Watch the full video at https://rumble.com/v1dt3h3-convicted-of-wire-and-insurance-fraud.html and at https://youtu.be/wEkp7Aziwlo
convicted of multiple counts of fraud Ejaz Shreef was sentenced to 48 months in prison on each count, concurrently, followed by two years of supervised release.
IN Ejaz Shreef vs. USANo. 3:18-cr-157-RJC-DCK-2, 3:22-cv-78-RJC, United States District Court, WD North Carolina, Charlotte Division (July 8, 2022) resolved his motion to reduce his sentence.
A federal grand jury indicted Shreef, along with three co-conspirators, with conspiracy to commit bank and wire fraud (Count One); and conspiracy to commit money laundering (Count Two). As to the first accused charge that “[f]Rome in or around April 2009 to in or around April 2018, … [Shreef and the coconspirators] knowingly conspired to commit crimes against the United States, including violations of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1343 (wire fraud) and 1344 (bank fraud).”
Shreef proceeded to a jury trial and the jury convicted him on both counts. On direct appeal, Shreef argued that the insurance fraud scheme supporting the wire fraud count of conspiracy entered into before the statute of limitations ran and, even if the indictment was timely, insufficient evidence supported the jury’s verdict; evidence of past bad deeds was improperly admitted against him; and trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a “reliance on expert” jury instruction.
On April 9, 2021, the Fourth Circuit affirmed the trial court’s ruling and declined to address the ineffective assistance of counsel claim.
Shreef, unwilling to accept the Fourth Circuit’s decision, filed a motion to vacate. Shreef argued:
- prosecutorial misconduct for the government submitting 18 USC §§ 1343 and 1344 in support of Shreef’s conviction “without submitting such statutes to the grand jury.” and
- ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel for failing to adequately investigate the case; and
- allow the government to impose or maintain a conviction in violation of the Constitution.
Shreef claimed that the government is “overreaching[ed]” and the verdict form submitted to the jury reflected the allegations set forth in the indictment. Pursuant to the indictment, the jury found that “bank fraud” and “bank fraud” were the objects of the conspiracy.
Ineffective assistance of counsel
The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the accused the right to the assistance of an attorney in his defense. To show ineffective assistance of counsel, Shreef must establish deficient performance by counsel and, second, that the deficient performance prejudiced him.
Courts are required to recognize the strong presumption that counsel’s actions fall within the broad range of reasonable professional assistance. Moreover, in assessing the prejudice of the analysis, the court may grant relief only if the outcome of the proceeding was fundamentally unfair or unreliable.
Shreef bears the burden of showing that there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the proceeding would have been different if counsel had not raised an issue on appeal; i.ethat he would have won on appeal.
The court concluded that Shreef’s trial or appellate counsel did not perform deficiently for their failure to raise or attempt to support a frivolous argument. Furthermore, Shreef failed to allege or show any prejudice.
Accordingly, Shreef’s Motion to Vacate was denied and denied.
Perpetrators of insurance fraud do not expect to be caught. Experience shows that a very small percentage of fraud perpetrators are caught, even smaller groups are prosecuted and even smaller groups are convicted. Those who are convicted, like Mr. Shreef, believes that the only reason they were arrested and convicted must be someone else’s fault, arguing that the prosecutor has no right to misdemeanors and that the attorneys are not sufficient. Because their crimes, but for the conviction, were probably successful, they have the means to support appeals and motions to stay out of prison. Mr. Shreef’s second attempt failed miserably.
(c) 2022 Barry Zalma & ClaimSchool, Inc.
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to serving as an insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims management, insurance bad faith and insurance fraud almost equally for insurers and policyholders. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as an insurance coverage and claims attorney and more than 54 years in the insurance industry. He can be reached at http://www.zalma.com and firstname.lastname@example.org.
Subscribe and receive videos limited to Excellence in Claims Handling subscribers at locals.com https://zalmaoninsurance.locals.com/subscribe.
Subscribe to Excellence in Claims Handling at https://barryzalma.substack.com/welcome.
Write to Mr. Zalma at email@example.com; http://www.zalma.com; http://zalma.com/blog; daily articles are published on https://zalma.substack.com. Go to the Zalma On Insurance podcast at https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma; Follow Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma; Go to Barry Zalma videos on Rumble.com at https://rumble.com/c/c-262921; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to the Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library/