l 4-cr-00272-JSR UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. LEE STEWART, Defendant.
Case 1:14-cr-00272-JSR Document 40 Filed 03/23/15 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. LEE STEWART, Defendant.
INFORMATION
I: l 4-cr-00272-JSR
COUNT ONE (Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud and Bank Fraud)
The Department of Justice charges: 1. From at least in or about May 2006 through at least in or about early 2011, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, LEE STEWART, the defendant, together with Anthony Allen, Paul Thompson, Tetsuya Motomura, Anthony Conti, and others known and unknown, did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree to commit certain offenses against the United States, that is: (A) to devise and intend to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud, and to obtain money and property by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, and to transmit and cause to be transmitted certain wire communications in interstate and foreign commerce for the purpose of executing the scheme; to wit, the defendant and others engaged in a scheme to manipulate and attempt to manipulate to their advantage the benchmark interest rates referenced by derivative products throughout the financial industry, by the
1
Case 1:14-cr-00272-JSR Document 40 Filed 03/23/15 Page 2 of 4
dissemination, and submission, of false and fraudulent statements intended to influence and manipulate the benchmark interest rates to which the profitability of interest rate derivative trades was tied, and the conspirators contemplated, foresaw, and caused use of wires in interstate and foreign commerce in carrying out the scheme, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343; and (B) to execute and attempt to execute a scheme and artifice to defraud a financial institution, the deposits for which were at the time insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; and to obtain and attempt to obtain moneys, funds, credits, assets, and other properties owned by and under the custody and control of a financial institution by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, as well as by omission of material facts in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1344. 2. It was a part and an object of the conspiracy that LEE STEWART, the defendant, and others known and unknown, engaged in a scheme to manipulate and attempt to manipulate a benchmark interest rate known as the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR), to which was tied the profitability of interest rate derivative trades in which the defendant and others had a financial interest. The scheme had an effect on one or more financial institutions, within the meaning of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 20 and 3293(2). OVERT ACT 3. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to affect the illegal objects thereof, LEE STEW ART, the defendant, and others known and unknown, committed the following overt act, among others, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere:
2
Case 1:14-cr-00272-JSR Document 40 Filed 03/23/15 Page 3 of 4
a. on or about September 2, 2005, LEE STEWART and Anthony Conti conspired to fix and manipulate the day's LIB OR rate by causing their employer, Coiiperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B.A. (Rabobank), a financial institution and global financial services company headquartered in Utrecht, the Netherlands, to make a LIBOR submission that was calculated to benefit LEE STEW ART's trading position. Rabobank and Bank-B, a federally-insured financial institution headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, had previously entered into an interest rate swap transaction that had a reset date of September 2, 2005. On or about September 2, 2005, a third party publishing corporation published Rabobank's manipulated LIBOR submission by sending a wire communication from the United Kingdom to recipients in New York, New York. (Title 18, United States Code, Section 1349) FORFEITURE ALLEGATION 4. As a result of committing the offense alleged in Count One of this Information, LEE STEW ART, the defendant, shall forfeit to the United States pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 982, any property constituting or derived from proceeds obtained directly or indirectly as a result of the wire fraud and bank fraud offense alleged in Count One of this Information, including but not limited to a sum of United States currency to be determined by the Court at sentencing, in that such sum in aggregate is property representing the amount of proceeds obtained as a result of the offenses. Substitute Asset Provision 5. If any of the above-described forfeitable property, as a result of any act or omission of the defendant:
3
(a) cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence; (b) has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third person; ( c) has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court; ( d) has been substantially diminished in value; or ( e) has been commingled with other property which cannot be subdivided without difficulty; it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 18 United States Code, Section 982(b), to seek forfeiture of any other property of said defendant up to the value of the above forfeitable property. (Title 18, United States Code, Section 982 and Title 18, United States Code, Section 1349).
ANDREW WEISSMANN Chief, Fraud Section Criminal Division United States Department of Justice
BRIAN YOUNG Trial Attorney CAROL L. SIPPERL Y Senior Litigation Counsel Criminal Division United States Department of Justice
JEFFREY D. MARTINO Chief, New York Office Antitrust Division United States Department of Justice
Case 1:14-cr-00272-JSR Document 40 Filed 03/23/15 Page 4 of 4
4
MICHAEL T. KOENIG Trial Attorney Antitrust division United States Department of Justice
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. LEE STEWART, Defendant.
INFORMATION
I: l 4-cr-00272-JSR
COUNT ONE (Conspiracy to Commit Wire Fraud and Bank Fraud)
The Department of Justice charges: 1. From at least in or about May 2006 through at least in or about early 2011, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere, LEE STEWART, the defendant, together with Anthony Allen, Paul Thompson, Tetsuya Motomura, Anthony Conti, and others known and unknown, did knowingly combine, conspire, confederate, and agree to commit certain offenses against the United States, that is: (A) to devise and intend to devise a scheme and artifice to defraud, and to obtain money and property by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, and to transmit and cause to be transmitted certain wire communications in interstate and foreign commerce for the purpose of executing the scheme; to wit, the defendant and others engaged in a scheme to manipulate and attempt to manipulate to their advantage the benchmark interest rates referenced by derivative products throughout the financial industry, by the
1
Case 1:14-cr-00272-JSR Document 40 Filed 03/23/15 Page 2 of 4
dissemination, and submission, of false and fraudulent statements intended to influence and manipulate the benchmark interest rates to which the profitability of interest rate derivative trades was tied, and the conspirators contemplated, foresaw, and caused use of wires in interstate and foreign commerce in carrying out the scheme, in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1343; and (B) to execute and attempt to execute a scheme and artifice to defraud a financial institution, the deposits for which were at the time insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation; and to obtain and attempt to obtain moneys, funds, credits, assets, and other properties owned by and under the custody and control of a financial institution by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses, representations, and promises, as well as by omission of material facts in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 1344. 2. It was a part and an object of the conspiracy that LEE STEWART, the defendant, and others known and unknown, engaged in a scheme to manipulate and attempt to manipulate a benchmark interest rate known as the London Interbank Offered Rate (LIBOR), to which was tied the profitability of interest rate derivative trades in which the defendant and others had a financial interest. The scheme had an effect on one or more financial institutions, within the meaning of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 20 and 3293(2). OVERT ACT 3. In furtherance of the conspiracy and to affect the illegal objects thereof, LEE STEW ART, the defendant, and others known and unknown, committed the following overt act, among others, in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere:
2
Case 1:14-cr-00272-JSR Document 40 Filed 03/23/15 Page 3 of 4
a. on or about September 2, 2005, LEE STEWART and Anthony Conti conspired to fix and manipulate the day's LIB OR rate by causing their employer, Coiiperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank B.A. (Rabobank), a financial institution and global financial services company headquartered in Utrecht, the Netherlands, to make a LIBOR submission that was calculated to benefit LEE STEW ART's trading position. Rabobank and Bank-B, a federally-insured financial institution headquartered in Charlotte, North Carolina, had previously entered into an interest rate swap transaction that had a reset date of September 2, 2005. On or about September 2, 2005, a third party publishing corporation published Rabobank's manipulated LIBOR submission by sending a wire communication from the United Kingdom to recipients in New York, New York. (Title 18, United States Code, Section 1349) FORFEITURE ALLEGATION 4. As a result of committing the offense alleged in Count One of this Information, LEE STEW ART, the defendant, shall forfeit to the United States pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 982, any property constituting or derived from proceeds obtained directly or indirectly as a result of the wire fraud and bank fraud offense alleged in Count One of this Information, including but not limited to a sum of United States currency to be determined by the Court at sentencing, in that such sum in aggregate is property representing the amount of proceeds obtained as a result of the offenses. Substitute Asset Provision 5. If any of the above-described forfeitable property, as a result of any act or omission of the defendant:
3
(a) cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence; (b) has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third person; ( c) has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court; ( d) has been substantially diminished in value; or ( e) has been commingled with other property which cannot be subdivided without difficulty; it is the intent of the United States, pursuant to Title 18 United States Code, Section 982(b), to seek forfeiture of any other property of said defendant up to the value of the above forfeitable property. (Title 18, United States Code, Section 982 and Title 18, United States Code, Section 1349).
ANDREW WEISSMANN Chief, Fraud Section Criminal Division United States Department of Justice
BRIAN YOUNG Trial Attorney CAROL L. SIPPERL Y Senior Litigation Counsel Criminal Division United States Department of Justice
JEFFREY D. MARTINO Chief, New York Office Antitrust Division United States Department of Justice
Case 1:14-cr-00272-JSR Document 40 Filed 03/23/15 Page 4 of 4
4
MICHAEL T. KOENIG Trial Attorney Antitrust division United States Department of Justice
#BillGwilliam - who is Bill?
Coming soon from an Airport Hanger near you - the Bankruptcy trustee sounds just like the accountant at a company in Charleston who is located in Pleasanton.
The Pamela Vitale Murder CIVMSC01-00428 - CORRIE VS BINGHAM-MCCANN
Case CIVMSC01-00428 - CORRIE VS BINGHAM-MCCANN
|
||||||||||||||
| Party Number | Party Type | Party Name | Attorney | Party Status | ||||||||||
| 1 | PLAINTIFF | SIDNEY CORRIE JR | PUTTERMAN, DONALD J | PARTY DISMISSED 07/16/2003 | ||||||||||
| , SIDEMAN & BA NCROFT,LLP | ||||||||||||||
| 6 | INTERVENOR | ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF CALIFORNIA | JOHNS, BELINDA J. | PARTY DISMISSED 07/16/2003 | ||||||||||
| 2 | DEFENDANT | BINGHAM-MCCANN | HOROWITZ, DANIEL | PARTY DISMISSED 07/16/2003 | ||||||||||
| MILLER, STARR & REGALIA | ||||||||||||||
| 3 | DEFENDANT | WILLIAM D MCCANN | MCCANN, WILLIAM D | PARTY DISMISSED 07/16/2003 | ||||||||||
| 4 | DEFENDANT | J GORDON BINGHAM | MILLER, STARR & REGALIA | PARTY DISMISSED 07/16/2003 | ||||||||||
| 5 | DEFENDANT | 500 LA GONDA ASSOCIATES LLC | BRUNNER, STEPHEN P. | PARTY DISMISSED 09/10/2002 | ||||||||||
| 7 | DEFENDANT | WILLIAM Y TAUSCHER | BRUNNER, STEPHEN P. | DISMISSED 11/25/2002 | ||||||||||
| YERKES, LYNNE M | ||||||||||||||
| 8 | DEFENDANT | TRI COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE SERVICES INC | ROECA, RUSSELL S | PARTY DISMISSED 07/16/2003 | ||||||||||
| 9 | DEFENDANT | JAY T LEWIS | ROECA, RUSSELL S | PARTY DISMISSED 07/16/2003 | ||||||||||
| 15 | DEFENDANT | J.O.E., INC | BRUNNER, STEPHEN P. | DISMISSED 11/25/2002 | ||||||||||
| 16 | DEFENDANT | JAY T LEWIS | Unrepresented | PARTY REMOVED 09/17/2001 | ||||||||||
| 17 | DEFENDANT | THE MT DIABLO CENTER FOR THE ARTS FOUNDATIO | CHAZAN, SHOSHANA Y. | PARTY DISMISSED 07/16/2003 | ||||||||||
| 18 | DEFENDANT | RANDEL N EVANS | CHAZAN, SHOSHANA Y. | PARTY DISMISSED 05/22/2002 | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
| Party Number | Party Type | Party Name | Attorney | Party Status | ||||||||||
| 6 | PLAINTIFF | ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF CALIFORNIA | JOHNS, BELINDA J. | PARTY DISMISSED 07/15/2003 | ||||||||||
| 5 | DEFENDANT | 500 LA GONDA ASSOCIATES LLC | BRUNNER, STEPHEN P. | PARTY DISMISSED 07/15/2003 | ||||||||||
| 10 | DEFENDANT | BELASCO THEATRE CO | ROGERS, RANDY | PARTY DISMISSED 07/15/2003 | ||||||||||
| 11 | DEFENDANT | WILLIAM D MCCANN | MILLER, STARR & REGALIA | PARTY DISMISSED 07/15/2003 | ||||||||||
| 12 | DEFENDANT | J GORDON BINGHAM | MILLER, STARR & REGALIA | PARTY DISMISSED 07/15/2003 | ||||||||||
| 13 | DEFENDANT | FIRST REPUBLIC BANK | Unrepresented | PARTY DISMISSED 11/26/2001 | ||||||||||
| 14 | DEFENDANT | BANK OF THE ORIENT | Unrepresented | PARTY DISMISSED 11/26/2001 | ||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
| Party Number | Party Type | Party Name | Attorney | Party Status | ||||||||||
| 2 | CROSS COMPLAINANT | BINGHAM-MCCANN | HOROWITZ, DANIEL | First Paper Fee Paid | ||||||||||
| 3 | CROSS COMPLAINANT | WILLIAM D MCCANN | MCCANN, WILLIAM D | First Paper Fee Paid | ||||||||||
| 4 | CROSS COMPLAINANT | J GORDON BINGHAM | MILLER, STARR & REGALIA | First Paper Fee Paid | ||||||||||
| 5 | CROSS COMPLAINANT | 500 LA GONDA ASSOCIATES LLC | BRUNNER, STEPHEN P. | First Paper Fee Paid | ||||||||||
| 1 | CROSS DEFENDANT | SIDNEY CORRIE JR | PUTTERMAN, DONALD J | Demurr 09/10/2002 | ||||||||||
| 6 | CROSS DEFENDANT | ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF CALIFORNIA | JOHNS, BELINDA J. | Answer 09/10/2002 | ||||||||||
| 10 | CROSS DEFENDANT | BELASCO THEATRE CO | ROGERS, RANDY | Answer 05/14/2002 | ||||||||||
| 17 | CROSS DEFENDANT | THE MT DIABLO CENTER FOR THE ARTS FOUNDATIO | CHAZAN, SHOSHANA Y. | Answer 05/16/2002 | ||||||||||
#FraudOfTheCourt #DeadWitnesses and #DeadPoliticians #JudgeGolub
#TheGolubConspiracy - Ruler of Bench felled by friends in the Pen
It took over ten years to discover via Judge Golub's endorsement list to uncover additional connections to the CNET Scandal in Danville CA. Today we have to worst possible scenario of #FraudOfTheCourt where we many #DeadPoliticians and far too many children murdered near these cases.The reign of terror elicited via Commander Wielsch and misleading Deputies, a man who felled himself all by himself. Many have fallen including officers down on Last Watch as when he aligned his world++ with Chris Butler, he ultimately felled himself.
I personally know the #TheGolubConspiracy first hand as Green Valley Elementary parent, Pack 36 member and as traffic commissioner issuers of false fines.
He's Judged us from the early nineties but today he's facing a #FraudOfTheCourt, he's hub of a spoke to hundreds of deputies, attorneys and public officials. Theruled from the bench but in my case he's the Judge that knows Tanabe, District Attorneys who failed to recognize the #DirtyDUI problem but he is the Judge that took several Divorce Cases into his courtroom, he's the Judge admonished by the Judicial Council Review in the Bruce Mills matter but my connection is ominous, speaks volumes of mayhem leading to murders of children.
The failures when Judge Golub missed an opportunity to stop an arson operation with connections to Gas Line Explosions to the power energy sector where former Enron CEO Jeffery Skilling is now serving time and perhaps he needs #insiderterrorists where they can use the jail pencils to catalog the #DeadWitnesses where I can attest witnesses in my story have been murdered in #ColdCaseCounty like Jineva Driscoll.
This is also Jaycee Dugard Country with a former sheriff once ruled with six batteries earning the nickname of D-Cell.
Action
#William Michael McCann [#66753] Disbarred, represented by Horowitz
Attorney Search
William Michael McCann - #66753
Current Status: Active
This member is active and may practice law in California.See below for more details.
Profile Information
The following information is from the official records of The State Bar of California.| Bar Number: | 66753 | ||
| Address: | 1530 Meridian Ave Ste 120 San Jose, CA 95125 Map it | Phone Number: | (408) 269-8787 |
| Fax Number: | Not Available | ||
| e-mail: | Not Available | ||
| County: | Santa Clara | Undergraduate School: | Univ of California at Los Angeles; CA |
| District: | District 6 | ||
| Sections: | None | Law School: | Santa Clara Univ SOL; Santa Clara CA |
Status History
| Effective Date | Status Change | |
| Present | Active | |
| 9/17/2008 | Active | |
| 7/19/2008 | Not Eligible To Practice Law | |
| 3/11/2002 | Active | |
| 9/1/2001 | Not Eligible To Practice Law | |
| 12/18/1975 | Admitted to The State Bar of California | |
Actions Affecting Eligibility to Practice Law
Copies of official attorney discipline records are available upon request.
Explanation of common actions
State Bar Court Cases
NOTE: The State Bar Court began posting public discipline documents online in 2005. The format and pagination of documents posted on this site may vary from the originals in the case file as a result of their translation from the original format into Word and PDF. Copies of additional related documents in a case are available upon request. Only Opinions designated for publication in the State Bar Court Reporter may be cited or relied on as precedent in State Bar Court proceedings. For further information about a case that is displayed here, please refer to the State Bar Court's online docket, which can be found at: http://apps.statebarcourt.ca.gov/dockets/dockets.aspx
DISCLAIMER: Any posted Notice of Disciplinary Charges, Conviction Transmittal or other initiating document, contains only allegations of professional misconduct. The attorney is presumed to be innocent of any misconduct warranting discipline until the charges have been proven.
| Effective Date | Case Number | Description |
| 7/19/2008 | 05-O-00119 | Opinion [PDF] [WORD] |
California Bar Journal Discipline Summaries
Summaries from the California Bar Journal are based on discipline orders but are not the official records. Not all discipline actions have associated CBJ summaries. Copies of official attorney discipline records are .July 19, 2008
WILLIAM MICHAEL McCANN [#66753], 59, of San Jose was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on one year of probation with a 60-day actual suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect July 19, 2008.
The State Bar Court review department agreed with a hearing judge's findings that McCann forged documents, failed to keep clients informed about developments in their cases and made misrepresentations to a bar investigator, but it increased the level of discipline.
He was hired to represent a minor who had been in a traffic accident.
July 19, 2008
WILLIAM MICHAEL McCANN [#66753], 59, of San Jose was suspended for one year, stayed, placed on one year of probation with an actual 60-day suspension and was ordered to take the MPRE within one year. The order took effect July 19, 2008.
The State Bar appealed a hearing judge’s recommended discipline, which did not include an actual suspension, and asked for a three-month actual suspension. The review department took into consideration McCann’s 30 years of discipline-free practice and settled on a 60-day actual suspension.
The hearing judge found that he committed forgery, failed to keep clients reasonably informed of significant developments and made misrepresentations to a State Bar investigator.
In a personal injury case, he represented a minor whose medical expenses were paid by Blue Cross of California through an ERISA-qualified plan. Blue Cross hired The Rawlings Co. to obtain reimbursement for those benefits.
McCann did not respond to Rawlings’ notice of a lien and he believed that Blue Cross did not have a valid lien against any recovery. The lien amounted to $831.85.
When the case settled for $4,500, McCann endorsed the settlement check on behalf of Rawlings Co. for Blue Cross, knowing his clients were anxious to receive their money. He later received another lien notice but did not respond. When a Rawlings representative called McCann about the settlement check, he responded that he had “implied authority” to sign it. Although he attempted to pay part of the amount owed and then the full amount, his checks were returned.
He told a State Bar investigator that he had verbal authorization to endorse the check and said he thought the matter was resolved when he offered to fully reimburse Rawlings.
The review panel agreed with a hearing judge’s findings that McCann committed forgery, failed to keep his clients reasonably informed and made misrepresentations to a bar investigator, committing an act of moral turpitude. However, it disagreed with the judge’s belief that McCann acted in good faith because he believed the lien was invalid. That belief, the panel said, did not justify forgery.
“McCann consciously took the risk and forged Rawlings’ name in order to get the money to his impoverished clients quickly,” wrote Judge Madge Watai. His “good intentions,” she added, did not trump his dishonesty.
McCann has no prior record of discipline in 30 years of practice.
Start New Search »
