The accused Ronnie Jolly pleaded guilty to fraud with crop insurance, money laundering and conspiracy to defraud the United States and commit fraud by mail or bank transfer. The government demanded a refund of money paid by the harvest insurance program and Jolly tried to avoid or limit the decisions on repayment.
In U the states riveted against Ronnie Jolly CRIMINAL No. 5: 18-32-KKC, United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division, Lexington (November 1, 2021) The Court considered the restoration decision.
In his agreement, Jolly agreed to own and lease certain farmland. He agreed that from 2010 to early 2016, he made significant errors in the paperwork regarding the federal harvest insurance policies that covered his crops and that he also obtained federal harvest insurance policies in the name of others. He agreed that he did all this to get money from the federal government to which he was not entitled. He also agreed that from 2014 to 2016, he made materially incorrect information to private crop insurance companies in order to receive money to which he was not entitled. to a prison sentence of 36 months. Prior to the sentencing hearing, the government filed a $ 2,955,163 reimbursement claim.
The government has identified two victims of Jolly's fraudulent conduct. It requests that the Court rule on the repayment of $ 2,365,214 to be paid to the United States Department of Agriculture-Risk Management Agency ("USDA RMA") and $ 589,949 to be paid to Sompo International. Sompo was formerly known as ARMtech Insurance Services, Inc. The parties have referred to Sompo as ARMtech in their letters, and the Court will do the same in this opinion.
Jolly received on the current federal harvest insurances minus any premiums paid on insurances held in the names of actual farmers.
Jolly claimed that he would be required to pay a refund of only $ 238,937 to ARMtech and nothing to ARMtech. USDA RMA. Jolly made it clear at the restitution hearing that he does not question the government's calculations of the compensation payments he received or the premiums paid. Instead, he makes three legal arguments that all amounts over $ 238,937 to ARMtech should be exempted from his repayment obligation.
The victims, USDA Risk Management Agency and ARMtech Insurance Services, Inc., have suffered compensable losses. ARMtech Insurance Services filed a claim for reimbursement in the amount of $ 238,937 for lost income and $ 350,289 for necessary other expenses. Requests for reimbursement in full will be submitted to the court.
In its clear language, MVRA does not prohibit the court from ordering more reimbursement than is stated in the Presentation Report (PSR). Instead, if the PSR does not provide sufficient information to enable the court to make a recovery decision, the court may request additional information. The court allowed information on the issue of restitution and conducted a hearing on the government's request for restitution. Jolly argued that he should not be required to repay all compensation payments he received because some of those payments "may have been legitimate". However, in accordance with the provisions on crop insurance, the insurances were annulled on account of Jolly's substantial errors in the insurances.
Jolly has since admitted that he incorrectly presented essential facts related to all the insurances in question. The relevant harvest insurances are thus invalid, and Jolly is not entitled to anything from the insurance.
MVRA provides that a recovery order must require the defendant to reimburse the victim for lost income and certain necessary expenses including "expenses incurred while participating in the investigation or prosecution of the crime or participating in proceedings related to the crime." 18 U.S.C.A. § 3663A (b) (4).
There is no information from which this court could determine whether ARMtech incurred the alleged expenses as part of the Government's investigation or criminal proceedings or whether the expenses arose at the Government's invitation or request. Consequently, the court could not order Jolly to pay that amount in repayment.
MVRA expressly prohibits the court from taking into account the defendant's financial circumstances when determining the full amount of each victim's losses. In so far as Jolly asks the Court to take into account his financial circumstances in determining the full amount of the repayment, the Court must reject that request.
Since the court could not find that Jolly is financially unable to pay any amount for repayment. The court therefore ordered Jolly to pay the full amount of compensation immediately. When Jolly's supervised release begins, Jolly must pay any unpaid portion of his refund at an interest rate determined by his probation officer, taking into account Jolly's financial circumstances at the time.
Finally, the Government requests that certain defendants in other cases involving plant insurance fraud be held jointly and severally liable with Jolly for part of the repayment to which he is liable. The respondent Michael McNew was Jolly's insurance agent. The defendants Douglas Chad Snedegar and Timothy Douglas Snedegar were Jolly's insurance adjusters. The government claims that these defendants were Jolly's co-conspirators. It requests that the court decide that these defendants be jointly and severally liable with Jolly for the repayment he owes him and ordered that these defendants be made defendants in this action and will enable them to respond to the Government's request for joint and several liability. . The court ordered the alleged co-conspirators to appear and defend whether they are obliged to pay compensation to the government at the same time as Jolly.
Insurance criminals have no shame. After acknowledging the extensive nature of his fraud, Jolly was unable to attempt to limit, or eliminate, the ordered repayment. He managed to limit what was to be paid to the private insurer to only compensation payments and failed in his obligation to repay the harvest insurance program which he had admittedly cheated. The government should take all Jolly's assets up to the amount he stole and he should be obliged to spend all the time ordered at the gray bar hotel.
© 2021 – Barry Zalma
Barry Zalma, Esq., CFE, now limits his practice to the position of insurance consultant specializing in insurance coverage, insurance claims handling, insurance bad faith and insurance fraud almost equally for insurers and policyholders.
He also acts as an arbitrator. insurance-related disputes. He practiced law in California for more than 44 years as a lawyer for insurance coverage and claims management and more than 54 years in the insurance industry.
Subscribe to Excellence in Claims Handling at https://barryzalma.substack.com/welcome.
He is available at http://www.zalma.com and email@example.com. Zalma is the first recipient of the first annual Claims Magazine / ACE Legend Award. For the past 53 years, Barry Zalma has devoted his life to insurance, insurance claims and the need to defeat insurance fraud. He has created the following library of books and other materials to enable insurers and their claims staff to become professionals in insurance claims.
Go to training available at https://claimschool.com; articles at https://zalma.substack.com, the podcast Zalma On Insurance at https://anchor.fm/barry-zalma; Follow Mr Zalma on Twitter at https://twitter.com/bzalma ; Go to Barry Zalma videos at https://www.rumble.com/zalma; Go to Barry Zalma on YouTube- https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCysiZklEtxZsSF9DfC0Expg; Go to Insurance Claims Library – https://zalma.com/blog/insurance-claims-library/ T the last two issues of ZIFL are available at https://zalma.com/zalmas-insurance-fraud- letter -2 / podcast now available at https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/zalma-on-insurance/id1509583809?uo=4