 1746
ORlG\~~ l\ L
FLORENCE T. NAKAKUNI
United States Attorney
District of Hawaii
#2286
JOHN A. MICHELICH
Senior Litigation Counsel
Criminal Division, Fraud Section
United States Department of Justice
E-mail: john.michelichusdoj .gov
MARC A. WALLENSTEIN
Assistant United States Attorney
Room 6-100, PJKK Federal Bldg.
300 Ala Moana Boulevard
Honolulu, HI 96850
Telephone: (808) 541-2850
Facsimile: (808) 541-2958
E-mail: marc.wallensteinusdoj .gov
FILED IN THE:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF HAWAII
f JUL 2 2 2015
aj_{_~'clockand ; -rmi ._
SUE
BEITI~ERK
M.
Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
CR. NO. 14-00010 CBM
Plaintiff,
MEMORANDUM OF PLEA AGREEMENT
v.
JENNIFER ANN MCTIGUE
( 01)
DATE:
July 21, 2015
TIME:
11:30 a.m .
JUDGE: Consuela B. Marshal
Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OF PLEA AGREEMENT
Pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal
Procedure, the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, by its attorney, the
United States Attorney for the District of Hawaii, and the
Defendant, JENNIFER ANN MCTIGUE, and her standby counsel, Lynn
Panagakos, have agreed upon the following :
1.
PageID #: 1747
Defendant acknowledges that she has been charged
in the Indictment with violating Title 18, United States Code,

Section 371, 1956(h), 1343, 1341 and 1957.
as her own attorney in these proceedings.
Defendant is acting
Stand-by counsel has
been appointed but does not represent Defendant.
Accordingly,
any references to Defendant's "attorney" in this Agreement refer

to Defendant herself, not to her standby counsel.
2.
Defendant has read the charges against her
contained in the Indictment, and those charges have been fully

explained to her by her standby counsel.
3.
Defendant fully understands the nature and
elements of the crimes with which she has been charged.

4.
Defendant will enter a voluntary plea of guilty to
Counts 1 and 2 of the Indictment, which charge her with knowingly

conspiring and agreeing with others to commit federal offenses,
to wit: wire fraud, mail fraud and money laundering.
Defendant
will also enter a voluntary plea of guilty to Counts 4,
28j
and
35, which charge her with wire fraud, mail fraud, and money
laundering, respectively.
In exchange, the United States
Attorney's Office in the District of Hawaii agrees to dismiss the

remaining charges in the Indictment against the Defendant at the
time of sentencing.
5.
Defendant agrees that this Memorandum of Plea
Agreement shall be filed and become part of the record in this
PageID #: 1748
case.
6.
Defendant enters these pleas because she is in
fact guilty of conspiring to commit wire and mail fraud and

conspiring to launder proceeds from wire and mail fraud offenses
in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371 and
1956(h), and committing wire f .raud, mail fraud, and money
laundering in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections
1343, 1341, and 1957, and agrees that this plea is voluntary and
not the result of force or threats.
7.
Defendant understands that the maximum penalties
for the offenses to which she is pleading guilty include:

a.
Count 1: a period of imprisonment of not more than
five (5) years; a fine of up to $250,000; a term of supervised

release of not more than three years; restitution in an amount
that will be determined by the Court at sentencing; and a $100
special assessment.
b.
Count 2:
a period of imprisonment of not more than
ten (10) years; a fine of up to $250,000; a term of supervised

that will be determined by the Court at sentencing; and a $100
special assessment.
c.
twenty (20) years; a fine of up to $250,000; a term of supervised

PageID #: 1749
that will be determined by the Court at sentencingi and a $100

special assessment
d.
twenty (20) yearsi a fine of up to $250,000i a term of supervised

release of not more than three yearsi restitution in an amount
special assessment
e.
ten (10) yearsi a fine of up to $250,000i a term of supervised

release of not more than three yearsi restitution in an amount
special assessment
c.
Defendant agrees to pay $500 to the District
Court's Clerk's Office, to be credited to said special

assessment, before the commencement of any portion of sentencing .
Defendant acknowledges that failure to make such full advance
payment in a form and manner acceptable to the prosecution will
allow, though not require, the prosecution to withdraw from this
agreement at its option.
8.
Defendant admits the following facts and agrees
that they are not a detailed recitation, but merely an outline of

what happened in relation to the charge to which Defendant is
pleading guilty:
a.
PageID #: 1750
During the period of the charged scheme, McTigue
worked in conjunction with Marc Melton and Sakara Blackwell to

release real estate mortgages encumbering property in Hawaii for
the purpose of marketing and selling the properties as mortgagefree.
In early April, 2011, McTigue secured a "Satisfaction of
Mortgage" form used by mortgage companies to release mortgages at

the Hawaii Bureau of Conveyances.
McTigue's purpose in securing
an authentic, working mortgage release form was to assure the

success of the process McTigue, Melton and Blackwell were
applying to release the mortgages by insuring that the release
forms appeared genuine and. would be accepted by the Hawaii Bureau
of Conveyances.
McTigue, working with Melton and Blackwell,
released mortgages encumbering a total of seven properties in

Hawaii, including three properties that McTigue herself purchased
at foreclosure auction.
b.
Upon gaining title to a property, or identifying a
property with cooperating owners, Mctigue and/or Melton delivered

documents by U.S. mail to the financial institutions holding
mortgage liens against the properties.
The mailed materials set
forth terms in a document identified by McTigue and / or Melton at

various times as a "Note Tender Agreement"
(NTA) , EFT Tender
Agreement, or "Mortgage Satisfaction Agreement"
(MSA).
The EFT
Tender Agreement, NTA and/or MSA represented that a valid

"negotiable instrument" or promissory note had been sent to the
PageID #: 1751
lender in the approximate amount of the outstanding mortgage

liens.
The documents contained language stating that in the
event the mortgage company failed to acknowledge and respond to

the conditions in the "agreement" within a short period of time,
usually three (3) days, Melton and/or McTigue, or others, would
become authorized to act as representatives of the financial
institutions holding the mortgages, and the bank would acquiesce
to them performing acts on behalf of the lender, including the
right to "execute and record a satisfaction of Lien for
mortgages."
No lending institution receiving these materials
ever expressly agreed to permit Melton or McTigue to act as its

agent for purposes of releasing a mortgage or mortgages.
c.
Once no response was received from the lending
institution, McTigue and/or Melton created and filed with the

Hawaii Bureau of Conveyances a "Satisfaction of Mortgage" form
purporting to be from the lending institutions holding the
mortgages.
These Satisfactions of Mortgage were signed by Melton
representing himself to be a bank official, such as VicePresident, or the bank's authorized representative.
filed the false satisfaction of mortgage documents
of Conveyances.
McTigue
~t
the Bureau
Melton's signature representing himself to be a
lending institution official or representative was
notarized ~
Once accepted by and filed with the Hawaii Bureau of Conveyances,

the "Satisfaction of Mortgage" reflected that the outstanding
PageID #: 1752
mortgage(s) encumbering the property had been satisfied .
Because
the Bureau of Conveyances is the official public record for

recordation of all interests affecting real estate in Hawaii, the
public record then officially reflected the properties to be
mortgage-free.
d.
Following the filing of the false satisfaction of
mortgage forms with the Bureau of Conveyances, Blackwell then

marketed and sold the properties.
McTigue, Melton, and Blackwell
ultimately conveyed title to good faith purchasers with a

warranty deed that represented the properties were free and clear
of encumbrances.
Because the mortgage liens were shown as
"satisfied" on the public record with the Bureau of Conveyances,

escrow officers closing the sale transactions did not pay the
outstanding mortgage balances.
McTigue, Melton, and Blackwell
materially omitted from disclosure to buyers of real estate that

they had applied this process to release existing mortgages on
properties.
As a result, McTigue and Melton were paid half the
net proceeds from the sale of the properties, which were then
divided amongst them through a series of wire transfers.
e.
Material misrepresentations were made with respect
to each of the seven properties, in that Melton was represented

to be a lending institution official or authorized
representative, when in fact that was not true, and McTigue well
knew that no court of law had legitimized the process used by
PageID #: 1753
McTigue, Melton and Blackwell to release the unsatisfied mortgage

liens.
Similarly, McTigue, Melton and Blackwell also made
material misrepresentations to buyers of properties by conveying

warranty deeds representing the properties to be free and clear
of encumbrances without disclosing the process utilized by them
to release existing mortgage liens.
f.
Funds wired interstate to fund the transactions
were sent to title companies located in the State of Hawaii for

the purpose of closing real estate transactions.
g.
McTigue, Melton, and Blackwell, in agreement with
each other and in furtherance of their scheme, deposited funds

derived from their activities charged in Counts 3-29 into bank
accounts under their control, in amounts greater than $10,000 per
monetary transaction. The Bank of Hawaii, Pacific Rim Bank, First
Hawaiian Bank and Bank of America are financial institutions
doing business in interstate and foreign commerce.
h.
In furtherance of the scheme outlined above,
McTigue, Melton and Blackwell caused multiple interstate wire

communications to occur.
The wire communications more fully
described in Counts 3 through 23 of the Indictment are herein

acknowledged and admitted by Defendant.
i.
In furtherance of the scheme outlined above,
multiple mailings occurred.
The mailings more fully described in
PageID #: 1754
Counts 24 through 29 of the Indictment are herein acknowledged

and admitted by Defendant.
9.
Pursuant to CrimLR32.1(a) of the Local Rules of
the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii, the
parties agree that the charges to which Defendant is pleading
guilty adequately reflect the seriousness of the actual offense
behavior and that accepting this Agreement will not undermine the
statutory purposes of sentencing.
10.
Pursuant to CrimLR32.1(b) of the Local Rules of
the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii and
Section 681.4 of the Sentencing Guidelines, the parties stipulate
to the following for the purpose of the sentencing of Defendant
in connection with this matter:
a. Defendant's agreement herein to enter into a guilty
plea is entered less than one week before trial is set to begin,
and therefore is not notice of intent to plead guilty in a timely
manner, because it has not permitted the government to avoid
preparing for trial as to Defendant.
Accordingly, the United
States Attorney will not move in the Government's Sentencing

Statement for a one-level reduction in the sentencing offense
level pursuant to Guideline 3El.l(b).
b.
Restitution:
The Defendant understands that the
Court may Order the Defendant to be jointly and severally liable
for restitution in this case.
~~
~he ~efeft~~nt a~rees ~Rat ~So ~

~
9
~itntj on
CillllQJJDt
J;otecl lss s amG<tnt

11.
sha~ l
be $ 3,145, 2 5 9...-G-&, vvh:i:h
at~--'-a
PageID #: 1755
Qt._
k:::::::e~
- - --- .
r~ r'
The parties agree that notwithstanding the
~&f
parties' Agreement herein, the Court is not bound by any

stipulation entered into by the parties but may, with the aid of
the presentence report, determine the facts relevant to
sentencing.
12.
Pursuant to Section 6Bl.4 of the Sentencing
Guidelines, the parties identify the following facts that are in

dispute for the purpose of sentencing of Defendant in connection
with this matter:
a.
The Defendant understands that the government
will contend that the loss amount, pursuant to USSG Section

2B1.1 related to Defendant is $3,145,259.
reserves the right to
b.
obje~t
The Defendant
to this amount.
The following adjustments under USSG 2B1.B
may be in dispute at sentencing:

involved 10 or more victims;
sophisticated means;
(i) whether the offense
(ii) whether the offense involved
(iii) whether the defendant derived more
than $1,000,000 in gross receipts from one or more financial

institutions;
(iv) whether Defendant should receive an upward
adjustment for aggravating role pursuant to USSG 3B1.1; and (v)

whether Defendant should receive an upward adjustment for
obstructing or impeding the administration of justice pursuant to
10
'
''
PageID #: 1756
USSG 3Cl. 1.
13.
Defendant is aware that she has the right to
appeal the sentence imposed under Title 18, United States Code,
Section 3742(a).
Defendant knowingly waives the right to appeal,
except as indicated in subparagraph "b" below, any sentence

within the maximum provided in the statute(s) of conviction or
the manner in which that sentence was determined on any of the
grounds set forth in Section 3742, or on any ground whatever, in
exchange for the concessions made by the prosecution in this plea
agreement.
a.
Defendant also waives her right to challenge
her sentence or the manner in which it was determined in any

collateral attack, including, but not limited to, a motion
brought under Title 28, United States Code, Section 2255, except
that Defendant may make such a challenge (1) as indicated in
subparagraph "b" below, or (2) based on a claim of ineffective
assistance of counsel.
b.
If the Court imposes a sentence greater than
specified in the guideline range determined by the Court to be

applicable to Defendant, Defendant retains the right to appeal
the portion of her sentence greater than specified in that
guideline range and the manner in which that portion was
determined under Section 3742 and to challenge that portion of
her sentence in a collateral attack.
11
c.
PageID #: 1757
The prosecution retains its right to appeal
the sentence and the manner in which it was determined on any of

the grounds stated in Title 18, United States Code, Section
3742 (b).
14.
The Defendant understands that the District Court
in imposing sentence will consider the provisions of the

Sentencing Guidelines.
The Defendant agrees that there is no
promise or guarantee of the applicability or nonapplicability of

any Guideline or any portion thereof, notwithstanding any
representations or predictions from any source.
15.
The Defendant understands that this Agreement will
not be accepted or rejected by the Court until there has been an

opportunity by the Court to consider a presentence report, unless
the Court decides that a presentence report is unnecessary.
The
Defendant understands that the Court will not accept an agreement

unless the Court determines that the remaining charges adequately
reflect the seriousness of the actual offense behavior
and accepting the agreement will not undermine the statutory
purposes of sentencing.
16.
Defendant understands that by pleading guilty she
surrenders certain rights, including the following:

a.
If Defendant persisted in a plea of not guilty
to the charges against her she would have the right to a public
and speedy trial.
The trial could be either a jury trial or a
12
trial by a judge sitting without a jury.

right to a jury trial.
PageID #: 1758
The Defendant has a
However, in order that the trial be
conducted by the judge sitting without a jury, the Defendant, the

prosecution and the judge all must agree that the trial be
conducted by the judge without a jury.
b.
If the trial is a jury trial, the jury would
be composed of twelve laypersons selected at . random.
Defendant
would have a say in who the jurors would be by removing

prospective jurors for cause where actual bias or other
disqualification is shown, or without cause by exercising
peremptory challenges.
The jury would have to agree unanimously
before it could return a verdict of either guilty or not guilty.

The jury would be instructed that the Defendant is presumed
innocent, and that it could not convict her unless, after hearing
all the evidence, it was persuaded of her guilt beyond a
reasonable doubt.
c.
If the trial is held by a judge without a
jury, the judge would find the facts and determine, after hearing
all the evidence, whether or not he or she was persuaded of the
Defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
d.
At a trial, whether by a jury or a judge, the
prosecution would be required to present its witnesses and other

evidence against the Defendant.
Defendant would be able to
confront those prosecution witnesses and she would be able to
13
cross-examine them.
PageID #: 1759
In turn, Defendant could present witnesses
and other evidence on her own behalf.
If the witnesses for the
Defendant would not appear voluntarily, she could require their

attendance through the subpoena power of the Court.
e.
At a trial, the Defendant would have a
privilege against self-incrimination so that she could decline to

testify, and no inference of guilt could be drawn from her
refusal to testify.
17.
Defendant understands that by pleading guilty, she
is waiving all of the rights set forth in the preceding

paragraph.
Defendant understands those rights, and the
consequences of the waiver of those rights .

18.
Defendant acknowledges that no threats, promises,
or representations have been made, nor agreement reached, other

than those set forth in this Agreement, to induce Defendant to
plead guilty.
19.
Should the Court refuse to accept this Agreement,
it is null and void and neither party shall be bound thereto.

The parties understand that the Court's rejection of any
stipulation between the parties does not constitute a refusal to
accept this Agreement since the Court is expressly not bound by
stipulations between the parties.
20.
Defendant understands that the prosecution will
apprise the Court and the United States Probation Office of the
14
PageID #: 1760
nature, scope and extent of Defendant's conduct regarding the

charges against her, related matters, and any matters in
aggravation or mitigation relevant to the issues involved in
sentencing.
21.
In the event that Defendant does not breach any of
the terms of this Agreement but the Court nonetheless

refuses to accept the Agreement after Defendant has made
statements to law enforcement authorities or representatives of
the United States Attorney's Office pursuant to this Agreement,
the prosecution agrees not to use said statements in its case in
chief in the trial of the Defendant in this matter.
Defendant
understands that this does not bar the use of information and
evidence derived from said statements or prohibit the use of the
statements by the prosecution in cross-examination or rebuttal.
22.
The Defendant understands that the prosecution will
not move the Court Pursuant to Guideline 5Kl . 1 and Rule 35(b),
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, to depart from the
Guidelines, because there is no basis for Defendant to provide
substantial assistance to authorities in the investigation or
prosecution of another person who has committed an offense.
23.
Forfeiture:
The Defendant agrees to entry of an
order of forfeiture for any and all funds located in the

following accounts :
15
Financial Institution
Account or Policy Number
Mass Mutual
21016084
Northwestern Mutual
1638642
Northwestern Mutual
12953801
Northwestern Mutual
13777171
Northwestern Mutual
20249890
Pacific Rim Bank
1013003031
MTL Insurance
001139725A
MTL Insurance
001141329A
USAA Federal Savings Bank
00256-3939-0
USAA Federal Savings Bank
00256-3938-2
PageID #: 1761
/'tW
received ~ ,-;
McTigue further agrees that such
by Defendant as a result of her participation in the wire and

mail fraud conspiracy charged in Count 1 of the Indictment.
The
United States agrees to make a restoration request to the

Attorney General, or her delegate, so that property forfeited in
this case may be used to compensate victims.
The United States
Attorney's Office makes no representations as to when or whether

such a restoration request may be granted by the Attorney General
or her delegates.
McTigue understands that the decision to grant
or deny such a request is at the discretion of the Attorney

General.
The United States further agrees not to request forfeiture
16
of items in her safety deposit box.
17
PageID #: 1762
DATED:
PageID #: 1763
Honolulu, Hawaii,
AGREED:
FLORENCE T. NAKAKUNI
United States Attorney
District of Hawaii
!d
fyHN MICHELICH
Senior Litigation Counsel
Fraud Section
.r
-~ 11/~ 161k ~Mz;e,
JE
ER ANN MCTIGUE
De endant
MARC A. WALLENSTEIN
Assistant U.S. Attorney
18

McTigue Plea Agreement

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

McTigue Plea Agreement

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:14-cr-00010-CBM Document 192 Filed 07/22/15 Page 1 of 18

Attorneys for Plaintiff

CR. NO. 14-00010 CBM

JENNIFER ANN MCTIGUE

Case 1:14-cr-00010-CBM Document 192 Filed 07/22/15 Page 2 of 18

Defendant acknowledges that she has been charged

in the Indictment with violating Title 18, United States Code,

been appointed but does not represent Defendant.

any references to Defendant's "attorney" in this Agreement refer

Defendant has read the charges against her

contained in the Indictment, and those charges have been fully

Defendant fully understands the nature and

elements of the crimes with which she has been charged.

Defendant will enter a voluntary plea of guilty to

Counts 1 and 2 of the Indictment, which charge her with knowingly

will also enter a voluntary plea of guilty to Counts 4,

In exchange, the United States

Attorney's Office in the District of Hawaii agrees to dismiss the

Defendant agrees that this Memorandum of Plea

Agreement shall be filed and become part of the record in this

Case 1:14-cr-00010-CBM Document 192 Filed 07/22/15 Page 3 of 18

Defendant enters these pleas because she is in

fact guilty of conspiring to commit wire and mail fraud and

Defendant understands that the maximum penalties

for the offenses to which she is pleading guilty include:

Count 1: a period of imprisonment of not more than

five (5) years; a fine of up to $250,000; a term of supervised

a period of imprisonment of not more than

ten (10) years; a fine of up to $250,000; a term of supervised

Count 4: a period of imprisonment of not more than

twenty (20) years; a fine of up to $250,000; a term of supervised

Case 1:14-cr-00010-CBM Document 192 Filed 07/22/15 Page 4 of 18

that will be determined by the Court at sentencingi and a $100

Count 28: a period of imprisonment of not more than

twenty (20) yearsi a fine of up to $250,000i a term of supervised

Count 35: a period of imprisonment of not more than

ten (10) yearsi a fine of up to $250,000i a term of supervised

Defendant agrees to pay $500 to the District

Court's Clerk's Office, to be credited to said special

Defendant admits the following facts and agrees

that they are not a detailed recitation, but merely an outline of

Case 1:14-cr-00010-CBM Document 192 Filed 07/22/15 Page 5 of 18

During the period of the charged scheme, McTigue

worked in conjunction with Marc Melton and Sakara Blackwell to

In early April, 2011, McTigue secured a "Satisfaction of

Mortgage" form used by mortgage companies to release mortgages at

McTigue's purpose in securing

an authentic, working mortgage release form was to assure the

McTigue, working with Melton and Blackwell,

released mortgages encumbering a total of seven properties in

Upon gaining title to a property, or identifying a

property with cooperating owners, Mctigue and/or Melton delivered

The mailed materials set

forth terms in a document identified by McTigue and / or Melton at

(NTA) , EFT Tender

Agreement, or "Mortgage Satisfaction Agreement"

Tender Agreement, NTA and/or MSA represented that a valid

Case 1:14-cr-00010-CBM Document 192 Filed 07/22/15 Page 6 of 18

lender in the approximate amount of the outstanding mortgage

The documents contained language stating that in the

event the mortgage company failed to acknowledge and respond to

No lending institution receiving these materials

ever expressly agreed to permit Melton or McTigue to act as its